Unity & Struggle No 04

UNITY & STRUGGLE
no.4
October 1997
Workers of all countries, unite!
Unity & Struggle

Organ of the International Conference of
Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations
Unity & Struggle
Journal of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations.
Published in English, Spanish, Turkish and Portuguese
in the responsibility of the Coordinating Committee of the International Conference.
Any opinions expressed in this journal belong to the contributors.
This version was created in August 2009 by the “Movement for the Reorganisation of the KKE 1918-
55” with use of the texts found in the web page of TDKP (Revolutionary Communist Party of
Turkey).
UNITY & STRUGGLE OCTOBER 1997
CONTENTS
Our tasks
The resolution of the International Conference of M-L Parties and Organisations
BENIN
Observations and suggestions from the Communist Party of Benin
Communist Party of Benin
CHILE
Overcoming the past, we are marching towards the future
Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action)
COLOMBIA
The narcotraffic pretext
Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The situation of the country reinforces the necessity of the national anti-imperialist struggle
Communist Party of Labour of Dominican Republic
ECUADOR
Our central tasks
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
FRANCE
Reflections on the class analysis
Workers’ Communist Party of France
GERMANY
What is our standpoint towards the Peoples Republic of Korea
Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
ITALY
The century coming will be the century of the revolutionary communist proletariat
Organisation for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy
MEXICO
The party considering the workers question
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
NORWAY
The true face of bourgeois democracy and its agent, social democracy
Marxist-Leninist Organisation Revolusjon of Norway
SPAIN
The 6th congress of the Workers Commissions
Communist Organisation October of Spain
5
TURKEY
The statement of the Second General Conference of the TDKP
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)
VENEZUELA
In the face of capitalist chaos
Red Flag Party of Venezuela (Bandera Roja)
6
Our tasks
The resolution of the International Conference of M-L Parties

and Organisations
(Santa Domingo, 1996)
1. The present crisis arises from the general crisis of finance capital, and its destructive effects are
being felt in every field: economic, political, social, cultural, etc. as well as in every country of the
world, whatever its level of development.
2. It is a crisis of the appreciation of capital. In order to maintain the rate of profit, capital destroys
ever greater quantities of productive forces and everyday pushes to another level the exploitation of
the working class, of the working masses and of the people. This destruction of productive forces is
reflected clearly in the higher level of compulsory unemployment, in the relative and absolute
impoverishment of the working class and of the popular masses, in the pure and simple liquidation
of sections of the productive apparatus which do not have the capacity to guarantee a sufficient rate
of profit. At the level of the less developed countries this crisis translates itself into the phenomenon
of de-industrialisation which is brought with it various catastrophic consequences for the workers
and the people.
3. Neither the concentration and centralisation of capital, which has reached a level never before
known, nor the considerable possibilities opened up for the technical-scientific revolution, are
measures which can put an end to the crisis. On the contrary, these have done no more than sharpen
the contradictions of the system and have raised to higher level the competition among the
monopolies and the imperialist states. The construction of economic blocs in order to guarantee
greater markets for the monopolies has had the result of simply increasing this competition. The
destruction of the revisionist countries of Eastern Europe has accelerated the struggle for a new
imperialist redivision, of which the first bloody manifestation wads the Gulf War, and which
continues to show itself through all the conflicts taking place in the strategic areas of the world, in
Africa, in the Balkans, in the Middle East, etc. There is no way out of the present crisis except the
deepening of this competition and its degeneration into military confrontations which can become
transformed either into a generalised confrontation, or a revolutionary outcome.
4. The Leninist theses according to which we are living in the epoch of imperialism and the
proletarian revolution continues to fully validated. The crisis will not be resolved in any definite
manner and in favour of the working class and the people except through the victory of the social
revolution of the proletariat. That is why, today as yesterday, the alternative continues to be
revolution.
5. All the policies implemented by imperialism, whatever name they may go by, seek only to make
the working class and the people suffer the crisis. They are reactionary and conservative policies
which have nothing liberal about them except the name.
6. The international division of labour has today reached a planetary scale. The concepts of
“globalisation” or of “world economy” can be translated as the dictatorship of the most powerful
monopolies and of the imperialist states in order to obtain free access for their products in every
7
market; and on the other hand, to close down certain places of production among their allies
depending on differences in the rate of profit. The supranational institutions such as the IMF, the
World Bank, the Group of Seven, the European Commission of Brussels, etc. are the instruments for
this policy.
7. However, increasing monopolisation implies greater reaction, states being more repressive against
the working class and people, and a redoubled offensive against communism, and more generally
against progressive ideas. Openly racist and fascist ideologies are promoted in order to divide the
working class and masses.
8. The crisis of imperialism has also rekindled that of the revisionists and the reformists. The former
have been greatly dismayed by the fall of the revisionist countries, while the latter have been
deprived of their reference to the social democratic model of the “Welfare State”. They are trying to
pass on to the workers and to the trade union movement their own demoralisation and their own
absence of any perspective. They certainly have not lost their ability to damage the workers’ and
popular movement and to drag it into the dead ends of reformism. However, the general tendency
which can be observed is that of a popular and workers’ movement which is gaining in the
independence of its perspective, which is taking its struggle into its own hands, and which is
radicalising its forms and slogans of struggle and of organisation.
In Europe:
9. More concretely, in Europe the bourgeoisie has created for itself a vast market, not only to sell its
goods but also to organise competition at the level of the labour force. The supranational institutions
direct their laws especially against the weakest countries. The establishment of the European Union
has led to, in the case of German imperialism, its elevation to the rank of leading power in Europe.
The EU is an instrument of struggle within the competition between the European powers, the USA
and Japan. It is equally an instrument for imperialist oppression against the people. This last aspect
reveals itself through ever more frequent military interventions by the European states, particularly
against the peoples of Africa.
The opening of European frontiers has meant for the workers and the people the elimination of
innumerable jobs, in a sharpening competition between workers and unemployed, in a drastic
lowering of wages, an intensification of labour, and the reversal of social conquests. The dominant
class is using the conditions which it had itself created in order to encourage chauvinism and racism,
giving space to fascist organisations and their ideology, within the objective of dividing the workers
and the popular masses.
Monopoly capital is taking its part in this situation, putting its hands in every sector and every aspect
of society, for example in the privatisation of many sectors of the state, thus accentuating the
concentration and monopolisation of capital. For a long time the reaction of the workers and popular
movement has been weak and divided, due to the dominant influence of social democracy and
revisionism. However, in these last few years we have seen a significant development, witnessed by
the great strikes and demonstrations in France, Germany, Spain and other countries. These
movements also show the workers taking greater control of their own struggles. The gap has
widened between the working class on the one hand, and the social democrats, revisionists and
bureaucratic trade union leaderships on the other. In various countries, trade unionism which bases
itself on class struggle has gained in breath and strength.
The most advanced workers are interested of what happens outside their frontiers and are trying to
elevate their common struggle to the international plane. A slogan which sums up these aspirations is
“Altogether against capital”.
8
The referendums on European Union have shown that there is developing a strong popular sentiment
against the domination exercised by the great imperialist powers. The “European perspective” which
the bourgeoisie has wanted to present to the masses as an alternative has not been successful. The
masses identify with the slogan “No to the Europe of Maastricht, no to the Europe of the
monopolies” and with the aspiration towards international solidarity.
In Africa:
10. The African states are backward capitalist states. Africa suffers simultaneously from capitalist
development and from the insufficiencies of the same capitalism. The IMF, the World Bank, etc.
have imposed on these states their programme of structural adjustment whose application has
brought with it serious consequences in the economic, political and social planes.
On the political plane, these programmes are inspiring de-stabilisation as can be seen in the
“implosions” (internal convulsion) of certain states, such as Somalia, Liberia and Zaire.
The African people and proletariat are developing their political and social struggle against the
disastrous consequences of these programmes. Thus, we see that during the 1990s have been many
movements for political and social emancipation which in some countries taken the form of
insurrections, as in Benin, Togo, Mali, etc. In their attempt to take over and consume these political
and social movements for emancipation, the imperialist powers are exploiting those weaknesses
related to political and economic backwardness, weaknesses which are maintained through the
complicity of their local allies and through which the development of ethnicism and other types of
conflicts are encouraged, conflicts such as those around frontiers, and reactionary civil wars, etc.
In fact, in spite of the birth, development and positive action on the part of the Marxist-Leninist
parties on the continent, the level of class consciousness and of organisation among the people is still
weak. In many countries the proletariat remains insufficiently organised. Subjective conditions are
behind the demands of the objective conditions.
In the African continent and in the Arab world coveted for their wealth and their strategic position,
Zionism and traditionalism are being used by the imperialist powers and the reactionary bourgeoisie
to hold back the class consciousness of the people and to subjugate them in a more effective way. In
a state such as Tunisia the proletariat and the Tunisian people are struggling at the same time to
defeat the fascism of the government and against the fascism of the traditionalists (“the fascism of
land and sky”). The Zionist state of Israel, supported by the US and other imperialist powers,
constitutes through its intransigence and arrogance, a factor for oppression, de-stabilisation and war
in the entire region and in particular in the Arab world.
In Latin America:
11. Latin America, the backyard of North American imperialism, also reflects the symptoms of the
general crisis of imperialism.
As a result of imposition of neoliberalism, and of the economic adjustments demanded by the IMF
and the World Bank, of the uncontrollable growth of the external debt, of the plundering of its
natural resources, of the super exploitation of the working class and of the burden of unproductive
expenditure in the Latin American continent, we are able to see with undeniable clarity the effects of
capitalist crisis: recession and unemployment, inflation and de-industrialisation; the violation of
national sovereignty through imperialist legislation; the raising of the prices of basic necessities and
of services which affect the quality of the life of the masses, affecting as they do the poor in
9
particular; and corruption and social and political instability which characterise Latin American
societies.
In recent times, representative democracy has been the expression of capitalist rule, but these
regimes have institutionalised anti-popular and anti-national violence and are violating human rights
and public freedoms. The attack on political and trade union rights of the working masses is a
constant feature of every country.
In Latin America, the crisis of imperialism and the anti-communist offensive is having an effect on
social democracy, revisionism and opportunism. They are political forces now in crisis splitting and
weakened, moving towards a policy of alliances and social pacts driven by imperialism and
bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, they still have significance within the popular movement and they
continue to be a danger for the activity of revolutionaries.
The workers’ and popular movement of Latin American countries is reawakening.
The mobilisations and strikes of the working class, of professionals and public servants, the
important movements of peasants, the awakening of the Indian peoples and nationalities and their
inclusion in political life, the active involvement of the masses in opposition to the monetarist
adjustments and measures, the struggle against the corruption of bourgeois power, all these are part
of a movement of the masses which is gradually gaining strength and perspectives.
The armed revolutionary struggle, in spite of setbacks, is a reality, a road leading to the conquest of
popular power, through revolution and socialism.
The existence of Marxist-Leninist grouping in some countries of Latin America, the regrouping of
other revolutionary forces and their search for ways and positions through revolutionary action, the
traditions of struggle of the workers and of the people pose the progressive development of the anti-
imperialist forces, of its growing consciousness and its embedding in the process of the social
revolution of the proletariat.
Our tasks:
Faced with the present crisis of capitalism, its deepening and generalisation, communists and other
revolutionaries, workers and people must put forward concrete proposals which will allow us to take
advantage of the crisis in order to advance the organisation of the social revolution.
The magnitude of the crisis and its effects are felt principally by the working classes and the people;
the crisis is sharpening inter-imperialist contradictions. This situation is contributing to the ripening
of objective conditions for the revolution. In spite of the setbacks suffered by the workers and
popular movement and in spite of the anti-communist campaign, there is now beginning to evident a
tendency towards the development of the subjective conditions necessary for revolution.
Our central task is to organise the revolution in conditions of crisis. We, the working class and the
people, must channel our activities and daily struggles with the perspective of the conquest of power,
of revolution.
Revolution and socialism are the aims of the labour and activities of our parties; we have to
transform them into the objectives and aspirations of the masses.
In the process of fusing scientific socialism with the popular and workers’ movement of our
countries, we as communists propose the following:
10
- To raise the banners of liberty and democracy, for the organisation and rights of the workers.
- To struggle for the self-determination of the peoples; in dependent countries we are fighters for
national independence.
- To organise the struggle of the workers and people for its hopes and rights.
- To oppose head on and on every terrain imperialist oppression and exploitation, to oppose injustice
and tyranny, to oppose corruption.
Our tactic aims to put forward objectives and slogans for the united struggle of the workers and
peoples of the world and to develop forms of organisation and of struggle.
We insist on the decisive role of the working class, in open polemic with those who deny its
characteristics or devalue the potential of its organisation and of its struggles. It is necessary to
strengthen class struggle trade unionism. The struggle in every country strengthens the struggle of
the working class at the international level and vice versa. The practice of unity and of international
solidarity must be integrated into our actions.
The socialisation of production and the concentration of appropriation have reached level never
before seen. The exploitation of the labour force is a process which is taking place at the
international level. The tentacles of imperialism and its policies of greed are reaching out across the
entire planet. These phenomena testify to the validity of the international character of the working
class, they demand of us that we redouble our efforts through united struggle, to confront
imperialism in a co-ordinated manner and from every country in the world, to raise to new levels
solidarity between workers and peoples, in order to empower the practice of proletarian
internationalism.
In our work we aim in the first place towards the proletariat, to the workers of town and country. The
worker-peasant alliance, its forging and development through combat assures us in the present and
for the future of the social revolution in the dependent countries. This responsibility demands of us
that we take into account the problems and hopes of the peasant masses, their present situation and
their perspectives.
The working youth of the cities and the country and activity among the students demands the
attention of our parties so that they are incorporated in the confrontation between classes, so that we
can gain them for revolutionary action. In this task we must look for alternatives and open roads, to
ensure that youth plays an ever more significant role.
The popular sectors living in the suburban areas of the big cities also have at present a great
importance for social struggle; they have big and serious problems, they have experience of
economic and political struggle, they form part of the social forces of the revolution and they
deserve the attention of parties.
We must take into account a spontaneous struggle of the masses and link ourselves with their daily
movement. It is as much in the direct struggle of the workers and of the masses in its various
expressions, as in the use of the institutions in each country and in the world that we must work to
achieve the demands which we have put forward and to prepare ourselves for the revolutionary
struggle for power.
We must aim to participate in every popular and workers’ initiative, in the events and struggles
which take place within our countries and on the international stage, with the aim of taking forward
our policies and widening the radius of influence of our parties. In these activities we must co-
ordinate the activities of our parties.
11
We must open the way to the creation of a political reference point which will give new hope to the
people, which can be capable of unifying all those who oppose the policies of imperialism, which
will demonstrate the strength of all the discontented, which will draw lines of demarcation between
the forces of progress and reaction; we must work for the raising of anti-imperialist consciousness
among the workers and peoples, and for the formation of the Anti-imperialist Front.
The struggle for the safeguarding of public liberties and for human rights, against authoritarianism
and reaction and against dictatorships, must take into account the inclusion of other social and
political sectors, who must be included in the democratic and progressive Front. It is necessary to
promote regional and international meetings of workers on the basis of branches of production or
activity. These meetings must discuss policies and organisational forms with the aim of putting
forward agreed options to the Conference or through regions.
For our parties there is posed the responsibility of promoting on every terrain and by all means a
great ideological offensive based on the revolutionary demands coming from the popular masses.
The ideal of revolution and socialism must constitute the fundamental nucleus of this offensive. It is
the task of our parties to develop a permanent ideological and political confrontation against fascism
and reaction, and to confront the various opportunist and revisionist tendencies. In this struggle it is
extremely important to advance the development of theory, in order to enrich Marxism-Leninism, to
make sense of the experience of socialism and of the setbacks we have suffered, and to improve our
formulations and political proposals on the basis of the assimilation and defence of the principles of
Marxism-Leninism.
The denunciation and the struggle against class collaboration and agreements with imperialism and
bourgeoisie, the unmasking and fighting against the aristocracy of labour and the trade union
bureaucrats, against opportunism, revisionism and social democracy, must be part of our work.
The confrontation of the working class against the attacks of imperialism and capitalism allow the
proletariat to acquire experiences of higher levels of struggle. In this confrontation we see appearing
new advanced elements of the class, new trade union leaders in struggle against the betrayals of the
bureaucracy, new proletarian militancy rooted in the social sector and also fighters for the general
interests of the class in their area. The workers’ mobilisation also allows the proletariat the
possibility of having influence on those progressive intellectuals who are coming closer to Marxism.
These phenomena are creating conditions such that our parties can win the best elements among the
workers forged in those battles, in order to grow, reorganise themselves, renew themselves and put
themselves in the leadership of the movement.
For the struggle at this time against capital and against the policies and measures of imperialism and
the bourgeoisie, we propose:
- The denunciation and struggle against imperialism, against its wars and preparation for war, against
the domination of other peoples, in defence of national sovereignty and the self-determination of
peoples. The struggle against the external debt, its effects and the penalties which accompany it.
- To confront the policies and measures imposed by imperialism, in particular:
- To struggle for the defence of workers’ rights, for the right of organisation, stability, collective
agreements, strike, and for the retention of social conquests and benefits for the workers.
- To struggle against privatisation and the dismantling of the productive sector and of the social
welfare state. Against the handing over of strategic sectors and natural resources of the economy to
national or foreign private monopolies, and for the workers’ and users of these sectors to have
control over them. For the increase of spending on social security and decrease of the spending on
war.
- To raise wages and control the prices of basic necessities.
12
- The gaining of better conditions through the democratic and revolutionary political struggle by the
workers and peoples also demands struggle for political freedom, against fascism and rightist
tendencies in the state, against anti-worker and anti-popular governments, for the putting forward of
programmes to enable the proletariat and the masses to exercise an alternative government and
power. With a focus which differentiates us form the bourgeoisie, we demand respect for life and for
human rights in those countries taken over by military or paramilitary state terror.
- Opposition to the degradation and deterioration of the environment caused by capitalist
exploitation and in defence of humanity and of all forms of life on the planet.
- The fight against bourgeois nationalism, against which we propose the defence of independence
and the self-determination of peoples.
- To put forward the demands and promote the mobilisation of youth, since they have a decisive
importance in the revolutionary processes of our countries. To promote participation of women in
the revolution and democratic struggle taking into account women’s particular demands.
Workers of all countries, unite!
International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations
Santo Domingo, 1996
13
BENIN
Observations and suggestions from the Communist Party of

Benin
In relation to the proposition of the Coordinating Committee for the tasks of the International
Conference of Santo Domingo
I.
In the Santo Domingo Conference, our party had to read a document which sanctioned its
intervention in the conference and which summarised its point of view with regard to the document
of the Coordinating Committee on the situation of the workers’ movement, posing tactical tasks for
Marxist-Leninists. For technical reasons we have not been able to make the document known. That
is why we are publishing this intervention as our contribution to the debate.
II.
Since the Communist Proclamation of Quito (August 1994) which put on record a summary of the
general principles of the class struggle and the proletarian revolution, the task which immediately
arose from this was to ascertain that Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations had really understood
these principles, that they had effectively assimilated them, and that they were ready to put them in
practise with the acceptance of a form of control adequate to the real situation, a form of control
which had to be determined by and submitted to everyone in order to be agreed upon. Without this,
no list of tactical tasks makes sense, and it would be very dangerous for the movement if it defined
tactical tasks without any guarantee of their being carried out.
The document entitled “International Communist Movement: Objectives, principles, methods and
tasks (this means general tasks)” is a contribution from the Communist Party of Benin recalling
principles and method. We think that it is necessary to spread among the international proletariat
such an understanding in order to teach the parties what their international tasks are. The parties
which really want to base themselves on Marxist-Leninist positions will naturally face the necessity
of mutual control among the parties, control based on the practise of criticism and self-criticism.
Without this, sanctions will appear arbitrary and the International Conference will not be able to
position itself correctly in relation to the proletariat and other workers deceived in one way or
another. Anyway, with the methods and principles observed, it would be a mistake to think that
parties which are today integrated with other groups cannot become united in the future with the
International Conference. This does not mean having illusions about one or another party as it
appears today. But we must not underestimate the pressure of the proletarian masses and other
workers on the leaderships of the parties which represent them. What is important is that the real
communists continue being active in these parties in order to deepen from the inside the struggle for
principles and method. It is important to take into account the fact that the old parties, whether
revisionist or not, have more experience than the young Marxist-Leninist parties.
In the Proclamation of Quito there is written this celebrated phrase from the Communist Manifesto:
“The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be
attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes
tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but its chains. They have
a world to win.”
14
When we talk of a common tactic, we are talking of a common organisation. We must not forget that
we are dealing with an organisation of the proletariat on a world scale. The International Conference
of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations must not hide its projects or its proposals. Working on
a world scale, the International Conference insists on the triumph of the world proletarian revolution
with minimal grief. In effect the proposal of every International is the world proletarian revolution.
If any International achieves another historical objective, this does not change anything with regard
to its principles. With time, the fundamental principles have become more precise and more
practical. Since the second congress of the Third International, the fundamental principles of the
Communist International have been: the dictatorship of the proletariat and the power of the soviets,
synonymous with the world proletarian revolution.
In the 2nd issue of the review “Unity and Struggle”, the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of
Ecuador quotes these words of Lenin: “The revolution cannot be made without organisation”. We
have to confess here that we were mistaken before during the early days of our party when we talked
of making the revolution. Since then in saying that it is the masses who make the revolution and the
party which brings them consciousness, we have corrected to some degree our use of concepts.
Nevertheless from time to time we continue talking about making the revolution and we think that
we should see this as a distortion. What we must keep in mind is that the International Conference
must organise the world proletarian revolution, the world republic of soviets and the dictatorship of
the proletariat.
What is necessary in terms of general tasks? The answer to this will follow in the next section,
paraphrasing Lenin (Works, p.31 and onwards, Progress Publishers):
III.
The victory of socialism, first stage of communism, over capitalism demands from the proletariat,
the only truly revolutionary class, that it fulfils the following three tasks:
The first task: to defeat the exploiters and in the first place the big bourgeoisie of the developed
capitalist countries, the bourgeoisie of the underdeveloped countries and of imperialism, and the
principle economic and political representatives of the exploiters; to inflict on them total defeat; to
crash their resistance; to prevent any attempt, whatever it may be, to restore imperialist domination,
the yoke of capital and wage slavery.
The second task: to attract and to lead towards the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat, the
communist party, not only all the proletariat or the immense majority of it, but also the whole mass
of labourers and victims of capital; to instruct them, organise them and educate them in the
development of a brave and firm struggle undertaken in a spirit of sacrifice against the exploiters; to
eradicate the subordination of the majority of the population in every capitalist country towards the
bourgeoisie, and to inspire confidence in the leading role of the proletariat and of its revolutionary
vanguard thorough practical experience.
The third task: to neutralise or to render harmless the various vacillations between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat, between bourgeois or liberal democracy and soviet power, which can appear in
the class of small proprietors in agriculture, and in industry and commerce, which are still today very
numerous in almost every country.
And Lenin adds: “The first and the second of these tasks are independent tasks which each require
particular forms of action as much in relation to the exploiters as to the exploited. The third comes
out of the first two and does not need anything more than a combination, timely and flexible, of the
15
methods employed for the realisation of the first two tasks, in function of the concrete circumstances
of the various types of vacillation.”
Then Lenin later insists on the role of the vanguard party of the working class, its role as educator,
and in the role of the soviets as a place of education and of practical experience for the socialist
education for the working masses, above all the proletariat.
IV.
Two dangers face us which we must identify and warn against absolutely. The first is to avoid our
Conferences being no more than an opportunity for tourism or for sheltering any organisation which
merely wishes to give itself the title of communist in its country. In view of everything that has just
been said, quality is more important than quantity. That is why we always insist on the quality of the
membership; a quality verifiable through publications (e.g. party publications, above all its internal
publications) , as much as on terrain of the struggle. We must not forget that the bourgeoisie knows
how to denigrate effectively false communists and their organisations. If it wants to show that it is
different, it requires great authority and a great influence among the working masses. The
organisation will only be able to prove these qualities if it has the capacity among other things to
spread widely international literature in its country. If not, they will leave innumerable masses of
workers -who are not deaf to soviet ideas- to the mercy of the bourgeoisie and false communists.
Here we are talking about a danger from the right which will appear differently in different parties. It
relates, in one way or another, to the crushing of bourgeois and revisionist ideology.
The second danger consists on the part of false communists of not looking for adequate methods to
reach the masses under their control, giving themselves the means of proclaiming speedily and
openly before the world their communist nature, as much at the level of party organisation as among
its members; one must give oneself the possibility of speaking to the proletariat and other labourers
wherever one finds them; of using where it is necessary compromise without braking one’s
principles; of stating openly to the revisionists one’s opposition to their strategy and tactics, knowing
that those members of the proletariat within their organisations will receive our message. Here we
are dealing with a problem of custom; we are faced with leftist demonstrations while the real
problem is the fear of the legal struggle.
At the present moment the movement needs above all the open discussion of Marxist analyses of
present problems based on doctrine. It is necessary to take once again the initiative towards the
bourgeoisie and to beat it on the terrain of theory. There we have a partial objective of the
organisation as it is being built, an objective which whatever it costs must be reached because it is
only through this that the necessary authority can be won. Without defining the internationalist
dimension of the building of the world republic of soviets, it is not possible to define a strategy and
tactic which takes into account the present balance of forces, the global strategy of imperialism and
the particular strategies of the various imperialist powers; the forces of the proletariat and its allies,
the vacillating elements, etc.; it is not possible to know how to define the inevitable theoretical tasks
for the resumption of the initiative on the part of the proletariat and its vanguard; it is not possible to
renew the lessons of the Paris Commune or of its last manifestation, the soviets; it is not possible to
examine carefully the laws and methods of organisation of revolutionaries alongside recent scientific
and technical advances; moreover, it is not possible to examine new demands which are raised and
which will bring in new elements and new tactics for the next class struggles.
V.
To summarise, we would say that in order to meet truly proletarian methods of organisation we must
take firmly into account the actual living movement and be aware that we are dealing with an
16
empirical combat which brings into our position the two fundamentally opposed classes, the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and that this conflict is also played out according to geographical
frontiers. We must be aware of the proletariat’s objectives and of its general strategy, and through
everyday immediate struggles we must be able to determine with confidence the tactics which will
enable us to take forward the revolutionary struggle achieving partial objectives on the road to our
strategic objectives which are: the construction of the world republic of soviets and the dictatorship
of the proletariat.
Now what do we observe? The forgetting of this general method; confusing, in the literature,
objectives with methods. The third section of the present document containing Lenin’s teachings
shows to us how to look at this problem. To untangle this confusion is not a simple task. Our
experience shows us that it needs a great deal of perseverance and patience on the part of the leaders
and the cadres. The composition of the party with its large proportion of petty bourgeois elements
has some bearing on the problem, while in relation to us, the bourgeoisie correctly makes a
distinction between the two things.
In practise sovietism greatly preoccupies us. At the present moment there is a general obliviousness
in our party about the soviets. The form that the soviets take in every country is very important. We
have talked about three forms and we think that these are made and unmade everyday in the concrete
struggle and if they are not observed, sustained and channelled by revolutionaries then the situation
in general will be allowed to develop incorrect ways. The description of the real situation of the
soviets is only possible with the help of bourgeois writers and more generally of people who do not
have any pretensions to communism. A minimum of effort from a communist will enable him/her to
put things in order in such a way that the use of various materials will make us more convincing and
more credible. And in relation to this, the communists of the developed capitalist countries must play
an important role.
Whatever level, a form of soviet will materialise in a country through a revolutionary crisis and will
permit progress towards socialism. This must be the main preoccupation of all revolutionaries now.
In doing so they must use the latest discoveries of science in order to improve their organisation
without tagging along behind the bourgeoisie. We have just said that everyone has forgotten
sovietism. Look at the document of the synthesis of the Coordinating Committee; there is not a
single word there about this question. Only the assimilation of doctrine allows us to remember
essential things without preoccupying ourselves with secondary questions. It is in sovietism that we
can find the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the peasantry, or the dictatorship of the proletariat
according to the country and the level of its development. If one can find a common denominator in
the struggles of the proletariat of every country, and as a result a common aspect to tactics,
propaganda, agitation and instructions for the soviets is necessary to understand details. It is
necessary to distinguish between the situation of the colonies (some still remain in the world) from
that of the near colonies and dependent countries and that of the developed capitalist countries; in all
these countries the general stance should consist of calling for the building of soviets, while in the
old socialist countries it should consist of the effort to reconstruct the soviets. Naturally, everything
depends on the level reached by propaganda before arriving at the formulation of directives for the
people. A deep and detailed analysis of the situation and the publicising of its results is sufficient.
Without this, exhortations to join the struggle against the national bourgeoisie, raised today in many
texts in which we find in the document of the Committee, seem to us to lack perspectives and rigour.
To engage in the present context in a significant struggle against opportunism, reformism and
revisionism is impossible without propaganda arising from struggles for sovietism. In the analysis of
scientific progress and particularly in the analysis of the consequences of the scientific and technical
revolution we can see that the communist parties of the developed countries insist much more on the
mess, the anarchy of production rather than on the demands to be made on behalf of the proletariat in
those countries and, above all, on behalf of the oppressed people. This attitude is essentially populist
17
especially when it makes no demand for progress in the control of the means of communication and
of organisation on the part of the working class.
Another reflection on present problems makes us point out the singular fact that the struggle for
access to scientific and technological information on the one hand, and on the other hand the
struggle for rebirth of sovietism constitute the real points of demarcation between the proletarian and
non-proletarian parties. The immediate struggle for these two objectives is the only one which can
assure the future of the proletarian movement. The understanding of this struggle and its
development leads the proletariat to search for everything needed for further struggles; to speak
openly and directly to those groups around the treacherous or reactionary parties, and for the well
being of the proletariat and the people salvaging from them their anti-imperialist aspects.
To speak clearly, we need to be convinced that the parties integrated in the International Conference
desire only to be truly communist, anti-revisionist and anti-reformist. Outside of this nothing
distinguishes us fundamentally from the other groupings. We need a correct revolutionary
programme based on sovietism and the practical principles of proletarian organisation perhaps we
have to wait the necessary time in order to arrive at such an organisation. In any case, the authority
of that organisation and its influence on the working masses and the youth depends on that. The task
is not going to be easy; we will have to overcome the force of routine which has been generated
during these last decades, a great force of inertia, prejudice, and lack of confidence which has
introduced inadmissible wrong ideas in proletarian meetings. The bourgeois intelligentsia who do no
more than practice empirical criticism seem more capable than ourselves. Now we must give them a
positive and educative example if we want to help them to be influenced by our better method. Now
we are considering the negative experience of the proletariat during this period.
Basing our activities on the assimilation of the Marxist-Leninist principles and methods as much as
on the practical resolution of the outstanding great problems (sovietism and proletarian organisation
with the utilisation of the latest discoveries of science -we cannot instruct or educate without that-),
we must found an international organisation which will silence the reactionaries and the opportunists
of every shades and which will inspire the workers, labourers and the people, which will mobilise,
organise and galvanise them for the triumph of the world proletarian revolution.
Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Long live the unity of the proletariat of all countries!
Long live friendship between peoples!
Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Benin

Cotonou, 20 November 1996
18
CHILE
Overcoming the past, we are marching towards the future

23 years on from the fascist military coup of 1973, it seems to us that is more than necessary to
continue to unravel, from a correct marxist-leninist point of view, the elements which made it
possible. Not to do this would not only deny us the future advance and victory, but also would mean
that the blood shed by the heroes of the people before, during and after the coup d’etat of 1973
would have been wasted.
The dark beast came out of the barracks and extended its activity and its domination over the whole
of society. The “democratic” bourgeois institutional framework that existed at that time could no
longer regulate and safeguard national and social domination and exploitation of the people and the
workers. The later were advancing on many fronts, after the aspirations for the conquest of political
power. The petty-bourgeois and reformist illusions about the peaceful evolution from the state of the
exploiters and imperialism to an independent workers state, spread by the revisionists and
opportunists from the very heart of “Popular Unity”, died quickly despite the ideological and organic
confusion that reined, thus announcing the masses breaking with the political institutional
framework and taking the road to revolutionary struggle.
Local reaction and their Yankee bosses had received many blows through nationalisations, agrarian
reforms, state take-overs (although with heavy compensation, in many over valued) and other
measures taken by the progressive government headed by Salvador Allende, in agreement with the
pressure of the masses which had elected it. The masses, with their mobilisation and the gains they
had won, were growing in terms of their objectives and their determination to fight.
Organising a coup d’etat, in order to re-establish the state, was a vital necessity for Yankee
imperialism and internal reaction, and there was no indecision on their part in this respect, and nor
did they overlook any area or task. Marx and his scientific warning that the reactionary classes will
never give up power of their own free will, were brought out fully. In the first place, the price paid
for denying this truth was, and still is, very high. This is not only in terms of actual victims who
were assassinated, tortures, sent into exile, thrown into jail etc., which threw the world into
consternation, both through the scale and the cruelty of what was carried out. It is also true in terms
of development and social gains. In fact we can say, without exaggeration, that we are starting from
scratch in some respects, of course, as is logical, on a new basis created by the experience in the time
and the events that have taken place. Nothing goes back exactly to its starting point - this is the mark
of the defeat by reaction!
The overt and covert actions of the anti-popular, anti-national reactionary forces were given a clear
and unified direction under the wing of Yankee imperialism, which knew how to use for their own
benefit the confusion, the eclecticism, the factionalism, the vacillations and all the rest that followed
from a “popular” political leadership which, independently of the honesty and courage of some of its
members - which they certainly had - was steeped in petty bourgeois reformism and peaceful
legalism, which was given spiritual nourishment by the revisionists at the head of the Khrushchevite
ex-USSR.
While the reactionaries from “Fatherland and Freedom”, the “National Party”, the rightwing of
“Christian Democracy” and other fascist paramilitary groups were marching in the streets calling on
their political and armed forces to carry out a coup d’etat, the government side was insisting on the
non-interventionist character of the armed forces, regarding them as the “people in uniform”, calling
on the masses to chant “Soldier, our friend, the people are with you”. When the fascists were
blowing up bridges and assassinated people, paralysing hospitals and transport with the employers
19
associations, developing monopolisation and the black market in food stuffs, medicines, spare parts
etc., when Channel 13 TV and the entire Mercurio press chain were inciting people and calling on
them to take part in civil disobedience, the leadership of Popular Unity (UP) insisted on slogans like
“the process is irreversible”, “stay calm, these are only the tantrums of those who have been
defeated,” and making appeals to “increase production”, “sow seeds in Spring”, “voluntary labour”
etc., creating a false idea about who held political power, as if this question had been resolved in
favour of the people.
From the leftwing of UP and outside of it, actions were carried out which, although they claimed to
be the use of revolutionary violence, in fact worsened the situation of the workers and people’s
movement, because lacking a just policy, in the majority of cases they made errors and the blows fell
on the small and middle bourgeoisie. This being the case, the nerve and the dishonesty of the
revisionists are even less acceptable, covering up their criminal responsibility (in sustaining the idea
of a “peaceful road”), trying to get hold of the chestnut using the cat’s paw, putting the blame on
those they called “ultraleft” - the old MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) and PCR
(Revolutionary Communist Party), for the military coup.
Once the coup had taken place, with all its consequences in terms of workers and people’s deaths,
with the brave ones who did not surrender and who took up resistance from the first day, one of the
most heroic pages in the history of the Chilean people began to be written, which can only be
surpassed by one written in the future revolutionary storms which leads to political power.
The confusion, the social democratic, social-christian and revisionist hybrid ideology left the people
disarmed in every sense in the fact of criminal fascism, that historical curse. This confusion
continued to lead the popular movement, having as its basis its widespread presence among the
masses, such that many of the victims of fascism came from its ranks or were said to have done,
which, as is natural, led to solidarity and support from the popular masses, who were indignant about
the bloodthirsty and criminal fascism. The comparison between a past where the were some social
gains and public liberty, and the fascist present with its generalised hunger and terror, were elements
which help explain the ease with which the old petty-bourgeois opportunism placed itself at the head
of the anti-fascist movement, especially if the absence of a real communist party is remembered. The
Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) [PC(AP)] was born as a movement for the rebuilding
of the Party on 8 November 1979, starting from a very small handful of revolutionary communists.
In addition, there were enormous difficulties and struggles which they had to face, both from the side
of fascism and from within the ranks of the people themselves, with the presence of a rejuvenated
revisionism with mass support. If we add to this our own political misunderstanding derived from
insufficient development, all together these factors did not allow us to occupy the position of the real
vanguard in the anti-fascist struggle. However, from the time that the project for building the party
was launched, the role of the PC(AP) is the essential basis for the development of the revolutionary
movement in Chile today and above all of the future victory of the people.
It is worth remembering that the brutality of fascism meant that from within the centres of the
imperialist powers themselves, including the then Russian social-imperialism, the old European
Social-Democracy and Liberalism including the liberal sector of Yankee imperialism, unleashed an
open intervention into the anti-fascist resistance movement, which was expressed in multifaceted
support (particularly economic support) for the revisionist “Communist” Party, the now rejuvenated
and neoliberal “Socialist” Party, the Christian-Democrat Party and other opportunist and social
democratic variants. There was a dual objective: on the one hand, to bring an end to the burden of
having a partner like Pinochet, and, principally, to make possible a way out of the dictatorship which
would remain within the framework of capitalist domination and exploitation, preventing the anti-
fascist fight from leading to the social and national liberation of Chile.
20
When the form of the struggle and the programmatic objectives of the movement against the
dictatorship are examined, it is impossible not to notice the ideology which was at its head, which
directed the anti-fascist fight and its economic and political demands towards the mere removal of
Pinochet, covering up and denying the creation of a new, People’s Democratic Chile, on the path
towards socialism, which was and is the demand of the epoch.
On few occasions in the history of Chile - and international history - has there been such a level of
interest in popular participation in the struggle against a governing regime, and the days of National
Protest so lively. But once more like many times in history the agreements and the deals for the
“transition” from open and criminal dictatorship to the disguised “democratic” dictatorship of capital
were carried out behind the backs of the people. The activities of the armed struggle did not go
beyond actions by the units, and were not mass actions, all, of course, under an amorphous “line of
popular rebellion,” whose foundations were affirmed in a United Nations Declaration on the right to
rebellion and in phrases of St Thomas Aquinas. In summary, it was never intended to go beyond the
removal of Pinochet and his fascist clique of a government. The rest is already known and is part of
everyday life: the installation of the current “democracy of agreements” between the fascist
bourgeoisie headed by Pinochet and the “democratic” bourgeoisie, which spans the “Concertacion”
and its two governments and parties to the leadership of the revisionist CP.
The workers and people’s struggle remained truncated. The depression, the apathy, the resignation,
the going over to openly capitalist positions, in general terms seized hold of the massive anti-fascist
movement which arose in the years of the dictatorship. It is due to the internal cause of this situation,
that is to say, the lack of a leadership which was truly healthy, popular, and focused on the
revolutionary transformation of society, that there was a growth of ideological dependence on
foreign imperialism, particularly on Russian revisionism and social democracy which at that time
supported the renegade Gorbachov and his perestroika. Only the PC(AP) fought and made clear the
significance and dimensions of the bourgeois trick, the fall of the Berlin Wall, of the countries of
Eastern Europe and of the revisionist USSR itself were the finishing touch for the open renunciation
of the struggle for the revolutionary change of society.
With the advent of “protected democracy” or the “democracy of the agreements”, the old bourgeois
opposition to the dictatorship moved on to become a direct part of the neoliberal system of
exploitation, installing themselves in parliament and in government. The “Socialist” Party (PS), the
Party for democracy (PPD), Christian-Democracy (DC), the Radicals and Social Democrats not only
produced agreements in order to “make possible the transition” from fascism to “democracy”, but
fully and completely adopted the constitutional, juridical, economic, military and police structure of
fascism, to the point of competing with each other in its defence and application. The contradiction
between them passed automatically to the symbolic level. The leadership of the revisionist
“Communist” Party, be they more confused or less, more leftist or less, slogged away to get a place
inside the “Concertacion”, even at the price of indignity on many occasions.
All the currently legal parties are parties of the neo-liberal system and are for the neoliberal system.
They only compete among themselves for the administration of existing institutional spaces. None of
them aim to use them to the benefit of the people’s fight for a new Chile, but, with more reforms or
less, in order to get a slice of the cake of exploitation of the people, above all of the workers.
For a better understanding of reality, of the integration of numerous legal political parties into the
capitalist system in its neoliberal form, let us think about a few examples, which will show even the
most noble causes are today used by imperialism and the capitalists in order to continue their
domination and exploitation of the workers and the people.
21
a) The struggles of the masses which have been unleashed through pressure from the base or through
their own initiative, in order to make possible this or that electoral option (in this case local
elections) have had only partial or immediate demands as their focus, which has meant that the strike
movements end with the taste of defeat. This is how the coal miners, the health workers and the
teachers strikes ended up.
b) Support and applause, from the “Concertation” to the “Communist” Party, for Chile’s entry into
MERCOSUR [regional common market in South America - transl.] which was imposed by capitalist
and imperialist interests. In order to disguise this capitulation to imperialism, they speak of a certain
degree of Latin American integration which will come from MERCOSUR in the margins of Yankee
domination.
c) The use of real problems which urgently need to be solved in hygiene and environmental and
ecological health, in order to destroy the small and medium sized Chilean firms, which use backward
technology which in addition gives of pollution, thus leaving a free space for the imperialist
transnationals who can count on up to date technology. The most conspicuous forces of “progress”
(PS - PPD - PC - PH) have demanded the closure to this or that small factory for pollution, but have
not once raised their voice to demand state loans so that the small firms and the small transport
businesses can modernise their means of production with up to date technology and thereby reduce
pollution, without destroying the little that remains of national industry or raising workers
unemployment.
d) In the symbolic struggle between bourgeois forces, between the fascists and the Concertation-
Communist Party, the latter have sided with the forces of imperialism, which, following on from
privatisation, have demanded the reduction in the size of the armed forces, which could, through its
size or its potential, within various reactionary options (such as fascist chauvinism) block some
interest of Yankee imperialism. The problem is not the size of the armed forces, but their reactionary
character, which is at the service of oppression and exploitation of the workers and the people. To
obscure the fundamental problem and to remain at the level of form, is another sign that they have
no alternative strategy to that of the current neoliberal order.
It is clear also that other positions have developed, which although they also say they are struggling
against the system, in fact create confusion, disunity and backwardness in the popular movement.
But since they are so undeveloped and extremely small without organic links to the masses, cannot
be assimilated directly into one of the four parties. We are referring here to anti-party autonomism,
anarchism, and indigenous fundamentalism. All of these are, however, a by-product of the confusing
actions of the bourgeoisie.
Comrades and Friends,
We communist do not exist only to interpret reality. This is only one part of our functions, and once
which besides loses its importance if it does not prepare us to intervene for the revolutionary
transformation of society.
Both historical experience and the current situation show us that social change is a question which
demands a solution, and for this we need a correct and scientific ideology, marxism-leninism, a
political programme in line with the current social requirements, the People’s Democratic
Alternative, and adequate organisational expressions: the Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian
Action) and the People’s Democratic Assembly (ADP) and their specific levers, and healthy and
combative social organisations.
22
Today is the time to reflect, to draw out the lessons, to throw of the ballast of opportunism, to dare to
live out. From the workers and the people, from the revolutionary dignity of People’s Democracy,
we invite you to adopt, with courage and commitment, our Alternative, to put things in their place, to
tell the truth and to prevent the workers and people’s movement being led again towards defeat into
a cul-de-sac, so that instead all its struggles will be crowned with triumph, with the taking of
political power, with the creation of a new society. You decide: whether you remain in confusion
with failed and false policies, or whether you unite with those who are building the project of
victory, for a new People’s Democratic Chile, focused on and at the service of the people. We have
already decided!
History does not wait. The workers and the people, overcoming the errors and fetters of the past, are
marching towards final victory over the exploitation and oppression of capitalism and imperialism!
Political Secretary of the Central Committee of the Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
September 1996
23
COLOMBIA
The narcotraffic pretext

An unprecedented Yankee interference
The relations between the Colombian government and the US are going through a process of
deepening crisis. At the centre is the illegal drugs subject. Contradictions deal with North American
imperialism interest to exert a direct control on psycotropic business, and also, to impose
categorically all its policies. The US elections’ issue plays a stimulating role, due that candidates try
to woo North American middle class votes, a class embed in rancid puritan and philistine feelings
that always see the danger out of their borders. Nothing better for their purposes than a Latin
American demon and lacking of a Noriega, good is Samper.
The issue is also affected by Samper’s search for possibilities of offering the Colombian riches to
other imperialists, such as minerals, strategic position, biodiversity and a route for a transoceanic
canal. Especially the relations with Great Britain are significant, due that BP, British Petroleum, has
benefited from the best conditions in the last contracts, and now wants to re-negotiate them with a
weak government badly in need of support to obtain bigger investment profitability.
But, above all these shades, we cannot lose sight that there is a deep seated fact that makes all
exploiters’ interests coincide, it has to deal with the long run counterinsurgency strategy, that leads
towards defeating Colombian revolution, under a guise of moral crusade against drugs.
The so-called “discertification” that Clinton government imposed on Colombia expresses the
assumption of imperialism’s “right” to interfere on dependent countries under the name “war against
drugs”. In fact, further more than the “moral sanction” character which supposedly has, it conveys a
serious economic impact and exerts political and military pressure. The cancellation of US entry
visa to president Samper and a number of bourgeois politicians, the permanent pressure of Yankee
Senate to impose its policies in all fields, mainly in justice and public order subjects, enlarged by
numerous facts such as threats of commercial sanctions, encouraging the most retrograde sector to
replace the government, and the intimidating comparisons with Noriega, are the expressions of
Clinton’s discontent towards the way narcotics control polices are applied in the country.
According to today’s Yankee interests, Samper is a key instrument, because his weakness and
submission allows them to impose their policies for nothing in exchange. The proof is that his
government has hit hard mafia’s big barons, betraying the agreements he made with those that
helped him in his election, has intensified indiscriminate serial spray of coca crop, has applied an
unparalleled repression and has committed himself to a constitutional counter reform that
strengthens the regressive aspects of the present Constitution and adds new ones. The only issue that
was lacking in the agenda, US priority, was that of extradition, which is already in the political
discussion; and it would not be surprising to get parliamentary approval. Nevertheless, this
government is not well received by North American Senate, nor by the Clinton administration,
which hit him as an outcast.
Military hand at the centre
Nowadays there are huge protest marches of more than 150.000 peasants, part of the 250.000
families that have some links with the coca crop, in several points of the country, which are treated
as narcotraffickers and “narcoguerrillas” according to the formula inaugurated by ex-US ambassador
Lewis Tambs, an expert in drugs himself, as he was a trader with them to finance the “contras” in
Nicaragua, a fact which has been proved at the moment. Besides the brutal manner of the
24
government in dealing with the problem, it is noticeable that we are facing a counter-revolutionary
strategy that intends to illegitimise the popular struggle by criminalizing it. Now any anti-imperialist
struggle is seen at the service of narcotraffic.
High military command heading this tactic has been able to “convince” the Yankees that Colombian
guerrilla movement and narcotrafficking are the same thing, and now the military aid it receives has
been “permitted” for the use of combating subversion. This is not new; before it was done
undercover. What is new is the “legitimacy” that this action received. This could result in a large
scale military invasion. This is something that should not be disregarded in the presence of great
inefficiency of the government military apparatus.
Yankee military presence is not a novelty in this country, neither its all round dependency to the
Pentagon. What is meaningful is that within Andean Strategy, included in the Santa Fe II document,
Colombian case acquired some particular implications, because it is a country where an insurgent
movement is strong and government has not been able to wipe it out. This leads imperialists and
bourgeoisie to raise the question of higher military foreign troops presence to combat it, and to
introduce different means and methods.
Today’s US proposal is to give a more military character to drugs war and to justify it as supposedly
a common cause. In this way it is looking towards legitimising the extra-territoriality of counter-
insurgency struggle and making the right to interfere morally valid. What is at stake is the notion and
defence of national security of imperialist State and the development of its expansionist trend in the
middle of the struggle for world hegemony. In other sphere Helms-Burton law pretends to do the
same. It is the “justified intervention” theory which throws national sovereignty overboard.
We are facing the same interventionism as always, only that now it is adorned with “humanitarian”,
“moral” or “democratic” arguments which allow imperialism to present preventive defence, extra
territorial activity and invasion as legitimate actions in the face of the world-multinational coercion,
in order to preserve US national security.
Colombian particularities
Colombian case requires special tactics to be dealt with. It is known that Colombia is one of the
countries in the world with higher violence indexes and this trend has increased lately. In 1994 there
were 26.828 homicides, 6 per cent of which is attributed to armed conflict. The causes of the rest of
it, are unidentified. They are carried out in the middle of great impunity. Colombia exhibits horrid
records of human rights violations. There has been moments of 5 to 10 political murders a day.
Significantly the country receives half of military assistance that US distributes in the hemisphere,
an amount which is increasing.
There is a strong and developing guerrilla movement. Although the guerrilla movement is still a
rural phenomenon, it is no longer marginal; right now it seriously affects the economy and risks the
country’s economic prospects, multinationals’ interests centred in energetics, mining and
biodiversity resources.
The guerrilla movement at present is already threatening the power’s rules and it is a risk to
bourgeois stability, making it necessary for them to defeat this movement, if they are to have a quiet
future. Taking this analysis in a wider context of economic deterioration, business profit’s sensible
aspects, low productivity, high cost of living, rising unemployment, growing inflation and deepening
recession, there is not much scope for the dominant classes to be optimistic .
25
As if this were not enough, we are going through a deep institutional disadjustement, which assumes
the form of permanent quarrelling in all branches of power and which extends to different social
agents, political parties, personalities, and so on, a constant bickering which reflects that bourgeois
consensus is cracking and that the so-called governability is getting closer to its limits. From the
popular side, discontent grows, inconformity appears in many ways, and bourgeois hegemony is
weakened. The sharpening process of social contradictions forces imperialism and the Colombian
bourgeoisie to become more aggressive and dangerous.
Not everything that shines is gold
Our Party is very interested to establish very well what is the meaning of narcotraffic in Colombia
and the profound differences that separates it from revolutionary struggle, even if in appearance their
interests coincide with confronting North Americans. To us there cannot exist common objectives
between narcotraffickers and the revolutionary project. There is nothing alike between the guerrilla
movement and paramilitarism, which is another arm of national security policy, linked to
narcotraffic. To lose sight of this can lead us away from revolution and walk through dangerous
trails.
Another completely different subject is to make clear that revolutionaries are not Colombian State’s
policemen to apply repression on a sort of business that was born from capitalist deep core and that
comprises a wide range of social stratas, from low rank workers to narco-landlords and narco-
financiers. We state clear class differences for its treatment. The big barons are capitalists, who lead
multinationals, who have accumulated their wealth through narcotics trade, and who protect this
wealth by resorting to huge violence. They are counter-revolutionary forces, who take part in the
system and who are at its service in different manners. Rank and file workers who grow and crop
row material, come from poor and middle peasants ranks, from tenant farmers, who are in an
increasing impoverishment process, lacking labour guaranties, not having State attention, living
under police and military repression, so do not have anything to lose with the triumph of revolution .
North American politics is clear in this: It uses the war on drugs as a counterinsurgent pretext. While
it benefits from capitals, protects its own big barons and uses them as spearhead of reaction, it orders
to annihilate and displace coca’s producers and croppers masses, binding them with the “subversion”
label and up-scaling its interventionist level.
The hydra’s heads
It is necessary to look narcotraffic problem in a multilateral manner, due to its deep implications. In
the economic angle we observe a tendency of monopolisation and the control of this business is in
the hands of the North Americans. It is not difficult to notice who has the lion’s share in finance
matters. Nor is it a secret that the production areas of row materials tend to be centralised by a few
owners. In Colombia, narco-landowners posses 8 per cent of the country’s agricultural surface out of
a total estimated to be 40 million square hectares. Among them are 5 million hectares of the best
soils, dedicated preferentially to extensive cattle raising, and a range of influence in some 400
municipalities from the total 1.050 that the country has. As an example, we should mention that only
one family, the Ochoa’s clan, possesses a million hectares.
Around this process hovers also the chemical inputs production. North American companies supply
90 per cent of chemical material that is used in Colombia. Nobody in the US is interested to exert
control on this trade. It would be relatively easy to determine the percentage that is routed to legal
uses and the one dedicated to drugs processing to stop these imports. But the Clinton government
and its multinationals are interested in selling them, especially now with narrow markets. Besides,
26
they sold “gliphosphate” and now “imazapyr” for the permanent serial spray camains, that have
devastating effects on all crops, land and every living creature.
There is a growing world demand for hallucinogenic drugs. In the US, according to their own
studies, consumption among teenagers grew by 105 per cent between 1992 and 1995. Last year’s
increase was 166 per cent.
In 1989, chiefs of states from the Group of Seven, formed a financial action team, called GAFY, to
calculate narcotraffic money. Logically, the specialists involved limited their job to sum up official
reports. It is impossible to measure this powerful market’s different magnitudes. But from guesses
linked to the seizures made, it was established that yearly consumption in the US alone, could reach
some 150 tons of cocaine. This figure is an excellent indicator of a promising market and everything
leads that the reckoning is a conservative one. Of course, the trend is not to decrease this volume.
Polices in that country do not point in that direction. Its justice system, presented as a paradigm to
dependent countries, is limited to punish drastically the use of crack and other low quality or leftover
stuff, but cocaine does not suffer the same rigour. It is a matter of different class consumers and
capitalism does not forget it. Besides, there is not a deep work in prevention and education towards
consumption, nor can they combat the causes intertwined to this decadent system.
Another chapter, is the laundering of drugs money. In 1988 the UN spoke of some 300 billion
dollars as drugs business money world volume, in other words, around 10 per cent of world trade.
Right now, the OECD, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, reckons that this
business income is above 600 billion dollars a year, half of which circulates through American
banks. (Data from a Conference of Noam Chomsky.) Colombia may get 4 or 5 billion dollars a year.
We are speaking of no negligible figures.
Something else is this business’ close relationship with arms trafficking. The market is huge and it is
sold by different means. Governments, paramilitary and in general all direct or indirect actors in the
contest should be nourished. It should not be forgotten that North Americans dominate 3/4 of the
trade in dependent countries. The peace and disarmament tale is left for the naive, because arms
traffickers need to make their kills in this anarchic and warmongering world.
It is not difficult to elucidate that the narcotics commerce has been utilised as economic stimulant,
which produces enormous profits and even dinamizes other important areas. In Colombia it is clear
that sectors such as construction and its aggregates, tourism and hotels, have been great
beneficiaries. Even automotive industry, agroindustry, and textile mills add to the preferred business;
land, cattle and of course financial sector. All of them have enjoyed this “bonanza”. The Colombian
bourgeoisie and its government resent that now their masters in the empire want total control of it.
Paramilitarism
Other phenomenon tied to this topic is the upsurge of paramilitarism. Towards the 80s thugs gangs
and paramilitarism were felt strongly in the country. Its character is openly reactionary. They are
closely connected with government armed forces, with the big economic groups and with narcotics
mafia. They are another piece of the counterinsurgency strategy, as a by-product of National
Security Doctrine.
We are dealing with a force with a centralised command from the chief of staff of the army. It has
received advice and training from Israelis, British and North Americans, besides their own
Colombian instructors. Their weaponry is highly sophisticated and their objectives are clear: to
destroy civil population in order to suppress support for the guerrilla forces. It is a division of
functions, in which paramilitary carry out the dirty work.
27
Latest modality is to kidnap relatives of known guerrilla leaders. They already made terror schooling
with indiscriminate massacres, murdering popular leaders, etc. They work to eliminate the “internal
enemy” by any means.
Symbiosis of narcotraffickers, military command and monopolistic associations is evident, and

besides the tangible proves, it can be detected in the zones of land concentration, in the lines of
activity’s identity, and in the great strides of paramilitarism in wide zones of the country with the
indulgence of the state. To complete the framework, there is a decree that legalises this counter-
revolutionary arm with the creation of Private Security and Vigilance Cooperatives. They are
branches of fascism that intend to strangle us. Their tentacles are multiple, so should be the popular
response.
Final considerations
It is clear that North American imperialism uses the pretext of narcotics to intervene more openly in
Colombia. All the impact of this phenomenon is expressed in a complex play of interests, that
demands from Marxist-Leninists to define with a lot clarity their point of view and their acts. We
must link unmistakably imperialism’s interests with those of bourgeoisie in narcotraffic commerce.
Their objectives are openly counter-revolutionary, aside from the forms they appear. We consider
that the struggle against imperialism goes through the fight against mafia’s great interests, that in
essence are those of a bourgeoisie that has sprung propped up in an unbridle violence. Democracy
and socialism rest on national and social liberation; they should be detached with no ambiguity from
drugs trade.
Armed struggle is degraded in the proportion that it lets narcotraffic penetration; its political project
gets blurred, and it jeopardises its objectives. There are no common interests between guerrillas and
narcotraffickers. Anyone who misses this point moves away from the revolutionary course.
Our party will continue to fight North American imperialism by different means and in the required
forms. We do not accept this new Yankee argument to use force on national sovereignty and
independence. We will go on encouraging anti-imperialist feelings rising with higher consciousness
of the necessity of national and social liberation.
Regarding narcotraffic, at the moment, we have a point of view stemming from our anti-imperialist
and democratic tactics, which require to treat the issue both national and internationally as a social
and not as national security subject, to confront the causes and not exclusively the effects, to prevent
consumption and not to repress small producers, to punish paramilitary which are the armed branch
of the big beneficiaries, to stop dominant classes’ corruption and all the devastating effects from
drugs. For that we neither need imperialism nor its agents.
Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)
28
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The situation of the country reinforces the necessity of

the national anti-imperialist struggle
The present form of imperialist domination has created political, economic and social situations in
the country which necessitate popular national anti-imperialist struggle. Neoliberal policies have
widened the social base and the political motivations for struggle for change in a progressive
direction. What is necessary is to take advantage of these circumstances in order to develop our
revolutionary perspectives. The Communist Party of Labour must intervene in these conditions with
the aim of bringing closer revolutionary insurrection.
I. What underlies monetarist and neoliberal policies
During the last 15 years of the application of the social and economic policies designed by the IMF
and the neoliberal conceptions going alongside these, the situation of the country could not have
been worse with regard to the effects of these policies on the great majority of people. The most
obvious and tragic result of this policies has been the constant increase in poverty which some
estimates see as affecting about 70 per cent of the total population, and if this is the case we are
talking about approximately five million people. This situation is crudely reflected in the various
social indicators through which it is possible to judge the level of well-being of society in particular
periods.
A policy of continuing cutbacks in social spending of the state leaves that sector of the population on
middling, scarce, or no income in a situation of acute difficulty with regard to heath, education, and
the other services essential for human development. With regard to health the total spending on
consultations, beds, and the admission of patients to hospitals and public dispensaries has been
reduced from 60-70 per cent in the 1990s as compared to the 1980s; and in 1995, if we take into
account the 1977 prices, on every Dominican the state “spend” 40 pesos on health services.
In education, from 2.1 per cent of the internal budget which was spent in 1980, itself an insignificant
amount, there was a reduction in 1990 to only one per cent.
The proportion of education for which the government has responsibility has greatly decreased; in
1977, 65 per cent was financed by the state but since the adjustments demanded by the IMF this has
been reduced drastically to 45 per cent, in this way allowing a great increase in the private sector.
This situation, as one would expect, has affected the mass of the poor. Comparing the budget of
income and expenditure of 1977 with that of the 80s, one can see that 40 per cent of the poorest
Dominicans have had to spent 400 per cent more on education, while the five per cent who make up
the richest of the population have spent only 125 per cent more. Equally, with regard to health, 40
per cent of the poorest families have had to spent twice as much as previously.
Al this has happened at the same time as an exaggerated concentration of wealth. Wealth is
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the majority of the population are being forced into a
process of corporisation. The Interamerican Bank of Development, BID, has revealed that 95 per
cent of the Dominican population receives less than 12,500 Dominican dollars per head per year, and
according to the criteria established by this institution, to fall below this level of income is to be
considered the below the poverty line.
29
Taking into account only these social indicators, we are right to reiterate our conclusion that poverty
is the most eloquent result of neoliberal policies and is the material problem which we as
Dominicans must most urgently confront, within a general platform which campaigns for the
sustainable and independent development of the country.
Over and above these problems, and the result of the same policy, is the gradual destruction of the
national productive base, which means that the country is losing its ability to feed itself and
hypothetically even its sovereignty. National production as the generator of consumer wealth and as
culture resulting from the skills and knowledge developed over many years bears fundamental
strategic importance. No country concerned with maintaining its fundamental political and economic
independence ignores the feeding of its own people, this independently of whatever may be its
capacity to buy from abroad. Political and even natural contingencies can at certain times cut short
the supply of trade and services and the country will find itself exposed to shortages, or at least to
being forced to accept exorbitant prices and conditions. The self-sustaining capacity of a country is
the basic principle of its sovereignty. National production together with language territory and
culture gives the nation its identity.
For this reason, we have to take seriously the policies of neoliberalism through which huge areas of
fertile land are handed over to businesses and foreign consortiums for the planting of fruits for
export and the construction of tourist centres, at the same time as we see disincentives for the
production of crops for national consumption. Ways of life established by many generations of
peasants have been destroyed in a virtual cultural genocide, in order to give way to the new economy
based on service industries and agroindustries for the benefit of the North American population.
This is how the native industrial and livestock farming infrastructure is passing through a process of
decline, generating, according to the Institute of Economic Studies, a decrease at the present of up to
13 per cent in manufacturing industry, while the contribution of the livestock farming sector to the
national economy has been reduced almost to half what it was ten years ago.
This deterioration has been expressed, as one would expect, in levels of employment; according to
the Central Bank, unemployment in the industry has gone from 15.8 per cent in July 1995 to 16.6 per
cent in January 1996; while in the agricultural plantations during the same period the rate went from
13.5 to 14.9 per cent.
These are the results of a policy which involves the economy of the country ever more deeply in
service industries and speculative activities, up to the point where a series of measures of a financial
and monetary character have been taken in official circles which have led, for example, to the loans
of commercial banks meant for industry being reduced in the last few years by almost half, and by
little less the loans meant for agriculture; while more money has been given to businesses involved
with imports, commercial activity in general and to individuals as the solution to the problems of
daily life.
Consistently with these policies, in 1994 the Bank of Agriculture (Banco Agricola) was meant to
give financial farmers to the extent of more than 20 billion pesos, but only had available 1.150
billion out of which it handed over a little more than one billion.
At this point in time, the economy based on services and speculation is no longer just a tendency in
the country but is becoming dominant and we have to consider the repercussions of this reality in the
make up of the working class; in the population in its localities and in the dynamic of the cities, as
well as in the ideas and the other areas of the superstructure of society.
30
In the talk given by the governor of the Central Bank, Hector Valdez Albizu, in front of the
Association of Businessmen of Santiago and the North Region he gave the following comparative
data:
In 1994 there were in the country 18 hotels in operation with 1,134 rooms; now there are 467 hotels
with 29,000 rooms which attract every year 1,300,000 foreigners and 597,000 “absent” Dominicans.
Tourism brought in 1.147 billion dollars in 1994; this was 44.1 per cent of the total value of exports.
Moreover, in this sector there are 42,000 direct employees and 106,000 indirect. The Free Trade
Zones for their part were almost unknown in 1964; today there exist about 500 enterprises and they
employ 182,000 people directly. In 1994 they exported 1.416 millions of dollars generating an
income of 441 millions dollars to the country. Money sent abroad by Dominicans reached 493
million dollars in 1994.
Services, which were in 1964 accounted for 25 million dollars of income, thirty years later
accounted for 1,957 million.
In this way the country adapted itself to the requirements of the world economy, dominated by the
imperialist powers. “Let us produce what sells”, said the governor of the Central Bank in his talk,
reaffirming, not by accident, for the new government that the same financial and monetary policy
would be followed.
Under a new appearance, the Dominican Republic continues being tied to the plans of imperialism,
especially to those of the US. All its economic development and its possibilities of growth are
subordinated to external commerce, and orientated to correspond to the needs of capital
accumulation for imperialism.
The breaking of this neoliberal dependence continues to be a primary condition for the achievement
of a democratic sovereign and independent republic, which can guarantee the general well-being of
its citizens. For many self-described revolutionary and anti-imperialist people, this is a question of
the past for they have been won to the idea that it is through the fall of the communist regimes that
these centres of imperialist domination have become agents of democracy in those countries with
which they seem to have allied themselves in the role of collaborators. The North Americans have
managed to deceive many with their claims that now they are going around the world supporting
democratic regimes which agree to free elections and the fights against drug trafficking.
Over and above this demagogy is the hair-raising reality that neoliberal policies and the changes
which are helping to swell the accumulation of capital and the development of its strategic interests,
have as their necessary counterpart the impoverishment of our people; the damaging of its
sovereignty and the destruction of the cultural elements which give us our specific personality as a
nation. In its efforts for domination imperialism make sure in every country that it takes the
necessary measures to win huge economic advantages, and undertakes the political and ideological
work through which it can make complete its penetration and fundamental control of vital areas. But
in neoliberalism, the form assumed nowadays by imperialist domination, the ideological and
political offensive is being taken essentially against nation-states themselves. Whereas before the
existence and strengthening of nation-states was necessary for the defence of the interests of big
monopoly capitalism, nowadays in the light of so-called globalisation, and of the market as regulator
of prices and fluctuations in trade and services, a reduction in the role of the State in our countries
seems to be a necessity in order to gain the greatest economic benefits and to solve the crisis of the
system.
31
Monopoly capitalists and the government at their service are forcing the reduction of “our” States to
the condition of simple guardians of private property, since given that, as Lenin says in his book
“imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”, the redivision of lands has now been completed
among the major powers, and what is important for them now is to win and to make new markets,
and to this end, to eliminate as much as possible the state regulations which might hinder the free
movement of investments, of finance capital, and of the goods and services which are being
produced in the industrialised countries in forms and in a volume without precedent due to the
modern revolution in productive forces.
The anxiety to expand markets at the cost of national States shows itself also in the neoliberal
demand that states should abandon once and for all all their responsibilities towards education,
health, social security and all the policies and practices traditionally undertaken by public
institutions, areas in which capital can find many opportunities for making new profits.
Things being as they are, communists and revolutionaries find in the national question a rational for
anti-imperialist and patriotic work. The flag of anti-imperialism must be kept aloft with new energy.
II. Once again, the national question
Not by accident, the problem of “our” national State and of the nation itself has appeared again in
debate among many intellectuals. The 1990s began with a discussion about the viability or not of the
Dominican nation and about the form and the space in which Dominican citizens could exercise our
sovereignty.
The discussion is not new, it has always been part of the republic’s history, but it is very
symptomatic, and not accidental that it has been revived just at the point when the imperialist powers
are proposing to break down national frontiers, when they are theorising about globalisation and are
prostituting values and symbols which give a people its identity.
“The decline of the Dominican nation” was declared by professor Manuel Nunez in a work with the
same title which appeared in March 1990 and whose ideas were explained in 1997 in an article in the
magazine “Hoy” (Today).
A very interesting proposal on how to exercise sovereignty was formulated by professor Andre
Corten in a book entitled “The Weak State” which appeared in 1989 and in which, after declaring the
impossibility of the existence of the Haitian state as well as the Dominican, proposed that the
sovereignty of one or the other country should not be associated with “the state of citizenship, but
rather in the state of being metropolitan”. This means understanding as sovereignty the capacity “to
respect the fundamental rights of the members of a society wherever it finds itself”. Thus, national
sovereignty, according to this author is for Haitians and Dominicans the capacity that they might
have to respect the fundamental rights of emigrants reunited as a community within a metropolis,
New York for example.
Obviously this is about a treacherous proposal which goes beyond the pessimistic ideas of many
intellectuals of the past century and the beginning of this, around the possibility of a national project
for the country ruled by a free independent and sovereign state.
We are facing a problem which has not yet been resolved with sufficient clarity, principally in the
revolutionary and democratic movement in the country, even though at the same time we recognise
that we have approached this theme in our general and programmatic line with correctness and have
tried to formulate adequate solutions, and at the same time many of our social scientist have given
unquestionable support to the idea of the national identity of Dominicans.
32
The theme continues to be discussed and there is no doubt that in relation to the neoliberal political
and ideological offensive, pessimism regarding our possibilities of development and consolidation as
an independent nation, must face new arguments, making use of the extraordinary power of modern
communication systems.
Since Duarte and the other threesome founded the republic, this matter has divided into two groups,
those Dominicans who participate in politics and in cultural and intellectual activity in general. The
annexation by Spain in 1861 was allowed by the failure of faith on the part Santana and his followers
in the national project, and the war of restoration, was essentially the reaffirmation under other
conditions of Duarte’s thoughts and actions; in 1965 also we saw this difference again and now we
are faced with even bolder anti-national proposals and attitudes. These lines have not elucidated the
problem and so it is necessary that the party together deepens its understanding because it concerns
something really transcendental on whose solution the advance of a revolution in this country
depends.
It is true that the men and women of the party and of our political and social movement are
occupying themselves with bringing clarity to those questions which have prevented until now the
triumph of the national cause and it is these tasks which are the most urgently in need of solving in
order to strengthen and give a proper foundation to our perspectives.
III. This concerns more than the defence of the national state
It is necessary to establish a clear difference between those who, like the communist Party of
Labour, are taking on a struggle in defence of identity and of the national state from a democratic
and patriotic perspective, and those who assume anti-Haitian and nationalist positions.
Under no circumstances should we forget the class character of the State. Nor the fact that in the
final analysis the bourgeoisie which controls it has used it always to manipulate the sovereignty of
the state for the benefit of its own interests and that of the Yankees. Let us defend the right of the
Dominican nation to constitute itself as a state and to take whatever measures are necessary to
maintain and strengthen its national sovereignty, but taking this in its intimate and necessary relation
with popular sovereignty, that is to say with the power of the people and their inalienable right to
decide what political and social regime the consider to be most suited to their interests and culture.
This is a vital line of demarcation between us and the bourgeoisie and its parties. The people have
always and everywhere been the fundamental support of national sovereignty, while the bourgeoisie
has always shown itself ready to deal with international powers to whom, on more than one occasion
in our history it has handed over parts of our sovereignty, if not all.
The struggle for national sovereignty in harmony with the struggle to reach levels of democratic
participation in national affairs commensurate with a regime based on adequate rights for all, has
been an issue over which Dominicans have fought at various stages of their history and much of it
has been written in blood. The war of restoration in the last century and the insurrection of April
1965 stand out in Dominican history, in the first place because of the determined intervention of
popular masses, in the second place because of their sharply patriotic character, and in the third place
because of their defence of the democratic ideal.
The nationalism of those such as Luis Julian Perez, Vincho Castillo and their companions and
“patriotism” of Balaguer is in fact very narrow with a strong racist streak. Neither the one nor the
other valued the people as the main support of national sovereignty; and for that reason and that is
why they never initiated a programme of political reform resulting in greater powers of participation
and decision making on the part of the popular masses in public affairs. For them, that which was
national did not have a popular essence! At the same time their defence of the nation did not go
33
beyond anti-Haitianism, in a more subtle version of the old ideas according to which the Dominican
state justified itself and appeared strong through the existence of an enemy on the other side of the
border, having ancestral claims to be an island “one and indivisible”. The timid and sporadic
criticisms on the part of these nationalists towards the policies of the US kept them within the
imperialist will and they remained on that plane even when accepting the “excess population” of the
neighbouring country, through whose settlement, they said, the Hispanic races would be terribly
adulterated. The Communist Party of Labour is very far from these ideas. Our strategy assumes a
popular and revolutionary struggle for an advanced democratic political regime; one which would
assure Dominicans of a secure state of well-being, through the exercise of full sovereignty of the
state with respect to third parties; at the same time a regime which would promote relationships of
solidarity between peoples and collaboration and economic exchange with reciprocal advantages
among other countries, especially those of Latin America.
It is from this position and with the aim of linking this with the action of the popular masses and of
working to convince them of our political project, that our party takes on board the national question
and confronts the neoliberal imperialist policies; and shows itself to be ready to co-ordinate actions,
agreements and alliances with other forces which express the willingness to struggle for a direction
which is distinct from the imperialist policies which through collaboration with the native
bourgeoisie, have been imposed on the country.
Manuel Salazar
Communist Party of Labour of Dominican Republic
October 1996
34
ECUADOR
Our central tasks

Extract from Chapter IV of the Political News of the CC of the PCML of Ecuador “Present
Problems of Ecuadorian Revolution”, approved by the 5th Congress of the Party in December 1996.
The Ecuadorian revolution has concrete problems which must be confronted and resolved by the
revolutionary party of the proletariat in the light of Marxism-Leninism. The application of the
principles of Marxism-Leninism in the concrete conditions of the Ecuadorian revolution.
Marxism-Leninism is valid. Its revolutionary principles have demonstrated their validity in the
struggle of the workers and the peoples, in the victorious revolutions, and also in the revolutionary
processes which have been defeated by the superiority of the reactionary forces and also by the
errors of the communists - its correctness and validity in the construction of the workers society, a
socialist society, have been made obvious, at the same time as have been demonstrated its
weaknesses and limitations, and the necessity of its continual development.
Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma. Historical experience demonstrates that it can be applied and
developed wherever revolutionary proletarians study it deeply, wherever, immersed in the political
struggle, they apply its revolutionary precepts as a guide, wherever they take into account the
concrete historical particularities of society.
The Marxist-Leninist communists of Ecuador have made ever effort to understand Marxism-
Leninism as a guide to action. With its principles we have studied the Ecuadorian reality and we
have developed the political line of the party, as well as various tactical lines which have enabled us
to intervene correctly and opportunely in the social movement, and accurate decisions in relation to
the struggle and organisation of the working class and the people.
At the present we face the challenge of taking into account the great social mobility, the structural
changes being produced in society, the changes in subjectivity and behaviour of the revolutionary
classes, and the new policies of imperialism and the bourgeoisie.
We need to deepen the study of Marxism, its general principles, and to study them in relation to the
national and international problems, with the development of science and technology - opposing
them to the new philosophical, social and economic theories of the bourgeoisie- and in relation to the
great events which have changed world history. We have to study Marxism-Leninism in order to
apply it and in this way to develop and solve with its guidance the new problems confronting the
proletarian social revolution.
Not everything has been said, many problems and situations call for the theoretical attention of
revolutionaries. For Ecuadorian communists the problem is posed of the class view and treatment of
society, the national problem, the use of all forms of struggle, the concretisation of revolutionary
violence and the theory of the building of the party.
With the accumulated experiences in theory and practice, with our own revolutionary forces, with
study, debate and reflection; with the deepening of our knowledge of the reality of the country, we
can go further forward in the task of founding scientific socialism within the workers’ and people’s
movement; we must modify our proposals, pose them in relation to the present problems of
Ecuadorian society, and with the reality of the working class and popular movement; we must work
in a better way to spread the revolutionary message, in order to reach the popular masses.
35
The Ecuadorian revolution will achieve victory to the extent that the Marxist-Leninist communists
work to apply the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism in the concrete practice of the working
classes.
Struggle for the defence of Marxism-Leninism
The great anti-communist offensive orchestrated by imperialism, reaction and revisionism has
directed its main darts at the demonstration of the obsolescence of Marxism-Leninism; at the
uselessness of action by revolutionaries, workers and the people in attempting to apply those
principles; at the impossibility and failure of revolution, and its inability to resolve the problems of
social, economic and scientific development, or to solve the problems of the working class.
We are sure of the validity of Marxism-Leninism, of all that it has meant in the development of
humanity, in its great victories and in its setbacks.
The defence of Marxism-Leninism is not achieved by the declaration of its validity, or by the
affirmation of its rightness and correctness. These things are important but they must be transcended.
The main method for the defence of Marxism-Leninism is its application in the Ecuadorian
revolutionary process, in its concretisation in policies, in the struggles of the working class and
people, in order to convert it into a material force which can rid the world of capital.
This application of Marxism-Leninism will necessitate its study, its development, its confrontation
with life.
Proletarian revolutionaries must advance further. We have the obligation to overcome all the
falsehoods and diatribes which are hurled against Marxism-Leninism. This means involving
ourselves actively in the theoretical debate being posed; that is to say, to assume revolutionary
militancy on every terrain. We must utilise publications, the party’s journal and review, and other
organs in order to take a position on every aspect of struggle through dialectical and historical
materialism, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism.
The confrontation is with the reactionary and idealist positions of the bourgeoisie, but also with the
revisionist “neo-Marxist” positions.
The ideological struggle against capital
The struggle for the social revolution of the proletariat demands the promotion in the working class
and among the masses of what we want and fight for as revolutionaries, and requires that the
workers make their own the programme and the implementation of the new society and the struggle
for its achievement.
In this process it is essential to unmask and to combat the baseless ideology of capitalism and of
reaction, to confront them with the political and ideological values of the proletariat, of revolution.
Against the assertion of the superiority of capitalism we have to oppose the achievements of the
workers in the construction of socialism. Against the false thesis that socialism has failed, and that
the revolution is impossible, we have to answer with the facts of the mobilisation and fight back of
the working class and peoples which is developing across every continent and which points to
socialism as the alternative. To bourgeois egoism and individualism we must counterpose the
creative force of the collective, and class solidarity. To the lie that socialism negates the individual
36
we must counterpose the truth that only in a socialist society can the full realisation of the personal
qualities of every individual take place.
To continue the ideological-political combat against revisionism and opportunism
Life and historical experience demonstrate that it is not possible to organise the revolution and take
it to its conclusion without combating the bourgeoisie on every terrain: ideological, political, cultural
and military; without taking up positions, to unmask and combat revisionist and opportunist
ideologies and policies within the revolutionary movement of the masses and inside the Communist
Party.
Facts demonstrate that revisionism is a permanent danger, even when workers have power, even
when they exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat -revisionism can still subvert the new order and
restore capitalism.
This means that the struggle continues, that we must preserve the ranks of the communist, defend the
consciousness, organisation and struggle of the workers and people form the attacks of revisionism.
To combat revisionism consistently demands a vigilant attitude on the part of communists, a better
absorption of Marxism-Leninism, and the confronting of opportunists and revisionists wherever they
present themselves, in theory and in practice, in the course of the class struggle.
The struggle against revisionism must take place against its organic expression but also and
principally against its theses, against the distortions of the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, against
the ideological assaults which conspire always to confuse revolutionaries; to overcome the fearful,
the cowards and the opportunists who may appear in the ranks of the communist party. This involves
a continual confrontation, of a fight that it is necessary to wage up until its final consequences.
Revolutionary propaganda is the key to reaching the masses
Without revolutionary propaganda the revolution cannot be organised. Communists must reach the
masses with our political demands; with the demands of the revolution, of revolutionary violence, of
popular power, of socialism and of communism.
The ideological advance of the bourgeoisie and of revisionism, the great power of the
communication media, the new techniques of propaganda and of publicity pose a challenge for the
revolutionary proletariat.
This does not mean competing with the same media, or with the economic capacity of the
bourgeoisie, but nor does it mean renouncing their use. As far as possible, we should infiltrate them
for the purposes of our own propaganda.
Above all, this means studying the problem to open up initiatives for the formulation of the
revolutionary message.
We have important propagandist experience, which we should use to support us in our advance.
Life teaches us that to repeat slogans is not enough, nor is it sufficient to make speeches. We must
overcome schematism and clichés. We must leave on one side all stereotypes, common knowledge,
preconceived language which makes revolutionaries seem all the same and which renders us
repetitive and mechanical.
37
The revolution needs many and qualified propagandists, and requires the revolutionising of the
mentality, of methods, forms and techniques in order to reach the masses. The construction and use
of revolutionary paradigms, of a symbolism which accord with life and the hopes of workers, of the
youth; of ideological and political elements which affirm identity, in order to allow us direct, fluid,
penetrating and captivating communication with the masses.
The audacity to open up initiatives, to recreate new styles in the elaboration of articles, leaflets and
manifestos must go alongside understanding of the problems of the masses, with the dominance of
matter, of the demands which we must communicate; taking into account the moment, the audience,
the conjuncture, and the aims of the mediated character. A simple style, which is direct and concrete
and which poses the problem and its solution, which expresses the personal qualities of the
revolutionaries, will allow us substantially to improve the quality of the message.
Conversation and discussion on an equal level with the masses; leaving to one side all poses, all airs
of knowing everything, formalism and rhetorical phraseology; the ability to calm anxieties, dialogue
with the collective, sensitivity in making proposals; concreteness in the formulation of our
conclusions will enable us to reach people with our revolutionary policies, achieve their
understanding and acceptance, and their agreement for their implementation.
The revolutionary agitator must show confidence and resourcefulness; he must prepare himself for
all interventions, and be able to discuss them collectively. He has to remember that his intervention
has the aim of spreading and affirming an idea, a slogan, a directive. He must not claim to have the
answer to everything, to every situation or opportunity. The revolutionary agitator is a leader of the
masses, he is a cadre who must demonstrate his leadership in every situation.
Mural propaganda, graffiti, posters and other various expressions of revolutionary propaganda
should show the quality and capacity of the party and its forces, and so should be well produced.
The utilisation of radio and television are new elements which we should not undervalue. It is
necessary to develop qualified experience. We must leave to one side improvisation; we must
develop cadres and equipment adequate to the management of these means of communication. The
formation of revolutionary propagandists in this area demands time and effort, and we should not
skimp on this; we must keep in mind that the revolutionary process follows its course, that it is not
concluded with this or that task, but that it is a matter of sustained action, and that the years which
are invested in the ideological, political and technical formation of propagandists will be profitably
used.
One of the important traditions of the Leninist party is the communist periodical, the publication of
the leadership. Since “Iskra” until today, the revolutionary periodical has demonstrated its worth, its
necessity.
In the experience of the Party , our periodical “En Marcha” (“On Our Way”) has played an
important role. It is necessary to make it more regular, to increase its circulation, to use it adequately
and with initiative in the revolutionary process.
All the ideological, political and material forces of the communists and revolutionaries and of the
masses themselves which may be necessary to advance the proletarian press should be put into
practice without hesitation.
“En Marcha” must develop its role as the voice of revolution, as the propagandist of communism, as
combatant for the emancipation of the workers; it must improve its content, its form and its
presentation.
38
We communists must concentrate on organising and directing the propaganda of the organisations of
the masses, and of the political fronts. We have the obligation of spreading the fight, and
revolutionary action, taking into account the nature of the organisation or institution in whose name
we are speaking.
Propaganda is the task of all communists, of the committee and of the cell, of revolutionaries, of the
masses themselves, and that is how it must be conceived and applied.
The understanding of the orientation is necessary so that the cell can elaborate and spread its specific
propaganda, directed at the particular social sector. This propaganda, referring to the particular
problems of the sector, using the language and style of the masses, must transmit the central
perspectives of the party, seeking their reception and acceptance, and their contribution to the
mobilisation and action of the masses.
Revolutionary propaganda also demands special teams, ideologically and politically armed, with
technical knowledge which takes into account the period and the methods.
The National Propaganda Commission must improve its structure, taking into account the need for
its stability and permanence, political and technical quality, and its responsibilities for leadership and
for implementation. The same goes for the provincial commissions and the propaganda teams of the
fronts and organisations of the masses.
Organising the struggle for popular power and for socialism
For proletarian revolutionaries the question of power is the key of revolutionary activity.
We must work to educate the popular masses, the workers and peasants, the city poor, the teachers
and the youth about the necessity of the struggle for power. Every social, material and political
conquest by the workers signifies spiritual and material benefits, but these results are ephemeral as
long as the bourgeoisie can disregard them, or make the workers themselves pay for them: increased
salaries, for example, are of no use in combating the ever-increasing cost of living. The workers
must take control of everything -they must be able to organise labour, the state, and the law, and they
can only benefit from the fruits of their labour if they have power. Without power, social gains are
always partial, because they can always be annulled.
The political struggle for power must express itself daily in every situation. Communists must
politicise every opportunity.
The denunciation of the oppression and repression of imperialism and the bourgeoisie, combating
corruption in the bourgeois state, not only in its factions, the exposure of institutions, the unmasking
of the “political class”, and of the oligarchy and its operations, the struggle against the anti-popular
policies of every government and of the capitalist regime as a whole are expressions of the policy of
the proletariat and its party, and manifestations of the struggle for power.
The political struggle requires the active participation of the party and its forces in every area of
contention for power, in the elections within the masses’ organisations, in the disputes between
democratic organisations, in the elections of representative democracy. The political struggle
requires the use of every form of struggle. The political struggle requires preparation for the
insurrection, the education of the party and its forces, and of the masses regarding the use of
revolutionary violence.
39
The struggle for power involves the clarification and understanding of its nature. Popular power
signifies a new situation, that is to say the assumption by the popular masses under the leadership of
the working class of political power at a general level, which implies the defeat of the ruling classes,
and their replacement by the people in power. Popular power is incompatible with the existence of
the armed forces of the bourgeoisie. Popular power must overcome the establishment and forge a
new order, corresponding with the interests of the popular masses. Popular power is incompatible
with capitalist exploitation, and is opposed to the political oppression of the masses/ Popular power
means full democracy, the active participation of the masses, of the revolutionaries, the fighters and
leaders in the working out of the plans and programmes of government. Popular power signifies the
forging, the construction of a new society. Popular power is the road, the door for the society of
workers, for socialism.
The claims, the ideas that a municipal seat, a mayorship, parliamentary deputies, the leadership of
institutions or leading responsibilities in the organisations of the masses are indications of popular
power are mistaken; they correspond to a simplistic conception of power. Power has to be exercised
and cannot be subordinate to the capitalist system, to bourgeois laws, to the establishment. For this
reason, these positions are platforms for the exercise of revolutionary politics, raising them to other
levels, towards the subversion of the bourgeois state. They represent trials and stages towards what
will become popular power.
It is clear that communists and revolutionaries must fulfil the responsibilities that have been
accorded us, that we must work capably and honestly, with firmness, to demonstrate to the masses
the correctness of our politics, the justification that we have to direct society’s destiny. The
fulfilment of political responsibility in these positions, must convert itself into a glass-case (test-
tube) to affirm our relationship with the masses, a stage in the process of the accumulation of
revolutionary forces.
The party views these positions, such as deputy, for revolutionary politics, as a means of
contributing to the organisation, education and struggle of the people. This means that our
representatives must make every effort to be the voice of the workers, the standard-bearers of the
left; they must denounce the insults of the bourgeoisie, denounce corruption and deceit. We must
take advantage of the cracks in bourgeois democracy in order to conspire against the system. We
must make our representatives stand out for their courage and intelligence, for their firmness and
initiative - they must show themselves as worthy representatives of the people, so that the masses,
the electorate, feel proud of having them there. They must seek leadership through firmness and
resolution in the proposing of ideas and in answering the problems of the people. They must
demonstrate what communists and revolutionaries will do when they conquer power, that is to say,
they must demonstrate their capability in their roles.
To understand and to work so that every action, every confrontation with the enemy, every concrete
struggle, becomes a battle for the revolution, a stage in the process of accumulation of revolutionary
forces which can serve to strengthen the political and ideological education of the masses, to
strengthen their organisation, which means the affirmation and development of revolutionary and
socialist influence, which contributes to the forging of self-defence and to the growth of the party -
all this signifies struggling at every moment and in every action for power.
To promote the revolution, socialism and communism, to propagandise for the Party, to make its
leaders and militants stand out, to gain in their authority in relation to the working class and the
people, all this signifies struggling for popular power.
To advance in the ideological, political and organic construction of the party of the proletariat means
struggling every day for political power.
December 1996
M-L Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE)
40
FRANCE
* (TABLES ARE NOT INCLUDED)
Reflections on the class analysis: The position and the role

of the workers of transport and communication industries
What is the meaning of the particular attention we are giving to the workers of these two industrial
sectors?
The class analysis we have developed in a report published at the third Congress of our Party (March
1989) led us to classify the labourers of transport and communication among the “proletariat of the
service sector” (page 23). We added more precisely that “they are services directly linked to the
process of production:
- transport of:
- raw materials (rail -SNCF-, road carriage -truck drivers-, etc.),
- manpower,
- finished and ready to be sold products,
- products within the company or among companies dealing in the same process of production (fork-
lift truck drivers, storekeepers);
-industrial conditioning (particularly in the food industry);
- heavy vehicle drivers;
- industrial cleaning and maintenance”.
Later (page 27), we have dealt with the “semi-proletariat” as follows: “Are also part of the semi-
proletariat workers who are not employed for productive tasks, but whose wages and working
conditions approximate to those of the working class. They are, for instance, the packers of the mail
sorting centres, hospital agents, lower rank employees in public and private administration services”.
Finally, we encountered various difficulties in drawing up a thorough analysis of the tele-

communications sector workers.
These lacks in accuracy and errors have to be raised off today, so much as these classes of workers
are both numerous and amidst industrial sectors of which economical influence is getting day after
day more serious.
Besides, these are sectors in which wide restructuring plans, backed by private take-overs, are taking
place along with cuts in appointments and where working conditions are worsening as time goes on.
Transport and communication workers have in many ways and more than one time demonstrated
their fighting spirit. The 1995 and 1996 massive strikes have largely proved it (see our article
published in the former issue of Unity and Struggle).
1. THE TRANSPORT INDUSTRY: A CONSIDERABLE BRANCH OF INDUSTRIAL

PRODUCTION
Let us first make it clear that the one feature of the transportation industry lies on the fact that it
belongs to the different branches of industrial production. This characteristic tends to be hidden by
the expression “services” that the official listings generally employ. Such a lexical designation is
linked to the nature of this branch where, unlike the other industrial sides of the economy, the
process of production does not result in new material concrete goods. In his specific study of the
industry of transportation, K. Marx points out: “The useful effect is inseparably connected with the
41
process of transportation, i.e., the productive process of the transport industry. Men and goods travel
together with the means of transportation, and this travelling, this locomotion, constitutes the process
of production effected by these means. The useful effect can be consumed only during this process
of production. It does not exist as a utility different from this process, a usething which does not
function as an article of commerce, does not circulate as a commodity, until after it has been
produced.
(...) The formula for the transport industry would therefore be:
since it is the process of production itself that is paid for and consumed, not a product separate from
it” (Capital, vol.2, The process of circulation of capital, Chapter I: The circuit of money-capital,
section IV: The circuit as a whole, International Publishers, New York, 1967, p.54).
(In the formula given above M, C, L, MP, P, M’ and C’ designate each respectively Money,
Commodity, Labour, Means of Production, Process of production, increased Money and increased
Commodity).
For transport industries, the process of production of this distinctive “commodity” whose useful
effect is transfer involves the purchase of the labour forces that will set the means of production in
motion.
Trucks, trains, planes, ships and all the necessary fuels, roads, railways and infrastructures out of
which no transfer could ever be effected, are the means of production of transport industries.
These items are illustrated in the following overall table:
It stems therefore that the workers who implement the means of production of the industry of
transports do create surplus-value that the possessor of the means of production of this industry
seize. That is so regardless of the nature of the articles conveyed. Be they men travelling for pleasure
or commodities in the process of being produced or else commodities that the industrial capitalist is
conveying to be sold in the market.
The distinctive position of the industry of transports; the consumption of the useful
effect of transport
We speak of “productive consumption” of the useful effect of transport to stress that the value of
such useful effect may end up being added to the value of the commodity subject to transportation:
“If it is consumed productively so as to constitute by itself a stage in the production of the
commodities being transported, its value is transferred as an additional value to the commodity”
(ibid.). This is the case for “the displacement of the object of labour and of the means of labour”,
which happens in the frame of the process of production of a given commodity. Carrying raw and
auxiliary materials or commodities in the process of being produced from a production site to
another belongs to this frame.
On the other hand, since the “use-value (of commodities -note of the authors) is materialised only in
their consumption, their consumption may necessitate their change of location, hence may require an
additional process of production, in the transport industry” (ibid., Chapter VI, The costs of
circulation, section 3 -Costs of transportation-, p.153). It is therefore a matter of “the passage of the
finished products from the sphere of production to that of consumption. The product is not ready for
consumption until it has completed these movements” (ibid.). This displacement is necessary for the
produced commodity to be sold. These are unavoidable costs of production. In this case also, the
42
addition of a productive process results in transferring an additional value to the commodity being
displaced.
Individual consumption is unproductive. It is that of a person using a means of transport to move

from one location to another; “if it (the useful effect produced by the industry of transport, that is the
transfer -note of the authors) is consumed individually its value disappears during its consumption”
(ibid., p.54)
The displacement of the labour force, as such, is the last case. Here is question of transportation of
the workers (labour forces) going to their place of work. This transport figures when the value of the
labour force is computed, in the same way as whatever is necessary for the conservation and the
recurrence of labour forces. When they claim forcefully to be paid a “transport allowance”, the
workers make an implicit demand, that the displacement home-working place and back be fully
considered when computing the value of their labour force.
How is the magnitude of the useful effect -transfer- value computed?
“The exchange-value of this useful effect is determined, like that of any other commodity, by the
value of the elements of production (labour power and means of production) consumed in it plus the
surplus-value created by the surplus-labour of the labourers employed in transportation” (ibid.).
How does the magnitude of the value that the costs of transport add to the commodities being carried
(in the case of productive consumption due to transport) vary?
As for any branch of industry, “the productivity of labour is inversely proportional to the value
created by it. (...) The smaller the amount of dead and living labour required for the transportation of
commodities over a certain distance, the greater the productive power of labour, and vice versa”
(ibid., p.153). It is in direct proportion with the weight of the commodity, with its volume. Yet it
rises in equal terms if its handling, its conveying conditions, etc. require additional labour and means
of labour. This is namely the case of the transport of delicate products for which specific
conditioning and packaging are needed, of perishable or danger causing goods, etc.
The expansion of capitalism went along with a considerable growth in commodity circulation, hence
in the industries of transport. “With the development of capitalist production, the scale of production
is determined less and less by the direct demand for the product and more and more by the amount
of capital available in the hands of the individual capitalist, by the urge of self-expansion inherent in
his capital and by the need of continuity and expansion of the process of production” (ibid., p.147).
Capitalism “educes the costs of transportation of the individual commodity by the development of
the means of transportation and communication, as well as by the concentration -increasing scale- of
transportation” (ibid., p.154). However an ever larger part of social labour must be devoted to this
branch. This is expressed by the more and more significant means of transportation used to displace
large volumes of goods over long distances with less and less labour forces. This is due, in
particular, to the further automation of the process of production in the transportation industry along
with an increase in the intensity of labour.
The hypertrophy of the transportation branch is causing serious damages on the environment. Road,
rail and air networks constitute the main streams for draining commodities, raw and auxiliary
materials and men into markets and sites of production. They, hence, bring about a further uneven
growth among regions, countries and groups of countries.
2. THE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES

43
a) La Poste (mail state company)
It must first be remarked that K. Marx makes no fundamental difference between transportation
industries and communication industries [“(...) the communications industry, weather engaged in
transportation proper, of goods and passengers, or in the mere transmission of communications,
letters, telegrams, etc.” (ibid., p.53)]. Why so?
Let us start with the case of the company that transports letters, packages, etc., in other words La
Poste. Its parenthood with a transportation company is obvious. Indeed, is there any difference
between the labour of mailmen, whose tasks are to forward and dispatch letters contained in
mailbags that must be transported in trucks, trains or aeroplanes, and that of men working for a
transportation company? The differences stand more for the nature of the transported items than for
the nature of labour and of the means of labour. In both cases, displacement from one place to
another is produced. This change of location requires labour forces ready to set the means of
production into action. The specific nature of the objects being transported -namely letters and
packs- and mainly the fact that this transportation company must be able to guarantee their
distribution from any part to any other part of the country under strict security and steadiness
conditions, led this branch of the transportation industry to be entrusted to a company for which the
State guarantees a particular status.
In France, royal mail-coach services were entrusted to individuals by the king Henry III as soon as
1576. But it is not until 1801 that the State was officially charged of the whole control of mail
transportation. In 1837 was the turn of telecommunications. However, that the State possess the
means of productions does not alter the capitalist nature of this company.
The table of the transportation industry shown formerly still holds on the whole for “La Poste” (it is
agreed that we are here dealing with the “mailing” operations and not with its financial ones).
(*) Electronics and computers sprung tardily at La Poste. In France, the turning point happened in
1971-74 when automatic sorting centres (ASC) were built. Manufactured by Toshiba, the automatic
sorting machines took the place of the manual sorting tasks and the sorting compartments. ASC
building plans witnessed a sudden acceleration after the 1973 historical strike during which the
workers in the sorting centres (at that time the sorting tasks were manual) played a decisive role.
Employing hundreds of sorting workers and packers these centres were truly real factories where
collective labour was set on “brigades” scale. Automating sorting and packing tasks reduced the
number of labourers and led up to breaking off the brigades in much smaller size teams.
b)The telecommunications
Another large sector is that of telecom-munications. They produce signals (first, optical signals -
Chappeís telegraph-, then electric, radio electric signals, electronic flows, etc.). They transform
(modulate) them and dispatch them through a variety of means of transmission (cables, hertzian
network, satellites) that are related to one another by means of telecommunications networks.
These signals carry messages commonly named “information”. Yet, what we are dealing with is not
the content of these information but the process of labour that is needed for their forwarding (in the
same way as for the transportation industry: its productive nature is free of the nature of the
transported object). The productive labour consists in making that these equipment be constantly
available (maintenance) and once activated the signals be dispatched in the best conditions of speed,
reliability and regularity (traffic regulation activity). In accomplishing this job, the labourer creates
value. The capitalists, proprietors of the means of production, seize the surplus-value. (Here again
the content of the messages dispatched is not considered).
44
ON THE CONSUMPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AS A COMMODITY
That individual consumption of such commodity is a non productive consumption must be easily
understood. Hence, is there any productive consumption of communications as a commodity?
Let us look back again at what we have partly said about transportation that can be applied to
communications. The process of production of certain commodities does indeed require that be used,
in its general meaning, the industry of communications. Be they companies that deal with telephone
connections as well as those that set in movement specific means of transmission, such as TDF, or
satellite signal transmission companies, or all of them at once.
Let us consider the industries of television production. Their production (images and sound) must
travel until it reaches television receiving sets. The shape in which this production is sold (whatever
shape it takes: an inclusive TV licence fee, a subscription or any “free-choice” payment) has no
influence on the subject under study here. Moreover, TV images and sound may, themselves, have
undergone one or several acts of upstream transmissions before they are set to broadcast (such is, for
instance, the case of TV reports being forwarded from the cameraman to the TV studios before
broadcast). While they resort to means of production of the industries of communications, these
operations add value to the commodity produced by the TV production industry.
The first conclusion to be drawn from this study on overall questions is that the unpaid labour of
these two large branches workers, at least those who set the means of production into motion, create
surplus-value. They do therefore belong to the working class.
The working class is not homogeneous. Inside these big categories of transportation and
communications labourers, there are many objective differences. Thus the conceptions and the
behaviours acquire different shapes. Subject to a quasi-military structure and organisation, team
work inside the mail sorting centres is different from that of technicians working in an electronic
telephone centre. The formers will feel more “spontaneously” closer to the labourers of a large
company, whereas for the latters it would be very hard to position themselves inside the working
class. These differences may be accentuated at the subjective level. These workers take benefits from
their status of State employees or State labourers. The process of private take over going on now
throws all of this back over. But the decisive element of consciousness is class struggle through
which it progresses. The massive social movements of these last months have considerably helped
the mentalities to develop. As it was said by one of the train operators in December 1995: “at the
start of the strike, I felt I was a train driver. Later I felt I was a rail labourer. At last, I felt I was a
labourer”. That is what “All together against capital!” means.
Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF)

January 199
45
GERMANY
What is our standpoint towards the Peoples Republic of Korea

Solidarity with the anti-imperialist struggle - but there exists no “socialism” in North Korea.
About some tendencies of Marxist-Leninist parties
The conflict in South Korea, where students were terrorised by brutal state power because they
advocated for the reunification of Korea and for the withdrawal of the thousands of US soldiers, the
incident with the stranded North Korean submarine, etc. have moved this country into the centre of
world public opinion. Before that, permanent speculations were spread broadly about Kim Jong Il,
the son of the dead leader of the People’s Republic of Korea, as well as the Western mass media
longing for the collapse of North Korea which was infested by hard catastrophes and which did not
receive international help.
The Korean people is longing for reunification
It seems to be strange: There is a people struggling for decades for the reunification of their country,
and the international media keeps silent. It is the Korean people. Since the division of the country
imposed by the US in 1953, the majority of the Korean people desire the peaceful reunification. In
South Korea a fascist dictatorship was established to oppress this desire. Tens of thousands of people
have been arrested, hundreds of thousands have been attacked with police batons and tear gas. Many
people have died for this desire. A wall has been drawn through Korea from seaside to seaside. This
wall is more cruel and even more perfect than the Berlin Wall. It is guarded perfectly. It was
constructed by the government of South Korea and US imperialism. No one is allowed to go to
North Korea and no one is allowed to travel from the North to the South. At this wall often shots are
heard - coming from the South. Only with this brutal wall the South and US imperialism could
oppress the desire for reunification and the desire to visit relatives. Those who need such a wall must
have a lot of fear. When people were shot down at the Berlin Wall, when people from the German
Democratic Republic (GDR) were hindered to travel to the German Federal Republic, this was
pilloried as an injustice by the media. And this was right, as we think. Because our party, the KPD,
had rejected this wall, which was only built against its own people. The wall in Korea, built by the
dictatorship in the South and by US imperialism is much worse, higher, merciless and bloody.
For which side the hearts of the Korean people are beating, you can see by the behaviour of the
Koreans in foreign countries. They are not under the pressure of the dictatorship which depends on
US imperialism, and they are not under the influence of the government in the North. They can
decide freely. Above all, thousands of Koreans live in Japan, who were taken there as slaves during
the Second World War. About 90 per cent of them support the North, the Peoples Republic of Korea,
which is annoying the Japanese government and US imperialism. They travel to the North for visits;
they have contacts with their families; and they send money to the North. Japan has many times tried
to find ways of hindering these activities.
Why do the majority of the Koreans support the reunification and have a positive attitude towards
the Peoples Republic?
Well, the choice is simple: the South suffers under a bloody dictatorship. Only a short time ago,
many people all over the world saw how the students who only expressed their desire for
reunification were driven out of the university by brutal police attacks. At the same time, hundreds
of students and youth from North Korea were prevented by brutal violence from travelling to the
46
South. When thousands of citizens from the GDR were hindered to travel to West Germany, there
were international protests - and this was right, as we think. Now, when people from North Korea
are being hindered violently by the dictatorship in the South to travel to the South, the media accepts
this and keeps silent.
The dictatorship in the South
Particularly the workers and the lower strata in the South have no social insurance, no medical care
etc. Free trade unions and collective bargaining are not allowed - there exist only some trade unions
created by the capitalists. Strikes are beaten down by police and military. The country is a colony of
US imperialism. The dictatorship has to hold down the people and the wages; the US monopolies
exploit the country. And the German imperialism wants to take part in this.
The independent development in the North
On the other side, the North, the Peoples Republic, developed the economy and the society after the
liberation from the Japanese imperialism, and afterwards from the US imperialism. In the beginning
with the support of the socialist Soviet Union and the liberated China, and later relying on its own
forces, the North succeeded in developing its own independent national industry. Agriculture too
was developed collectively. Great projects like irrigation and melioration were realised in this way.
In the social sector all people received an education which was improved continually. Culture was
developed in accordance with the development of the country. Free medical care was introduced.
The right to work is a matter of course. Social security like pensions was guaranteed. This was a
clear and noticeable progress for the people. And the Koreans in the whole world could see the
difference between the independent, national development of the economy and society in the North
and the development dictated by imperialism in the South.
There is a significant difference to the situation in Germany: West Germany was in the beginning a
little partner of US imperialism; later on it became itself an imperialistic power. By this it could take
advantage from the exploitation of foreign countries and could give some privileges to the working
class (for example cheap imported goods, cheap travel to foreign countries, etc.). West Germany was
able give to the working class a better living standard than the GDR; in the beginning to some
extent, later more and more. Korea was always an exploited country under the hegemony of
imperialism. There was nothing to give privileges to the working class. The country was plundered,
and for the masses there was only poverty. With the liberation from imperialism the North has put an
end to this exploitation. Only this made the progress in the social sector possible.
Isn’t that socialism?
Work, livelihood, education, social security for all - these are very important attributes of socialism,
when it is put into practice correctly. But these are not the only attributes of socialism! Socialism is
more than this! The most important attributes of socialism are the dominance of the working class
and the struggle for a classless society. It is possible to make compromises and that there are
shortcomings, but in essence, the workers must have the power and their interests must rule the life
of the country. In essence, the struggle for a classless society, communism, must be noticeable. This
characteristic was and is not fulfilled in the Peoples Republic of Korea! The ruling party in North
Korea calls itself the Party of the Working People and pretends to build socialism in its specific way.
We have criticised the ideology of this party four years ago in the theoretical organ of the KPD,
“Weg der Partei”, with the title “Juche ideology of the North Korean leadership: Incompatible with
Marxism-Leninism”. We want to summarise this article once again.
47
The leadership of the Party of the Working People claims to be Marxist-Leninist. But at the same
time, they declare Marxism-Leninism to be insufficient and they “complete” it with the Juche
ideology of the dead Kim Il Sung.”The classics of Marxism-Leninism ... defined the nature of men
as an ensemble of social conditions”. (Kim Jong Il, On Juche ideology, Pyongyang, 1989, German
edition, p.2) In contrast to this, they assert, the Juche idea “considers the position of men and the role
he has in the world as the principal question of philosophy, and it has created the principle that man
is the master of the whole nature and decides everything.” (ibid., p.2). So man is no longer
“chained” to the social conditions, but in the contrary he is free and “master of the whole nature”.
Kim Jong Il has the idea that this is a newly-created concept by Juche ideology. To us this idea does
not seem to be very new. It originates from the time before Marx. It is an idea of the bourgeoisie,
who saw itself as the “master of the whole nature”. Such ideological additions to Marxism are not
new either. We remember that Professor Dühring put about all the free volition of men. And Engels
had refuted this 100 years ago. Especially today, in a period of crisis of the workers’ movement and
of a temporary retreat, such “holy ideologies” appear, which want to “renew” Marxism and convince
the individual that everything depends on his own will. In Germany for example, the Maoist MLPD
developed the theory that the petty bourgeois, respectively the proletarian consciousness decides
everything. Its closeness to Juche ideology is obvious. All these ideologies have one thing in
common: You need an instance, the leaders, who can decide about the “correct” consciousness. “The
essence of Juche ideology about revolution is the loyalty to the party and to the leader” (Kim Jong Il,
ibid., p.77). “In daily life we feel deeply that the ideas and the intentions corresponding with the
respective actions of the leader are of high conscience and are moral, because the leader represents
ideally the demands and the interests of the masses. Because of this, one calls the loyalty to the
leader the highest expression of communist morality.” (Ibid., p.193)
But this is clearly no communist morality! Communists have a clear programme and clear aims. All
actions can be assessed by this. Cult of the leader is contrary to these aims. Especially this is what
the communists want to overcome. And when social relations of power are still necessary they want
to overcome this. But in the quote of Kim Jong Il, nothing is said about this or about the temporary
necessity of it and the necessity to overcome it. He praises and wants to establish the everlasting rule
of men over men. What else is the “loyalty towards the leader”?
Clearly Juche ideology is not the ideology of emancipation, but the ideology of a ruling class who
wants to remain in power. Unfortunately, we do not have the means to investigate deeply the
economic and social conditions in North Korea. But it is clear that every idea - as well the Juche
ideology - has its roots in the class relations.
Korea was liberated at a time when socialism was strong and had a great attraction for the peoples.
In consequence of this strength and the success of socialism a lot of leaders of national liberation
movements called themselves “socialists”, though they were not, but they were close to the national
bourgeoisie. We cannot criticise them because of this. Often they were convinced of their way.
Anyway they desired a positive development by their liberation struggle and sometimes they reached
their aims. We remember the liberation struggle in Algeria, in Palestine or in Nicaragua. The
removal of the colonial oppression, the liberation from imperialism was a necessary step and was for
the benefit of the respective peoples. The strength of socialism often forced the national leaders of
the liberation struggles to promise social progress and to realise it in the case of victory to mobilise
the masses for the struggle against imperialism.
But social progress, even when it is great, is not “socialism” when it is not connected with the
struggle to advance to communism and with the power of the working class. In Korea, it seems that
under the special conditions of support by the Soviet Union under Stalin and of being close to the
liberated China, such a national, independent from imperialism, system with a national-revolutionary
strata at the top came into being. This strata was forced, in the struggle against the permanent and
48
great threat of imperialism, to give a lot of social progress to the people. Because without the support
of the masses this system would not be able to survive. And from the beginning it was clear that this
was a life-and-death struggle. This is because US imperialism till now has murdered or organised to
murder all national revolutionaries, even when they were bourgeois. You may take the example of
the bourgeois-national “socialist” Allende. For such forces there nearly exists no possibility of a
peaceful agreement with imperialism, because imperialism hates and persecutes any kind of
liberation as mortal sin. You must be ready to accept any humiliation like Arafat and make yourself
to be a sheriff of imperialism to come to a “peaceful” agreement for which the people has to pay. In
the critical situation in Korea, with the bloody fascist dictatorship in the South this never was
possible. So the curious situation appeared, where the system in North Korea could develop, which
has, on the one side, the character of feudalism (for example the heredity of power from the father to
the son), and on the other, some characteristics of socialism (for example the right to work, social
rights). Though this is no socialism, it has brought progress and options to the people, which were
impossible in the South under the rule of US imperialism and the cruel dictatorship. The
independence from imperialism and the independent economic development, this proves North
Korea, make possible the development of national economy and social progress for many small
countries, because imperialism gives them no chance of development.
Meanwhile, the North Korean leadership has made a lot of compromises with imperialism. Even a
socialist country would have been forced under the changed conditions in the world to make
compromises. But it is shown clearly that the ruling national strata in Korea is not principally against
exploitation: they create “special industrial zones” for foreign capital. This is not astonishing with a
national strata. National bourgeoisie always staggers in national liberation struggle and is ready for
compromises and even betrayal. We do not criticise the North Korean leadership because of this
attitude. But we state that this is in line with their class interests and that they do not act in the
interest of the working people as they pretend with their party’s name.
We as communists do not assess anyone by his words but by his deeds and by the reality. If there
anyone calls himself “socialist”, we are not forced to parrot this. But even when we refuse the
ideology of leaders of the North Korean leadership and their way of compromises with imperialism,
we see the reality and the progress that their system has brought to the people. Therefore we reject
all attempts of imperialism to overthrow this system and to spread his claws all over Korea. We
defend the right of the Korean people to reunification, to independence, and to handle their lives in
their own way. Therefore we are in solidarity with all anti-imperialistic efforts in Korea.
The Pyongyang Declaration
About four years ago, the Party of the Working People of Korea gathered a lot of parties which call
themselves socialist, communist or Marxist-Leninist in Pyongyang for a meeting. Most of these
parties came from the national liberation movement and were to some extent social democrats and to
some extent revisionists. Together with these parties, the Party of the Working People of Korea
announced the “Pyongyang Declaration” with a call to defend “socialism”. In the resolution it was
not declared which “socialism” was meant. But it seems obvious that it is this strange half-feudal
“socialism” in North Korea, which is no socialism but an anti-imperialist, bourgeois society with
specific characteristics. In the declaration they regret the setbacks of socialism and call to continue to
fight for socialism. This sounds well. As to the cause for all the setbacks, their argument is poor:
“One of the causes for the unsuccessful construction of socialism in some countries is that they did
not succeed in creating social structures to fulfil the needs of the popular masses and that they did
not build socialism according to the theory of scientific socialism.” These are only phrases! In Soviet
Union the social structures to fulfil the basic needs were already created in the 1920s and 30s. These
structures were destroyed! And even if this false thesis would be true, every Marxist-Leninist, every
materialist has to pose the question: Why? Why were these structures not built? And the argument
49
that the scientific theory of socialism was not applied, is not an explanation but only an appearance
on the surface! To hear such explanation form Korea, from the Party of the Working People is not
astonishing to us. A party which is not Marxist-Leninist, which is following the idealistic Juche
ideology, cannot work out a materialistic explanation of the failure of socialism, and cannot really
call for the defence of socialism. This party needs support for its anti-imperialist struggle, for the
struggle to survive against US imperialism and the dictatorship in the South. This is all right! They
must receive this support, but not by accepting their ideology and their concept of “socialism”.
But it seems strange to us that some Marxist-Leninist fraternal parties signed this declaration one
after the other. They say this would be solidarity with the People’s Republic of Korea and with the
Party of the Working People. Meanwhile, some of them went even further to call North Korea a
“socialist country”. How the veiling of the reality, an absurd “socialist” masquerade, the signing of
phrases can be “solidarity”? Solidarity with Korea in the fight for reunification and for national self-
determination -of course! But because of this speak of “socialism” or sign a declaration “for
socialism” together with North Koreans? Making themselves ridiculous in front of the progressive
workers? No, thank you! We think that this does not only pose the danger of putting the Marxist-
Leninists in a ridiculous position in front of the progressive workers. It also melts Marxism-
Leninism with different, curious, and sectarian trends, and at the end gives it up.
After the collapse of the degenerated states of Eastern Europe and of Albania we do not need
blurring and confusion about “socialism”, but we need a clarification about its character, its basic
essence and a clear materialistic investigation and explanation about its failure and about the
necessary consequences in the future. Declarations like the Pyongyang Declaration do not help us to
advance, but on the contrary they draw us back and damage Marxism-Leninism.
A final remark: In their effort to get support the North Korean leadership is not co-operating only
with Marxist- Leninists. In 1995 a group of neo-nazis visited North Korea by invitation. These were
neo-nazis out of the most evil terrorist fascist groups existing in Germany. They call themselves
“national socialists” and use the old fascist demagogy of a ‘national and social movement” and of
“German socialism”. They wanted to get to know the “national socialism of Korea”. By invitation of
the “Academy of Juche Science” these fascists, who all are members of the “Society for the
Propaganda of Juche Ideology in Germany”, visited North Korea in April 1995 for two weeks. They
were even welcomed by a secretary of the CC of the Party of Working People. Afterwards the
fascists praised the “national socialism” of Korea in whole Germany. Nice friends!
Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
50
ITALY
The century coming will be the century of the revolutionary

communist proletariat
Intervention of Ubaldo Buttafava at the Moscow Conference of the International Centre for the
Development of Modern Communist Doctrine
Lenin’s famous definition on social classes underlines, among others, certain aspects: the position in
the historically determined system of production, the relationship with the means of production, the
method by which and the extent to which they obtain their share of social wealth. Does this
definition still hold good nowadays? It is difficult to contradict it, but as we know the modern
ideologies of imperialism in their effort to overcome previous ideologies, affirm that the working
class no longer exists, or least that its economic function is not determined through growth and
profit. Among these “theories” there are several which describe themselves as “leftist” and even
“communist”. The political objective of such sophistrists is evident, even though it is impossible for
bourgeois and revisionist economists to deny the Marxist-Leninist thesis according to which:
“Capital is nothing apart from waged labour, without value, without money and without price.”
The denial of the role and even of the very existence of the proletariat, in particularly in the western
world, has enormous implications in every field of social activity. This “theory” was conceived in
order to hide exploitation, class struggle, the need for revolution and for the dictatorship of the
proletariat; this last being essential in order to raise humanity from pre-history to the new communist
civilisation. Nevertheless, Khrushchev himself denied, as his successors still do, the determining role
of the working class and made this denial the central pivot of their chauvinist bourgeois and class
collaborationist policies.
In the West, the nucleus of this reactionary theory is based on the following concepts: wage labour is
no longer the source of value and surplus value (it is the intellect which is the dominant form of the
power of labour); in the era of the communication “revolution”, profit is the result of the speed with
which technical-scientific changes are incorporated in production; The revolution in the means of
production has changed not only the forms of labour, but also the economic substance of the
relationship between capital and labour (that is to say labour time is no longer the measure of wealth
produced). But the modern alchemists at the service of the old world cannot change reality: In
today’s world there exist the biggest army that history has ever known, a thousand million members
of the proletariat. World imperialism -which has extended the capitalist mode of production across
the whole planet and at the same time ensured the rule of a small oligarchy of monopolistic finance
capital- has entered into a general crisis which is permanent and without a solution. Now Stalin’s
statement has become even more relevant: “Today we have to speak of the existence of objective
conditions for revolution in the entire system of the imperialist world economy, considered as a
single front in so far as the system is global, this system is now ripe for revolution”, and the
statement of Enver Hoxha “the revolution is now a question which demands a solution.” All the
tendencies inherent in imperialism which were indicated by Lenin have developed to their maximum
level according to inevitable laws; the so-called globalisation and information revolution of the
economy are the ultimate expression of the domination of national financial monopoly capital. The
collapse of the Brejnev social imperialism gave way to a new offensive by imperialism, called
globalisation, in an attempt to save the position of finance capital and to preserve the rate of profit,
by means of liberalism (that is the free circulation of currencies, of capital, of trade, and of labour),
the information revolution, the technological revolution, and the interdependence of markets and of
production.
51
Marx and Engels in the Communist Party Manifesto had already described this globalisation, and
now history repeats itself on a massively wider and deeper scale, and with new consequences.
National and multi-ethnic states are entering crisis; the international division of labour condemns
whole continents to hunger, reduces the productive and technical-scientific base to a few capitalist
enclaves, concentrates capital and science in a few countries, hindering the development of others
which were once making progress; and inter-imperialist rivalry sharpens the contrasts and puts in
danger the hegemony of the old powers. Economic liberalism is eliminating the “welfare state”
(health, pensions, education); it attacks waged worker with the flexibility of the new market in
labour and part-time working, transforming him/her into a dependant on welfare; it eliminates
security of employment, causing an enormous amount of unemployment in the industrialised
countries and under-employment in the countries of the second and third world with miserable
wages. The power of finance capital and the threat of the public debt are destroying all illusions in
revisionism and in social democracy.
With ever greater frequency there is talk of an “implosion”, that is to say of a crumbling from inside
of the industrialised powers and there is unrealistic discussion about a reduction in working hours,
and the employment of the unemployed in “public works”, and other measures. In the US, while
Clinton congratulates himself on the increase in real wages and the reduction of unemployment to
5.1 per cent, the real salaries of unskilled workers have fallen by 13 per cent in the last 23 years, and
the third of the labour force is unemployed, under-employed or lives from day to day. Social
polarisation is assuming planetary dimensions and is impoverishing huge stratas of the middle class
in the imperialist centres. The contrast between manual and intellectual labour has taken on dramatic
aspect, partly because it imposes technical-scientific underdevelopment in some areas, partly
because it condemns whole people and nations to total dependency on cosmopolitan models of life
and culture.
The working class in the new productive processes has lost many of its professional abilities forced
into new forms of alienation. This phenomenon linked to casual labour and growing material and
cultural poverty, is not the only phenomenon which shows how imperialism destroys productive
forces, the wealth of the planet and life itself. Imperialism consists of the exporting of capital and of
trade while production finance from abroad goes in search of ever lower costs leaving behind it
devastated agriculture economies and urban suburbs full of unemployment.
The bourgeoisie and its intellectuals are aware of the weakness of the capitalist system, but they do
not believe in any superior civilisation, not dominated by the “eternal” laws of the jungle. Their
prevails the theory of “endism”, the end of history, of ideology, of labour, of politics, of the state, of
art, of science, of the family, of the human race, and even of the world itself. In reality, what is dying
is capitalism, mortally wounded as a result of its own laws. Capitalist imperialism is putting an end
to those democratic liberties which in the form historically conceived by the bourgeoisie have shown
themselves to be insufficient for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat: Today, freedom and
democracy as demands have a diverse content because the class struggle is situated on a higher level.
Faced with the glaring reality which the bourgeois ideologists cannot face, what is the progressive
alternative towards radical change? What is the force, what social actor can prevent a new dark age,
the break up of society characterised by local and world wars by genocide, poverty, racism,
nationalism, and moral and cultural degeneration? The only revolutionary force, which has nothing
to lose, which has the determining role in the economy and which aspires to progress is always and
continues to be the proletariat! But this class, in order to assume its historical role in the new
conditions of globalisation, needs to fulfil the following requirements:
- Reclamation in rigorous and scientific terms of Marxism-Leninism, in particular of the ideas of

comrade Stalin and comrade Enver Hoxha, who have made a significant contribution to our
52
understanding of the modern forms of opportunism and of revisionism, especially at the point of
taking power.
- The development of Marxist-Leninist theory so that our analysis corresponds with the new forms
of imperialist reality, especially in relation to the development and functioning of finance capital and
of the international monopolies; also with the regional political and military strategy of the old and
the new great powers; with the imperialist political economy and the international division of labour
and in relation to waged labour and employment; also to the bourgeois democratic political crisis
and the crisis of culture; to the use of science; and to the manipulation of the “leftist” parties and of
the trade unions tail-ending the monopolies.
- The deepening of class analysis on an international scale, above all with respect to the metropolitan
urban workers, who today have acquired a social weight superior to that of the poor peasants, and
who suffer conditions of life similar to those of the proletariat; and the massive phenomenon of the
degradation and loss of social position of whole strata of the proletariat.
- The creation on the basis of the policies of the United Proletarian Front and of the United
Democratic Front, of mass organisations which will embed themselves in the various social strata
and in the various spheres of the ideological super-structure.
-Flexible tactics in order to act among the masses whether or not they are organised, achieving on a
daily basis in specific way the development of a strategy without distortions and which adheres to
concrete reality.
- The creation with the agreement of the masses of class-based trade unionists, continuing at the
same time with the skilful and complex tasks inside the conservative and reformist trade unions in
order to discredit their policies to isolate the bureaucracy and to bring the workers closer to anti-
capitalist positions.
- However, above all the proletariat needs a Leninist Party, a vanguard which recruits the best of the
class. A party of the masses (not overcrowded) with organic class leaders, capable and single minded
on the theoretical level, and organised on a cellular basis in the factories and in the area. A party for
class struggle, able to adapt itself speedily to every form of struggle and to all the ebbs and tides of
the situation. A party which is strongly centralised and democratic, with an iron discipline, finally a
Bolshevik party in the sense that Stalin has shown us.
History in these decades, before and after the death of Stalin, has demonstrated with extreme priority
how fundamental is the struggle to prevent the petit bourgeois “revolutionary” theories taking hold
in the party and gaining strength.
In trying to ascertain the fundamental cause of our defeats, we would say that the proletariat and the
party have suffered defeat when the ideology of those stratas and social groups which are alien to the
proletariat have taken the leadership of our movement: This happened for example in the USSR with
the Ogdanov Jereshenko Khrushchev current; in China with the thoughts of Mao Tsetung; and in
Italy with the bukharinist Togliatti.
In conclusion, the globalisation of the economy, the result of the general crisis of finance capital,
demands a new internationalism, the unity of the proletariat and of the people.
A global strategy, a re-affirmation without confusion of the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. A
general line which should make out of every party of the working class in every country and of every
people, a division of the revolutionary army which will destroy imperialism. Otherwise, the global
53
strategy of the reactionary forces will dominate for a long period. Only a theoretical and political
alternative capable of mobilising the masses will be able to prevent catastrophes to end the agony of
imperialism and to isolate the opportunists.
The crisis of bourgeois democracy and the development of capitalism on the planetary scale
demands of us the setting out of political proposals which are more advanced in the economic and
social content.
We must counterpoise to “endism” in concrete, the communist objectives which prefigure the
dictatorship of proletariat. Only in this way can we guide again the masses towards struggle. It is
through the great ideals of communist liberty, of social equality, of the affirmation of the hopes of
the nations and peoples that the Communist Movement can achieve hegemony.
The objective conditions are working in our favour, social conflicts continue to explode across the
world; we have to ensure that these are not led by their respective national bourgeoisies or
manipulated by imperialism as part of their internal rivalries.
Thus, it is and it will be the working class which will facilitate the birth of new world. From its
ideology there will come a new humanism and a moral and cultural rebirth. Let us go forward then
towards the barricades of class struggle; the century which is about to begin will be the century of
proletarian communist revolution!
Organisation for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy
November 1996
54
MEXICO
The party considering the workers’ question

Some problems in relation to the capitalist development
We wish to start with some reflections with respect to the current situation of the productive forces
in order to align the role of the vanguard of the working class in confrontation with the bourgeois,
revisionist and opportunist postulates trying to undermine the historical universal role of the
proletariat in distracting this production system.
Some time ago, a Maoist activist said: “Let us hurry up with organising the proletariat before we
shall have to do so with the robots!” It is obvious that the bourgeois influence on that comrade made
itself felt although he preserves his preoccupation with revolutionary activity. However, we cannot
really afford to forget the matter and to formally ascribe it to simple bourgeois influence. Hidden
behind it is a real symptom intelligently used by the enemy camp. It is not a simple propagandist
swindle but a fact distorted by the bourgeois interest. We might call it a mystification of the current
development of the productive forces, and of course, we cannot content ourselves with simply
understanding the matter and with then considering it closed. It is evident that with respect to it,
already enough has been written. We have to understand it in view of the execution of a programme
(what is normal in every ideological position), of a practice in accordance with our conclusions
adjusted to reality.
Marxism is to prove correct with respect to new symptoms of production. Thus, such symptoms
usually are projected onto all facets of society and, in this manner, Marxism proves in confrontation
with theories and conceptions emerging within the bourgeois camp with respect to the new
symptoms. Declarations that Marxism-Leninism will overcome them do not suffice. It is necessary
to demonstrate such superiority in conflict. In this way only, our theory will continue to develop.
We are far from any intellectualist pretension. For our party, this problem involves necessary and
unavoidable conclusions for revolutionary activity. For this reason, we have really to scrape the
barrel.
What is this new situation, and what role corresponds to the working class in it?
Without any doubt, we are referring ourselves to the scientific technical revolution which is executed
in the present day and age, and which has changed the physiognomy of capitalism somewhat
(certainly for aggravating its contradictions). We refer to the development of robotics, electronics,
informatics, to the creation of intermediary disciplines in the sciences (cybernetics, biochemistry,
biophysics etc.) and to the new advances of mechanisation and fuels which have changed the aspect
of capitalism by profounding the division of labour, developing the productive forces and thus
increasing the social product during the last 40 years, which resulted in the arise of new branches of
productive activities and in proletarization not of thousands but of millions of human beings.
This phenomenon is contemplated with great ecstasy by the capitalists who took their own
conclusions from it, even more due to the decline of the capitalist-revisionist bloc led by the ex-
USSR. For the bourgeoisie, all is resumed more or less in the following:
“The human ideological fight is replaced by economic calculation, the interminable solution of
technical problems, the environmental matters and the satisfaction of the consumers’ complex
demands.” (Francis Fukuyama, The End of History?)
55
There is one aspect which always must fail to be noticed by the lovers of the capitalist system and by
those enthused about the (nevertheless) limited scientific-technical revolution of capitalism - a
revolution seen by them as something “out of control” and as “proper nature” of the system. This
aspect is the fact that, within the vulgar dialectics of the bourgeois sciences, they have embedded the
most clumsy metaphysics regarding the paralysation of thinking in the current orbit of bourgeois
thinking, in the intellectual reproduction of the production relations as being eternal and immutable.
The exploitation and suppression relations are for them something always given and immutable, not
subject to changes. The only thing subject to change is the reinforcement of the enslaving chains
between human beings, so that, in the item of ideas, such relations are not to be given up but have
always to be governed by the patterns of the bourgeois interest for all the facets of life. In the item of
ideas, the only thing being variable (according to them) is the degree of bourgeois degeneration and
the number of tricks grabbed by the capitalists in order to exploit the employees. For thinking which
follows this bourgeois conception, the really existing matters are: no qualitative changes for the
production relations; no possibilities of alteration in any way which would not be bourgeois. As we
see, these gentlemen are, with body and soul, obedient servants to the Lord who dashed all other
Gods to the ground. And they recommend us that:
“Those who believe that future must inevitably be socialist have a tendency towards being very old
or very marginal for the real political discourse (...); the end of history inaugurates the post-historical
period where neither arts nor philosophy will be, except for the perpetual validity of the museum of
human history.” (ibid.)
Sufficient rubbish is what the technocrats talk, isn’t it? Let us give them the cold shoulder, humanity
will have enough time for making fun of their follies or for further not taking note of them unless
with contempt.
Mr. Fukuyama is rather late or, in any case, he is not the first. The capitalists have always used the
whole technical development for perpetuating their rule without further getting ready for thinking
that they, behind such development, are preparing the ground for digging their own graves when
recruiting enormous contingents of the huge crowd of the most radical class of the capitalist system.
The capitalists fail to understand that they, just in modern production, are disciplining the class
which is the less interested in preserving the current social relations, the productive class, the class
without which they would not have been able to establish this giant rule, the class without which
they cannot maintain their own rule for longer than just a minute. The capitalists seem to account to
themselves neither for the enormous example they give the workers nor for the capability of the
productive forces nor for the lack of necessity of their own presence as exploiting class for a really
humane development. Because the capitalists have always accepted the idea that the scientific-
technical development “is a self-sufficient process provoking a social revolution of the property
relations in a totally independent manner.” (N.A. Tsagolov, Critique of the Reformist and
Revisionist Economic Theories of the Contemporary Bourgeoisie). Thus, when arriving at this point,
we cannot help examining in summary the reasons of the scientific-technical development which
have already been identified by the classical authors of Marxism-Leninism.
The founders of the scientific theory of the class struggle said:
“The bourgeoisie cannot exist unless under the condition of incessantly revolutionising the
production instruments and, in consequence, the production relations and, with this, all relations. (...)
A continuous revolution in production, an incessant commotion of all social conditions, a
restlessness and a constant movement distinguish the bourgeois era from all prior eras. (...) People
will, in the event, be forced to clearly consider their own conditions of existence and their mutual
relations.” (Marx-Engels, Communist Manifesto)
56
The capitalists do not commit faux pas; they are not guided by any noble interest of improving the
conditions of life and work for the masses unless redoubling the exploitation in order to extract an
increased surplus value from them and to not run into the danger of being replaced by any
competitors. Therefore, although not at every moment, they promote the development of the means
of production and the qualification and maximum performance of the workforce and they avail
themselves of the best qualities of their technical, scientific, administrative personnels and of the
working class’ experience in work in order to increase the production in a constant shape (although
limited by competition, market and control over the sciences by monopolies for every specific period
of the cyclic life of capitalism).
Production is not controlled in accordance with the “general” aims integrating the human race but by
particular aims of those who hold the means and instruments of production in their hands. Private
property serves for increasing the private property only.
But what is it that has prepared the ground for starting the means and methods of production? Is it
nothing but a question of intellect, experience and provisions for not losing?
“Firstly, we must not forget that a great market, an extensive capitalist base in production is
prerequisite; secondly, a wide and complex effort of co-operation in working is prerequisite.” (Karl
Marx, The Capital, vol.1)
And thirdly, such co-operation is not really possible unless on the base of high concentration and
centralisation of capital. The most modern means and methods of production require, on a large
scale, major capital expenditure starting out on the anticipation that profits will be gained and that it
will be possible to maintain the production. The problem that the new means and methods of
production might not get their way definitely and absolutely with the desired impact consists in the
enormous quantity of resources implied by this fact, in the large extent of the precedent machinery
and, logically, in the capitalists’ interest.
Robotization, automation, computerisation and innovation of other - accompanying or separate -

processes and methods of production necessitate high concentration and centralisation of capital
resources at an international level in order to prevail definitely after having secured their
predominance and indispensable efficiency, after having “exhausted” the other forms of exploitation
and after the steps into offensive, co-ordinated action having become indispensable.
The most important conditions for technical revolution, and from now on, are as follows:
“By destroying the general bases of the capitalist system, the accumulation process comes always to
a point where the increment of the productivity of socially working is converted into the most
powerful lever of accumulation (the only purpose of the way of capitalist production).
(...) The mass of means of production with which a worker is working will increase with the increase
of the productivity of his work. The means of production here play a double role. The increment of
the ones is effect, the increment of the others is the determining condition of the increasing
productivity of work.
(...) By increasing the mass of richness which operates as capital, he increases its concentration in
the hands of the individual capitalists and, by doing so, the base for production on large scale and for
the specifically capitalist methods of production.” (Karl Marx, The Capital, vol.1)
The result consists in an advance in the degree and intensity of exploitation of the workers by the
capital and in an increment of the mass of benefits in the hands of the lord of capital. Such scientific
57
revolution we shall gear ourselves mentally for as our liberation within the frame of capitalism will
become the contrary of liberation, will strengthen our fetters and demonstrate us the fact that, whilst
we ignore their nature as class, whilst we forget the matter of private property of the means of
production and thus the matter of power, the shaping of the class interests for the proletariat and for
all exploited and suppressed masses will ever stay pending till kingdom come.
They say that Marx’ saying has a more certain value for our period than for the period in which it
was said. This includes a very truth insofar as capitalism has exactly gone the way Marx exposed
and anticipated capitalism would go. But we will not surrender to subjectivism believing that Marx
had orientated himself by seeing things only which did not yet exist. Here we have to operate with
care and to preserve the essence of Marx’ contributions, the study and application of dialectics which
served him for discovering the general laws of capitalism and its future implications. It is the same
laws we can find excellently described in The Capital, in the chapter about the original accumulation
where Marx said:
“(...) In parallel to this centralisation or exploitation of a huge number of capitalists by some few
ones, on a larger and larger scale, the co-operative formation of the work process is developing, as
well as are developing: the conscient technological application of science, the methodical
exploitation of the earth, the transformation of the means of working into means which can only be
used jointly, and the economy of all means of production in order to be used as means of production
of combined work, of socially working, the linking of all peoples by the net of world market and, as
a consequence of this, the international character of the capitalist order.”
Okay, up to here, we may agree on the bases of modern capitalist production, on the fact that it has
been the working class which maintains capitalist production. But “from now on in future”, all
depends whether we will reach agreement on the protagonist role of proletariat in these new
conditions of production.
For the capitalists and their henchmen, the scientific-technical revolution which has formed a further
chain link in the production concerning the direction of the production process known as automation
(although this is not the only link it has formed) fully brings the bourgeois conclusion to light that
this chain link will be capable of eliminating the class antagonisms without eliminating the classes.
That means: capable of attenuating the contradiction between capital and work, capable of changing
the proletarian radicalism by “new” production relations where efficiency, effectivity and
productivity are all and where the class interests of the proletariat are a throw-away article, in
addition to erecting this revolution as if it has already announced its arrival in a self-regulated
process beyond the laws of capitalism and beyond the activity of the working class, beyond the
supposed loss of the proletariat’s protagonist role for a revolutionary transformation of society, this
loss allegedly being caused by the said process and by the potentiality of the modern means of
production.
Exactly the opposite is the case:
“(...) The scientific-technical revolution, which requires a much higher quality in working,
objectively heightens the role of the working class in production, in the whole system of social
relations. By the progress of science and technics, workers with new skills and qualifications as well
as employees and other persons of intellectual work are counted among the proletariat.” (Statement
of the USSR, “The Scientific-Technical Revolution and the Contradictions of Capitalism”)
The proletariat does not only continue being within the production process but continues being
protagonist, too. The more modern the appliances employed in the production process are, the less
they are worth unless actuated by their creators.
58
What is it that has changed by this scientific-technical revolution, and in what direction did it
change?
There is no doubt that the increment of the human capacities for satisfying the man’s needs in
controlling the natural force is changing, and the direction is shown by the daily demonstration that
the more intolerable the current social relations of production are the more they result in becoming
backward and barbaric.
In his book “Work and Monopolist Capital”, H. Braverman convincingly explains:
“The evolution of machinery from its primitive forms by which simple rigid marks replace the hand
as guidance instruments for the movement of tools up to such modern complexes where the whole
process is guided from start till result by forces which are not only mechanical but also electrical,
chemical and of other physical type. This evolution may be described as an increase of human
control over the action of tools. These tools are controlled in their activities as extensions of the
sense organs, and this fact is reached by an increase of the human comprehension of the properties
involved, in other words by the increase of scientific control over physical principles.”
Men give their machines a “programme” always corresponding to the reached degree of
development. Such programme can only be surpassed by productive activity, by concentrated studies
on the production process, studies which can be performed by men only, never by machines. A self-
regulating process can exist to such extent only where those who participate in such process are
human beings out of flesh and blood, with own ideas and desires and in a situation confronted with
the relations of production; or rather robots are not at all able to solve the problem for us since they
are also subject to human programmes with limits, surpassed by human beings only, and with
“motoric levers” which are human, too. It is the working people who dominate the natural world,
and the most modern machines will be a kind of synthesis of their progress in dominating the
sciences and, consequently as it must be, the natural forces. The only beings created by men and
capable of surpassing them are human beings, too. And the men’s productive activity cannot be
performed unless subordinated not only to the achieved development but also to the variability of
their needs and interests and to the variability of their desires. Therefore, every attempt of
subjugating them to a productive order in which simple calculations or simple results of a
programmed activity of a determined instrument of production govern might be nothing but the
implantation of a system independent on human liberties. This is, in its core, one of the objectives of
such ideas as described in “The Holy Family”:
“Where is then the positive possibility of emancipation residing?
Answer: in the formation of a class with radical chain, of a class of bourgeois society which is not a
class of bourgeois society, of a state which is the disintegration of all states, of a sphere which has a
universal character by its universal sufferings and which does not claim any special right for itself
because no special offence is committed against it unless the pure and simple offence, which can not
yet refer to a historical title unless, simply, to the human title, which is not formed by any kind of
one-sided contrast with the consequences unless by the all-round contrast with the prerequisites for
any state, of a sphere, at last, which cannot emancipate itself from all other spheres of society
without, at the same time, emancipating all them, which is, with one word, the total loss of man and
which, therefore, only can win itself by total recovery of man. Such disintegration of society as a
special class is the proletariat.”
In the proletariat, there exist the material qualities of the class in complete dis-harmony with this
capitalist harmony but, obviously, the problem is not summarised by describing the material
59
conditions unless being linked up with the complex elements of social order or, more exactly, of
subjective order.
The tasks of the Party in order to organise the proletariat as a class
The current stage of struggle is characterised by insistent efforts of reconsolidating the hegemony of
the bourgeois dictatorship in our country without great difficulties. The capitalists succeeded in
establishing a complex of economic-political elements (economic “recuperation”, domestication of
the Zapatists, political reform, constitutional reforms, improvement of the relations between the
power groups, control by the workers etc.) which make it possible for them to maintain their rule
once more free from troublesome incidents and difficulties originated by the actions of the masses
who, calling for an answer to their most sensible demands, churn their way through the streets. Even
with this relative control, the regime was coerced into intensifying a process of fascistization in order
to exterminate, legally or illegally, secretly or openly, every symptom of revolt or non-conformity
(for instance by a swing to the extreme right in the official discourse, the reforms and their fascistic
results, the restrictions of press, radio and television, the aggressiveness of the organisations of
“patrons” (corporative employers) and “charros” (iridescent landowners) against a demobilised
working class and the lack of actual political rights for the working class etc.).
For how long will the bourgeoisie preserve such situation? We do not know. It depends on various
elements: namely, on the irruption of the proletariat into the scenarios of mass struggle as
revolutionary vanguard, on the consolidation of a real national convergence of popular opposition
against the regime with the aim of unity in struggle and unity in action, on the fortification of a
revolutionary pole with determinations of strategic character backed up by an alliance between
workers and peasants and leading the movement to actions of major range, on the radicalisation of
demand platforms and of the discourses till now claimed by the social democracy and the
revisionism, and, above all, on the efforts we communists make in order to comply with our task in
constructing and consolidating the Communist Marxist-Leninist Party on national level and in
bringing it to the top of a broad revolutionary movement of the masses of the workers, peasants and
of the people.
Under these conditions, the party is confronted with the realisation of tasks of organisational,
practical and theoretical kind in order to undermine the strength of capitalism.
It is sure that our party does not dispose of a great influence within the working class and especially
within the industrial proletariat. Thus, it is necessary that the ensemble of our party masters this great
difficulty. It is necessary that we fight in order to become stronger in the fundamental sectors of the
working class, in its neuralgic centres, in order to raise the class struggle onto decisive battles for the
communist revolution. That must be the central issue of our policy, and all efforts of our party must
be dedicated to this central issue. We have to stop erecting monuments for revolution and must
concentrate ourselves upon the fundamental objective of the movement. This is because every
aspiration of consolidating the revolution will be in vain and alienate us more and more from victory
unless we comply with the main task of connecting everyone of the networks for revolutionary
activity.
Under what conditions must the party deal with the tasks in the face of the class?
There is no doubt that the party is the vanguard detachment of the proletariat by forming its
programme, by claiming to revolution and communism, by claiming to Marxism-Leninism and
defending it, and by realising a constant work in order to raise the proletariat to its level of vanguard
class. But there will be a long and difficult period of revolutionary activity between today when we
60
might count on support within the proletariat and the time when this proletariat will have melted
with its party.
The proletariat in Mexico is strongly dominated by the official “charrism” and corporatism, by the
ideological influence of the bourgeoisie, and captivated by the nationalist, reformist, petty bourgeois,
social democrat, economist, populist and other conceptions. In summary, there does not yet exist any
political independence of the proletariat as class.
The party has to fight against this totality of the range of impediments. But it must know how to
fight, and how to win. Knowing, in advance, that we will be faced with the enormous resistance of
the aforementioned conceptions which are favoured, to a large extent, by the dynamic force of the
spontaneous movement itself.
Stalin said:
“The Party cannot be a true party if it limits itself to registering what the masses of the working class
feel and think, if it sucks up to their spontaneous movement, if it does not know how to defeat inertia
and indifference of the spontaneous movement, if it does not know how to place itself above the
momentary interests of the proletariat, if it does not know how to raise the masses to comprehension
of the interests of the class of the proletariat.” (Fundamentals of Leninism)
And today, there are people who might say: “Stop listing all the illnesses, let us fight them down.”
Oh no ... we must know the illness, prescribe the cure, fix the deadlines of the cure, obtain the
medications necessary and sufficient for the cure, and put the cure into practice. On top of that, we
have to know how to put the effective elements into action. We are responsible for carrying the cure
through, we have permanently to evaluate the obtained results and to reckon on unexpected changes.
We do not allege, it is true, to simulate, or to make out as given facts, any apparent equality of
circumstances or moments in a mechanical manner between the period of construction of the party in
Zarist Russia and our period of today. But it is necessary to record the experience how the
Bolsheviks managed the matters to construct their party and to connect it with the masses in order to
adjust, where it is necessary, our tactics to the international communist experience at the period of
imperialist decline and the concatenation of all revolutionary forces which live today. This is
because there exist fundamental features of similarity in some of our tasks in spite of the fact that
we, already from the beginning, have disposed of the party and a rich experience of working
inherited by the international communist movement. Therefore, we maintain Lenin’s idea with
respect to the tasks for a party with incipient influence with the proletariat as he described in his
article “What Beginning With?” where he said:
“(...) The immediate task of our party cannot be appealing all the forces it reckons on for an
offensive at the present moment unless inviting them to form a revolutionary organisation capable of
uniting all the forces and of leading the movement not only nominally but in reality, that is: capable
of always being ready to support every protest and every explosion by employing them in order to
multiply and to fortify the troops which will be needed in the decisive battle.”
Without distancing ourselves from the class struggle, without demobilising the masses, without
neglecting the skirmishes in which today the struggle is circumscribed, without underestimating all
revolutionary activity, but, on the other hand, without flirting with revolution, without flirting with
insurrection, without deluding the movement into thinking the tasks which it cannot today achieve
with respect to its weakness or which strategically will result in being counter productive for it, we
must conscientiously work by constructing the party, by constructing its instruments of struggle, by
anchoring the proletarian consciousness within the masses, by getting the proletariat out of the
61
strong influence it has been subjugated by so many decades of opportunism, of bourgeois

nationalism and dependence on all the fake. We must work by consolidating the alliances, by
extending the organisational network of the party within a whole series of tasks with the aim of
accumulating our forces and of connecting ourselves with the masses.
Solely a political party of the working class which will keep the perspective of conquesting the
power in mind, which will look in the direction of the most adequate strategies and tactics, which
will always obtain the maximum of favourable results arising from every period of struggle, solely
such party which will cast its eyes on its class, which encourages the class, which will observe and
foment the political development of the class, which will guide the class and know how to be its best
organised weapon, its general staff in the battle, such party only will be the party for which the most
committed revolutionaries will be willing to give their best efforts. Such party only, relentlessly
fighting against opportunism, hard-line with its principles, permanently active, melted with the
masses, will be capable of making a big step forward with the banner of revolution, A party,
however, losing sight of the perspective will become immersed in the quagmire of betrayal or will
become a victim of “eventualities”. A party which will bet on harmony between suppressers and
suppressed will immediately convert itself into a mate of our bosses.
Let us touch upon some fundamental ideas of our present activities. Firstly, we have to point out that
within the masses of the proletariat (even within the most advanced detachments of it) the idea of the
party, the reality of capitalism, the problems of revolution and construction of communism did not
put down roots. That is due to the native and international revisionists, to the social democrats and to
the bourgeoisie -and to our irresponsibility, too, as we are without any systematic plan of shaking the
masses out of their political backwardness, due to our present lack of reliability in doing the
workers’ work and to our schematic methods, pottering about and not at all once in a blue moon
clearly far away from the perspective of Marxism-Leninism, apart from our poor going up to the
masses.
Let us look at a fundamental question. In what has, according to Lenin, the work of the communists
to consist?
“(...) in making propaganda about the doctrines of scientific socialism, in broadcasting a correct
image, among the workers, about the economic-social system of today, about its fundamentals and
its development, about the different classes of Russian society, about their mutual relations, about
the struggle of those classes against one another, about the role of the working class in that struggle,
its attitude towards such classes which are in decay and towards such classes which are in
development, its attitude towards the past and future of capitalism, about the historical task of
international social democracy (read: international communism - note of the author) and of the
Russian working class. Inextricably linked to propaganda is agitation among the workers. (...)
Agitation among the workers consists in the fact that the social democrats (read: communists -note
of the author) participate in all spontaneous manifestations of the struggle of the working class, in all
conflicts between the workers and capitalists for reasons of the working day, of the salary, of the
working conditions, etc.” (The Tasks of the Russian Social Democracy)
We dare not talk about the issue whether this presentation has really been understood or not, much
less about the difficulties in its realisation.
For many years, the party was faced with enormous difficulties in putting its press in order,
something which is vital for bringing its ideas to its class. No activist must be satisfied with the
present state of our press. No matter how much it might go beyond other publications (we are
incompatible with any type of philosophy of misery), that must be motive of preoccupation and
definition of resolutions, and at the moment, we shall refrain from its analysis, leaving it that this is a
62
party problem which concerns the whole party. We have to say only that without any doubt, severe
organisational problems and problems of assimilation of our theory are hidden behind that problem.
Problems which have not been resolved till now because we do not at all assume an activist,
bolshevist commitment. Cutting us loose from the influence of other social strata is not easy for us,
and we have many difficulties, at individual and collective levels, of resolving those problems.
Moreover, till now we did not succeed in erecting a staff of communists who, in a concentrated
manner, dedicate themselves to the workers’ work and the efforts of direction. Even we have no
cadres who might be well-equipped with the ideological, political, organisational and practical
weapons. Therefore, the party has to make resolutions aimed at getting such cadres. The party
disposes of the mechanism but fails to dedicate efforts in order to start them up.
On general level, the party has, during its entire history, pointed out that we are in need of anchoring
ourselves within the working class but, particularly or actually, such activity has always been limited
because the party had neither the capacity nor the boldness nor the commitment required by
activism. And this fact hides another problem: We excuse ourselves under the idea that the
guidelines “are highly general” and “do not explain” the details of work. Maybe, we wait for the
elaboration of a manual! Definitely, communists have to reckon on their own initiative but under the
Marxist-Leninist prerequisites. Even those who succeed in working amongst workers are far away
from carrying out communist work. They dedicate themselves to solely doing “formalities”,
“democratic syndical” work, without any touch of the objectives of the party. The more the masses
are told about the revolution, but not about the tasks of revolution, the less they are given tasks
leading to the revolutionary objective. In summary, we make a lukewarm policy with the aim that
“nobody will be put off” or that “no split will be provoked”. We lose ourselves in practicism,
forgetting or trying to forget this:
“Our task consists of connecting our activity with the practical, everyday problems of workers’ lives,
of helping the workers get their way in such problems, of calling the workers; attention to the most
important types of abuse they are subject to, of helping them express their claims more exactly and
practically, of developing the awareness of the workers’ solidarity among them, the awareness of the
community of interests and of the community of matter of all Russian workers as one class of
workers which constitutes a part of the world army of the proletariat.” (Lenin, The Tasks of the
Russian Social Democrats)
Though our material limitations are overwhelming, the problem was and is an organisational one.
Accustomed to extremely restricted surroundings, we have become incapable of seizing wide
contingencies. Accustomed to move in cramped conditions, we are not able, in free consideration
and evaluation, to actuate all the factors which will help us lessen our work. We will only be able to
free ourselves from it to the same extent as individual and collective responsibilities are assumed, to
the same extent as we are not afraid of the difficulties and as we meet the constructive efforts of the
party in actual tasks which will bring a certain benefit winning the party’s confidence in its own
forces and in the certainty of its objectives. To the same extent as we work on actual tasks and as
sensible results rise out of our work, the party will, with more security and knowledge of matters, be
capable of projecting a more arduous activity.
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
63
NORWAY
The true face of bourgeois democracy and its agent, social

democracy
Different revisionist currents claim that the “new world order” as well as the experience of the
peaceful counter-revolutions in Eastern Europe, prove that the violent revolution is no longer
probable, that it is a hopeless outset, or not at all “necessary”.
They believe that “democracy” (which they apprehend as something devoid of class content) has
developed to such a level that the peaceful transition and the “anti-monopolist strategy” is the only
possible road of progress.
In the following article we will look into the real content of modern bourgeois democracy in one of
the social-democrat “exhibition windows” of Europe, namely Norway.
The Marxist concept concerning the question of state is well-known. State, as an historical category,
is the tool of one class for suppressing other classes of society. The core of state power is always the
apparatus of violence: the police, the army and the courts of justice.
This Marxist concept of state is fundamental for understanding that the bourgeois state power (which
in the last instance is based upon force) can only be abolished by use of force by the oppressed class.
The bourgeois state cannot simply be inherited by the working class, it must be “smashed” and the
working class must create its own state organs. This was one of Marx’s most important conclusions
after studying the uprising, and eventually the defeat, of the Paris communards.
Reformist illusions among the “leftists”
On the Norwegian “left”, petty-bourgeois illusions and reformist ideas have always nourished in
fertile soil. Here is not the place to dwell on the specific historical, national geopolitical and class-
related reasons for this. Nevertheless, though still of course an inferior imperialism and minor in
regard to its small population, “little Norway” of today is not merely a remote piece of semi-Arctic
rock inhabited by fishermen and small-scale farmers, but is in fact an increasingly active and
ambitious actor on the imperialist arena. The soaring profits from the oil and off-shore industry have
accumulated strong state finances, enabling the Norwegian bourgeoisie to act with pondus and
eagerness in several areas. The fact of Norway simultaneously being an imperialist “little brother”,
obediently tailing behind far stronger imperialist countries and alliances (the US and the EU) does
not contradict the above-mentioned truth.
Along with other Nordic countries like Sweden and Denmark, Norway has posed as a supreme
democracy and an outstanding example of social democrat so-called “welfare states”, securing all
inhabitants certain social minimum standards, naturally without affecting the rule of capital or the
subjugation to stronger imperialist power. On the international arena, these “paradises of social
democracy” have been presented (and have presented themselves), especially to the countries and
peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, as the most “sensible” alternative to national and social
liberation, revolution and socialism.
The truth about the “success” of social democracy
Until recently, this concept of the “success” of social democracy, has had a stronghold among a
majority of the working people in the Scandinavian countries, and has also, in several circumstances,
64
had a “moderating effect” on some national liberation movements, workers’ organisations and
progressive governments around the world. Throughout the recent years the governments of Norway
have been eagerly playing the role of “allies against oppression” (as in South Africa) or as “unpartial
negotiators” and “intermediates” in numerous conflict areas, like those of the Middle East, El
Salvador, Guatemala, etc.
What is now becoming evident is how Norway, as a minor imperialist power, is making efficient use
of this “mediating” position in order to maintain its new imperialist interests and ambitions. Here we
will restrain ourselves to only one example: Whilst officially denouncing Indonesia’s occupation of
East Timor, the government and monopoly capital of Norway flirts openly with the Suharto regime,
and even acknowledges in writing that the oil resources in the Timor Sea must be regarded as
Indonesian territory!
What also is evident is that modern social democracy has started to dismantle the “welfare state” it
has been bragging about for decades. The reason for this is clear; capital does not any longer
consider it necessary to class compromise nay further, considering the prospects of revolution and
the “socialist threat” near to nothing after the external and internal events that occured in the period
after 1989-90. The working class of the Scandinavian countries are gradually waking up to capitalist
reality and to the real content of bourgeois democracy and “welfare capitalism” in social-democratic
clothing.
A very important part of this comprehension is the nature of the form of capitalist rule, we know as
advanced bourgeois democracy, helped by social democracy in most of the post-war period.
The communists must unmask the false talk of democracy “for all”, on the “neutrality” of the state,
on the apparatus of violence, on the “democratic way of thinking” that supposedly is typical for the
Norwegian bourgeoisie. It is our duty to reveal the true face of Norwegian imperialism to the class
we say that we will serve and prepare for revolution. Perhaps it is because capital does not consider
it has any further need of social democracy for the time being, or perhaps the rivalry between
factions of the bourgeoisie and their parties simply got out of hand, resulting in a deeper
investigation than originally intended. Whatever the reason, the irony of history has caught up with
social democracy. Now, the bourgeois parliamentary system itself is giving us a hand in revealing
the true character and role of this bourgeois current and Trojan horse of imperialism, that thoroughly
has spun its poisonous spiders’ web throughout the workers’ and trade union movement in Norway
(and undoubtedly in many other countries, too).
The Norwegian parliamentary commission gives solid proof of

Lenin’s characteristic of bourgeois democracy
According to Lenin, the greater and more effective the power and influence of the bourgeoisie over
the state machinery is, the more democratic, parliamentary, etc. the state is functioning:
“The working people are barred from participation in bourgeois parliaments (they never decide
important questions under bourgeois democracy, which are decided by the stock exchange and the
banks) by thousands of obstacles, and the workers know and feel, see and realise perfectly well that
the bourgeois parliaments are institutions alien to them, instruments for the oppression of the
workers by the bourgeoisie, institutions of a hostile class, of the exploiting minority.” (V.I. Lenin,
CW 28, p.247)
Of course, the Marxist-Leninists will always make use of and fight for democratic rights and
liberties, but never believing that such demands may be obtained other than partially and
incompletely under capitalist conditions. The struggle against the warmongers, popular unity of
65
action opposing the onslaughts of imperialism against national sovereignty, the struggle to defend
the environment, the defence of the fundamental right to strike and other democratic rights will
always be in the centre of the communists’ tactic programme. At the same time, the communists
never attempt to hide that any success in such struggles under capitalist conditions, will only be
partial and of limited permanence, depending on the forcefulness, the unity in action and the fighting
ability of the working class and the masses. Lasting reforms and significant progress are part and
parcel of an entirely different social and economic system, socialism.
Therefore, the institutions of the bourgeois state (i.e. parliament, the army, the courts) may never be
included as parts of a revolutionary strategy. The attitude of the communists where these organs are
concerned (i.e. taking part in elections or not, accepting military service or not, etc.) are tactical
issues, the right answer depending on the situation, or so to speak, on the “temperature” of the class
struggle. In short, depending on what, at the given moment, under changing circumstances, best
helps forward the realisation of our strategic aims.
Different revisionist currents claim that the “new world order” as well as the experience of the
peaceful counter-revolutions in Eastern Europe, prove that the violent revolution is no longer
probable, the it is a hopeless outset, or not at all “necessary”, now that the imperialists seem to settle
their differences though the United Nations! In our country some revisionists state that violent
revolution may still be a necessity in other parts of the world. However, according to them,
“peaceful history and traditions” of Norway make this Leninist teaching “obsolete” and “not in
accordance with reality”. This, of course, is a fraud.
Imperialist reality
Actual reality, unlike the “virtual reality” of the revisionist, tells us otherwise. Where Norway is
concerned, the prospects of a peaceful revolution in a country that today is second only to Saudi-
Arabia when it comes to oil exports, must be said to be macroscopic. Only a working class
demonstrating its willingness to use armed force if necessary might frighten the bourgeoisie enough
to avoid bloodshed. Such are the lessons of the international workers’ movement throughout the past
150 years.
“The civilisation and justice of bourgeois order comes out in its lurid light whenever the slaves and
drudges of that order rise against their masters. Then this civilisation and justice stand forth as
undisguised savagery and lawless revenge. Each new crisis in the class struggle between the
appropriator and the producer brings out this fact more glaringly.” (K. Marx, The Civil War in
France)
The democratic facade of the bourgeois state is worth nothing more than a house made of playing
cards. It will immediately fall to the ground, if threatened by social unrest. This understanding is
essential if one is to develop a revolutionary strategy. The communists and the working class must
be clear about what sort of an enemy we actually stand up against. The bourgeoisie will not wait a
second to consider before it will make use of its violent state machinery to crush any serious attempt
at revolt - in small, peaceful, remote Norway as in any other country.
The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in black and white
Where Norway is concerned, this truth has now been officially confirmed by the bourgeois system
itself. For years on end, Norwegian leftist and workers’ parties and organisations, and even liberal
individuals and democrats of different hues, have claimed that political surveillance has been going
on for decades, resulting in harassment, “berufsverbot” and probably cases of suicide. In recent
years, books have been published by former leading social democrat leaders and other central
66
personalities, confirming what the communists have been saying since the early ‘50s; that a major
role in conducting these activities has been played by the leadership of the Social Democratic Party
and the Norwegian TUC (LO), through close ties with the Norwegian Police Security Service (POT)
and the Military Intelligence Service.
“Take the fundamental laws of modern states, take their administration, take freedom of assembly,
freedom of press, or “equality of all citizens before the law”, and you will see at every turn evidence
of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy with which every honest and class-conscious worker is
familiar. There is not a single state, however democratic, which has no loopholes or reservations in
its constitution guaranteeing the bourgeoisie the possibility of dispatching troops against the
workers, of proclaiming martial law, and so forth, in case of a “violence of public order”, and
actually in case the exploited class “violates” its position of slavery and tries to behave in a non-
slavish manner. Kautsky shamelessly embellishes bourgeois democracy and omits to mention, for
instance, how the most democratic and republican bourgeoisie in America of Switzerland deal with
workers on strike.” (V.I. Lenin, CW 28, p.244)
A historical scandal becomes public
The evidence put forward finally amounted to such a degree that the opposition in parliament in
1993 forced the social democrat government to accept that a parliamentary commission be set up an
instructed to go deeply into this matter. As far as is known, nothing like this has happened in any
other country.
On May 8 last year, the commission named after its chairman Ketil Lund, made public its 1100 page
report concerning alleged illegal surveillance of tens of thousands of citizens by the Norwegian
Police Security Service and the Military Intelligence Service. In the view of the Lund Commission,
the judiciary has betrayed its duty to uphold rights guaranteed by law. According to its report, a
complete absence of respect for basic civil rights is apparent in a number of cases, and the report
strongly suggests that the courts have been very servile towards the National Security Bureau in
Oslo.
Among other things, the report shows that all members and sympathisers of communist, semi-
communist or revolutionary parties and organisations - and even their children down to the age of 10
- have been under surveillance. The entire editorial staff of the Maoist daily newspaper
Klassekampen was for example bugged from December 1976 to December 1979.
As the bourgeois press itself has put it: “The Lund Commission’s report, documenting extensive
surveillance of Norwegian citizens, has tarnished Norway’s reputation as a country where due
process of law reigns supreme.”
For revolutionaries in Norway, nothing of this is surprising. What is surprising, however, is that the
report has been made public and that all political parties accept the Lund Commission’s historical
criticism of Norway’s secret services and commend the commission for doing an extremely
thorough job. With the exception of the Conservative Party, the entire opposition has demanded
apologies to Norwegian citizens who have been subject to surveillance.
The “supremacy” of bourgeois democracy
Of course, all this had triggered a unison attempt from the whole bourgeoisie, from the bluest
reaction to leftists and revisionist, to state that this will put an ultimate end to illegal surveillance of
citizens solely on account of their legal political activities. The political scandal is now being turned
67
upside down in order to prove the “supremacy” of the bourgeois democratic order, which has had the
courage and “ability” to disclose these “unhealthy” appendixes of the system itself.
Labour Party chairman and PM Thorbjørn Jagland, has been obliged to denounce such illegal acts as
the planting of bugging devices, and he deplores the collusion that went on between labour leaders
and the security police. However, while a united opposition demanded an apology from the Labour
Party, the press stated that Mr. Jagland took great pains to make it clear that the Labour Party’s
perception of communist intentions was of pivotal significance. “Any judgement about the methods
employed must take this into account,” said Mr. Jagland. He strongly cautioned against disregarding
the historical context, and insisted that the struggle against communism was a struggle to defend
democracy.
Of course, the political confrontation triggered by the Lund Report turned into a quarrel over who
was guilty of what. The bourgeois press admits that the non-socialist parties too, after reading the
report, should search their own souls and take their share of the blame for what took place. They also
admit that Justice Ministers in a number of non-socialist governments have closed their eyes to these
activities.
No sooner had this scandal become public, and the bourgeoisie was trying to use it as a proof of
“how democracy works”, before a new scandal took the scene. This took place shortly after the new
Minister of Justice frankly assured that surveillance on solely political grounds was a matter
belonging to history.
Investigating the investigator
The Storting’s (the Norwegian parliament) new special committee for scrutiny of the secret service
made some very serious findings last autumn regarding the National Police Security Service. It
turned out that even members of the special committee were held under surveillance and information
was gathered on those who were appointed to conduct a probe into the activities of the secret police.
The Norwegian Police Security Service (POT) had former Socialist Left Party chairman Berge Furre
under surveillance, suspected of espionage for foreign powers or of other punishable offences. So,
while Berge Furre, as a member of the Lund Commission, was investigating the secret police, the
secret police were investigating him!
Among other things, the security police applied to the former East German Stasi archives for
information on Mr. Furre. The security police at first refused to declassify a report on the matter
issued by the Storting’s special committee for scrutiny of the secret services, but were soon forced to
retreat. In other words, the secret police attempted to defame Berge Furre while he was serving on
the Lund Commission. This was an affront against the Storting, which appointed the commission of
which Berge Furre was an appointed member. Moreover, this investigation of Berge Furre by the
Norwegian Police Security Service (POT) had been approved at the top levels of the Ministry of
Justice.
Only two weeks earlier Ms. Holt, Minister of Justice, in an open hearing in the Storting on the Lund
Commission, gave her assurances that surveillance is no longer being conducted on political
grounds.
So far, this scandal has caused the fall of one former Minister of Justice and of the head of POT.
Former long-serving Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland left her post just in time to avoid
bearing the political responsibility of this scandal. The time of her abdication was hardly
coincidental.
68
The ruling class disregards its own laws
Naturally, all this is very embarrassing, showing the wide public that the ruling class completely
disregards its own laws and regulations when it finds this convenient. Of course, illegal surveillance
is going on and will continue, probably in new forms and by way of different means. Regardless of
this, the core of the matter is that preparations to “deal with” political opposition still is regarded as
appropriate and quite legal as long as this opposition may be considered “endangering national
security”.
The Norwegian state still has several “loopholes” or reservations in its constitution guaranteeing the
bourgeoisie the possibility of dispatching troops against the workers, of proclaiming martial law, and
so forth, in case of a “violence of public order”. These words of Lenin still retain their validity. Such
laws still exist in Norway, and have not been affected whatsoever by the Lund Report. Even after the
“abolishment of socialism” and the ending of the cold war, the bourgeoisie totally rejects proposals
to alter the context of these laws, originating from the rime of Norway’s subjugation to the USA and
access to membership of the NATO treaty. These are laws aimed at opening up for martial law to get
rid of the “internal enemy” when necessary.
Supra-national and illegal cooperation
In the meantime, new scandals and embarrassing disclosures are on their way, showing the true face
of social democracy in its Scandinavian “show-room”.
A recent book authored by a Finnish social democrat Juhani Salminen gives new information
concerning the close ties, not only politically but also when it came to intelligence and surveillance
work, between the social democratic leaders and the intelligence services in the Nordic countries.
These “brothers-in-arms” started their cooperation during their engagement fighting in the “white”
semi-fascist Finnish side against the Soviet Union in 1939.
Among other things, the book discloses that the social democratic intelligence organisation in
Finland even succeeded in infiltrating the leadership of the Finnish CP. The organisation is said to
have had more than a thousand informers around the country, some were paid to do the job, while
the main bulk were volunteers. Monthly reports were submitted to the head of the organisations and
to employers.
This is a pattern which turns out to be fairly typical in the case of Norway, too. In the late 40s, the
police and military surveillance and leading circles of the Norwegian social Democratic Party made
use of the former German CP member Karl Bargstadt in order to infiltrate the Norwegian
Communist Party (NKP). It is claimed that late German Chancellor Willy Brandt helped the
Norwegian Labour Party make this connection.
There is not doubt whatsoever that there has been a close and supra-national cooperation between
the social democrats in Norway and Germany in the post-war period. The Swedish IB-scandal of the
70s, where it was disclosed that the Swedish Social Democratic Party operated a “non-existing”
intelligence organisation, and other very close ties between the social democratic parties,
governments and military intelligence in the two neighbouring countries, as well as other facts,
strongly indicates that Sweden, Norway and perhaps even Finland (where Norwegian agents were
sent to the Soviet border) have involved in forms of unofficial, supra-national cooperation
completely colliding with each countries own constitutions, their legislation and sovereignty.
69
An era coming to an end?
The amounts of evidence proving the dirty role of social democracy in the countries where it mostly
boasts of its successfulness is, more than anything else, an indicator that the era of traditional social
democracy is coming to an end. The task given to social democracy today, certainly in Europe, is to
fulfil the task of dismantling the “welfare state”, of which social democracy itself likes to pose as its
birth-giving midwife. In the Scandinavian countries, no one can shoulder this ungrateful task better
than social democracy, even though it might mean a nail in the coffin of the social democratic
parties.
The massive facts brought into the light about the true face of social democracy must be used
skilfully to denounce its treacherous role in the labour movement; whether we are speaking of its
role at the outbreak of World War I, its reactionary activities after the victory of the October
Revolution, its support of the NATO and of US aggression, or its treacherous role up till this very
day as the favourite tool of the big bourgeoisie to confront the communists within the working class
movement. Also, we must bear in mind the responsibility of the revisionist apologies of social
democracy. Their conciliatory stand towards the reformist ideology and parties has contributed in
preventing the working masses form seeing the true face of reformism and bourgeois democracy.
Revolusjon
December 1996
70
SPAIN
The 6th Congress of the Workers’ Commissions

The class struggle inside the unions
In Spain, as in other European countries the structural reform which capitalism is carrying out has
shown up the weakness and falseness of “the social democratic model”. This does not mean that the
bourgeoisie and imperialism have given up making use of it, since historical experience
demonstrates that social democracy is an excellent tool of capital and that always - beyond the
phraseology and rhetoric of the moment- these phony socialists are playing a game for capitalism.
Today we are taking part in demonstrations of varying degrees of strength in the heart of the main
union of the class in Spain, the Workers’ Commissions (CC.OO), which are a product of the
contradictions between the positions of the opportunists, social democrats and those who defend
working class position. These contradictions came to public attention, openly, in the sixth congress
of the CC.OO held last year.
It is necessary to take into account some essential elements, in order to understand this problem
better.
Antecedents
With the death of the fascist dictator Franco in 1975 the unions were legalised. The popular
organisations forged in the struggle against fascism during many years had an undeniable strength
which caused fear not only to the forces of reaction but also to opportunist leaders of every sort,
well-known ones including the renegade Santiago Carrillo and others who at that time were
completely unknown, like Felipe Gonzales and his group. From that time on “there began a political
pressure towards demobilisation: the institutionalisation of the parties was compensated for by a
policy of agreements at the top continually creating a greater disassociation between exclusively
political reform and any radical social demands”. (1). That is to say the main union umbrella
organisations, the CC.OO (dominated by the Communist Party), the UGT, (recently restructured by
the social democrats), and the main political parties, have quietened down popular struggles, acting
like fire-fighters in order to make possible the so-called peaceful transition from Francoism to the
monarchy (decided by Franco himself). From 1977 until 1986 general agreements took place
between the leaderships of the unions, of the bosses and of the government in turn.
The policy of social accord, apart from causing confusion, contributed to the demobilisation of the
proletariat: trade union affiliations fell dramatically from 1978 to 1981, becoming the lowest in
Europe. From 1986 onwards there began a slow recuperation. (2).
The arrival of the PSOE of Felipe Gonzalez in government in 1982 created euphoria and high
expectations in many sectors of workers, who thought that with the “socialists” in government they
were going to recover what have been lost and advance towards “a regime of prosperity and social
justice”. However, social democracy, from the first moment, accelerated processes of
deindustrialisation, fragmentation and casualisation of the labour market, already began by
preceding governments. The conduct of the Felipist resulted in an increasing rate of unemployment,
increased casualisation and a gradual cutback in social expenditure, worsening considerably the
standard of living and the working conditions of the popular masses.
The arrogance and aggressiveness of the PSOE in the application of its policies, barefacedly anti-
popular and anti-worker, forced the trade union leadership (which as we have explained had already
compromised itself in the process of demobilisation during the period of the “peaceful transition”),
71
to confront the PSOE government demanding on behalf of the workers the paying back of what they
called “the social debt” (1987), but evidently, without any fundamental criticism of the policies of
capitalism which at that time was going through a transitory period of expansion.
This period coincided with a process of decline in particular political parties of the working class,
and the unions became a refuge for active elements separated from the political parties. Thus,
without defining themselves in this way, the unions began to play the role of the political focus of
the popular classes, and to appear as a general front against the aggression of the social democratic
government. The role of political glue carried out by the unions, is particularly characteristic of the
UGT (General Workers Union), the union closely linked with the PSOE. From 1987 onwards the
leadership of the UGT, with Nicolas Redondo at its head, separated itself openly from the leadership
of the PSOE and took an active part in the organising of mobilisations which resulted in the level of
labour disputes in Spain being the highest in Europe in the decade of the 1980s. (3)
However, at the beginning of the 1990s, there took place a move to the right in the unions which
turned sharply towards a closer relationship with social democracy. Because of this, in both unions
the most right wing elements became stronger in the leadership, taking advantage of weaknesses,
failure of political vision and vacillations on the part of their historic leaders, Marcellino Camacho of
the CC.OO and Nicolas Redondo of the UGT.
This open turn to the right of the trade union umbrella organisations coincided with the acceleration
of the process of convergence in European capitalism, and also with the beginning of an economic
crisis - still not overcome even today- which in Spain, given the dependant nature of its economy,
has particularly serious consequences. The treaty of Maastricht to which the Spanish government
adhered without going to the referendum which in its own constitution provided for and which
various forces demanded, is the signal for the start of a ferocious generalised offensive by European
capitalism against the social gains of the workers, an offensive which in our country is reaching
unimaginable proportions.
Since 1992 successive reactionary measures have caused tremendous unemployment (double the rate
of other countries in the European Union) and an unprecedented casualisation of labour. At the same
time and with the support of parliament the employers have promoted the passing of labour
legislation which gives them absolute sovereignty. (4) Simultaneously as the crisis of capitalism in
Spain deepens the employers are tightening the knot around the trade unions. The Felippista’s PSOE
did not hesitate to use the dirtiest methods almost fascist methods in order to sack the general
secretary of the UGT, Nicolas Redendo and the greater part of the leadership of that union. In their
place they installed a leadership team which was much more docile and malleable, which did not
hide its intention of returning to the social democratic fold. Having thus eliminated for the time
being opposition from the UGT the attack was now centred on the workers’ commissions (CC.OO),
whose leadership passed through the hands of the treacherous and renegade PCE to right wing
elements, headed by Antonio Gutierrez who did not hesitate in adopting every bourgeois principle
and preaching to the proletariat about the necessity of reforms which would make the economy more
and open “efficient and free”. ...
The sixth congress of the CC.OO
The tensions of the congress already had a long history. Already in the fifth congress in 1992 a series
of contradictions had arisen which, if they did not emerge fully in to the light of publicity, this was
because many trade unionists and comrades fell into the mistake of confusing “unity” from above
with the necessary clarification of internal positions.
72
At the opening of the sixth congress, Spain had a rate of unemployment of around 24 per cent (a rate
which have not decreased in the last few years); the rate of casualisation was more than 37 per cent
(since the labour reform of 1994, more than 90 per cent of contracts have been on a casual basis) and
more than a million families are not in receipt of any salary. In the arena of the unions, while there
has been growing a discrediting of the unions which more and more in every sense appear as
bureaucratic structures assisting the employers, there has also been an abrupt reduction in industrial
disputes, produced by fear of losing one’s job and, above all by the rightward turn of the trade union
leadership. And in the political arena, there has been an increase in measures tending to eliminate the
precious social games won by the workers.
On the other hand, the general strike (January 1994) against the labour reform of the PSOE (socialist
party) has thrown into relief clearly the opportunist character of the leadership of the CC.OO which
capitulated without conditions when the situation was favourable to the increase of trade union
pressure. Following this the general secretary of the workers’ commissions, A. Gutierrez, confessed
that this strike had taken place because of pressure from the base: “... the leadership of the UGT at
the moment (at that time led by Nicolas Redondo) wanted to make from the mobilisation a symbolic
revolt (totum revoltum) believing that this would increase pressure on the government. In relation to
trade union unity we have to accept that, however it was intended, this was a tactical error.
Thankfully this did not have more serious consequences, since we were not seeking conflict, rather
the solution of conflicts.” (Tribuna Publica, trade union journal of the CC.OO, December 1996).
The conditions existing in 1995 enabled the foreseeing of the trade union battle, but not its
inevitability. The element which gained determining importance in the development of the trade
union struggle was the political pressure from the bourgeoisie, which preoccupied with the necessity
of meeting the convergence criteria of Maastricht and aware of the social tension which this was
going to create, forced the right wing opportunists (already in place in the popular organisations) to
act openly, without any disguise, and to put their cards on the table.
The social mask of the bourgeoisie was revealed and the “inevitable shock treatment” which was
imposed on the proletariat and the popular masses, became a question of the State, these measures
being defended as much by the ultra right wing and the liberals as by the right wing opportunists
positioned in (and infiltrated in) a popular force such as Left Unity (Izquierda Unida).
The opportunist Nicolas Sartorius, a long standing member of the Political Bureau of the PCE, wrote
in April 1996: “The grate policy of consensus and pacts is imposed with the principle aim of
guaranteeing the success of business in an historic crisis: of arriving at the appointed time a single
currency, the decisive nucleus of European unity. This is to say that ... this has been the axis of all
the pacts and the government measures taken by Spain for at least the last two years ... In reaching
this point it is necessary that everyone makes every effort, whether it is parties, unions or bosses ...”
In that situation an important sector of the trade union movement finally understood that passivity
only serves opportunism. There then began the work of building a class based opposition movement
within the CC.OO involving members of various forces of the left. The assemblies in preparation for
the sixth congress were the scene throughout 1995 for the first serious clashes between the two union
models: on the one hand, the “official” one defended by the opportunists who identified themselves
with the basic principles of liberal ideology and tried to justify their participation in the social
agreements attacking social benefits (5), and on the other hand, that grouping known popularly as
“the critical sector” which defends the trade unionism of the class and the recovery of that trade
union model, participation on the political front together with other social and political
organisations, and the need to maintain a more combative attitude that can strengthen the workers’
movement in relation to the bourgeois offensive.
73
In the sixth congress the critical sector, in spite of the many tricks and manoeuvres of the
bureaucratic apparatus managed to win the support of 36 per cent of the delegates and to elect seven
members to the confederal executive of the union. In the last regional and branch meetings the
critical sector maintained its representation in some areas increasing this and in other cases winning
the majority. (6)
The provocative and aggressive attitude of the “official” leadership which is trying by every means
to prevent the development of the “critical” sector is a reflection of the damage which has been
caused to the bourgeoisie in the political arena by this fight taking place inside the CC.OO. The
“official” sector has been seized with real fear, even hysteria, which is understandable since this very
year the government of Aznar has announced new and serious measures against the popular interest,
which will place the opportunist leaders in a difficult situation, because they will be forced to defend
the capitalist’s plans and therefore to confront a very important sector of the union.
Some conclusions
In October 1994, we wrote in this journal: “Once again experience teaches us that the struggle of our
class, even for the most immediate demands, is essentially political...”
In effect beyond the strictly union focus of the division in the congress, “there have appeared, with
the weaknesses and various levels of the present development, distinct ideological currents which
compete for the control of the union... the contest has defined itself essentially as one between the
recalcitrant right wing which controls the leadership and the very important current which, although
not sufficiently structured, basically brings together the various tendencies ready to work in a united
way to open up for the left its own political arena independent of the right wing social democracy,
which position, in this congress, is going further in its organic control of the CC.OO.” (Octubre,
No:30, February 1996)
“The struggle in the heart of the unions (particularly in the CC.OO) has preceded an internal struggle
in the political organisations of the left: However, it will be the resolution of these contradictions
which are now appearing openly inside these latter organisations, which will decisively influence the
development of the trade union struggle.
“It is now not a matter of laying out revolutionary programmes, but of creating the conditions which
will favour the development of proletarian consciousness, through the struggle inside the unions,
working shoulder to shoulder with the active militants who - without agreeing fully with all our
revolutionary proposals - are nevertheless ready to struggle for the defence and recovery of class
based trade unionism.”
Alongside this correct position there have also risen anarchist minority positions. In no. 22 of our
journal Octubre we wrote:
“We are present at a period of growing frustration on the part of many comrades who feel impotent
in the face of the bureaucratisation of the trade unions. This frustration acts as a breathing ground for
the resurgence of anarchist tendencies in the heart of the workers movement. In the face of the
“umbrella” syndicalism of the CC.OO and the UGT some collectives have been formed which
demand a more participative model ... However, in addition to their isolated character, these currents
have an economist vision without a political perspective, when they are not openly in opposition to
every politicisation of union activity.”
And this is why these minority positions can be particularly dangerous and act as a brake on the
development of class positions. In place of organising a united response of the proletariat, there are
74
sawing more division and fragmentation. Moreover, these people affirm, against all the evidence, a
separation between political causes (which are behind the reversal of popular conquests) on the one
hand, and on the other, their social consequences.
As communists we correctly understand that the solution of the present problems of the workers
demands that we prepare the conditions for a qualitative leap, and that for this leap it is necessary to
stop the bourgeoisie from breaking any class alliances, however small these may be, among the
working people. It is certain that political debate will take place only within social democratic
boundaries, to the degree that generally, within the trade unions, revolutionary positions remain as
minority tendencies. That is to say the debate will not put into question the capitalist system itself
but only the most blatant aspects of its policies.
We must concern ourselves then with seeing how, while the bourgeoisie closes ranks, unites itself
and works in a coordinated way, in the popular arena we continue with disorientation and ideological
and political and organisational division. We are fighting against this, since this situation not only
hinders the advance of the proletariat, but also contributes to isolate the communists, an aim which
unites the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie with those sections of the social democracy
disguising themselves as “left wing”.
In November 1994 (once again we will quote from our journal), we reflected on the struggle in the
heart of the CC.OO. This reflection served to push forward internal debate in our organisation, a
debate which ended with important results. Here we quote some paragraphs:
“Many people will consider that this confrontation between various currents of social democracy
does not concern us, that to arrive at agreements with any of the parties involved would be to
renounce in advance the revolutionary positions in the heart of the workers’ movement where, as we
are all agreed, social democracy is now in crisis. But those who think this way are forgetting that the
work of social democracy has been to cause not only physical and political dispersion but also the
frustration of many of its active members; they forget that de-politicisation is a sad reality of the
union outlook at the moment, a reality which if we reject political debate with social democracy will
worsen. They forget that it is social democracy which today leads the unions, that it is its demands
which are put forward by its affiliated bodies, just as the struggle between its various currents affects
in a very important manner, trade union activity.
Whoever wishes to be the leader of the workers’ movement has the obligation of knowing what are
the various forces within the unions, of being sensitive to the new political elements who are
continually coming forward, in order to adapt one’s tactics with the objective of advancing the
revolutionary positions which are still very weak ... The crisis of social democracy is provoking a
debate which is not only trade unionist but also political and ideological, and which can help to
break the stifling (suffocating) monotony in which the unions are enclosed, and which is no more
than a reflection of the political struggle between the reformist left (not the revolutionary left) and
the right wing social democracy.
Obviously we have our own position. As communists we struggle to end the capitalist system and
we are conscious that only by recovering the revolutionary character of the proletarian struggle can
we advance towards our objective. We know that every effort to make capitalism and the popular
interest compatible will come to grief inevitably in the face of reality, and that is why the
contradictions which are emerging among the various social democratic currents are evidence of its
impotence when the time comes to take a position at that moment when capitalism does not have to
make concessions to the workers’ movement and when what is necessary is revolutionary action and
leadership.
75
In this battle we must be the first to intervene to demand openness, putting forward our positions and
reaching agreements where possible, with other forces and comrades who agree with us, at least
concerning the necessity of democratising, empowering and politicising trade union action.”
Through the development and the results of the sixth congress of the CC.OO nothing will be the
same again. The struggle will grow, it will become very difficult, but the workers already have the
beginning of a trade union alliance of their own which can bring together the most combative and
active sectors of the union. A class alliance which can act as a barrier against the rightist social
democracy. All this is in itself, if we know how to work, a guarantee of successful struggles to come.
Communist Organisation October of Spain
Notes:
1) “Las Relaciones Laborales en Espana”, Carlos Prieto, Ed. Chapter XXI, page 404)
2) In some branches of industry (which were those with the greatest trade union membership),
membership fell between 1978-1990 from 56.3 % to 35.6 %.
3) As an example we can show that on 14 December 1988, the major unions of the CC.OO and the
UGT called a one day general strike, with a nearly 100% backing.
4) In 1993 the government imposed by decree reforms relating to unemployment benefit, reducing it
drastically. And in 1994 the same government (let us not forget, that of the “socialist” Felipe
Gonzales) carried out an extreme reform of the reform of labour relations in favour of the employers.
This reform was taken over by the reactionary and right wing Aznar and still is in place in the
present year 1997.
5) In October 1996 the leaderships of the CC.OO and the UGT signed a pact with the government of
Aznar to reduce the subsidy of pensions. At present they are negotiating new cuts in other areas of
social expenditure.
6) This is the case in such important Territorial Unions in regions as important as Asturias and
Sevilla.
76
TURKEY
THE STATEMENT OF THE SECOND GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE

TDKP
The Second General Conference of the TDKP consisted of various sessions. It was held in a certain
period of time and was attended by the party organisations and forces. It ensured the broadest
representation of the party circles within the workers, labourers and the youth. All the decisions of
the conference were taken unanimously.
Our conference took place at a time, in accordance with many-sided developments both in Turkey
and in the world, when our party has arrived at a turning point, when it has become an indispensable
task for the party to renew and develop its work both in the ideological-political and organisational-
practical fields and to overcome its shortcomings, when it orientated itself to renew and develop its
tactical platform and its practical-organisational work, and when the dictatorship intensified its
attacks on the party.
The agenda of the conference, which evaluated the developments after our party's First General
Conference which was held in February 1990, was as follows:
- International situation and trends
- Developments in our country in accordance with international situation
- Our party's activities in the ideological-political and practical-organisational fields.
Our conference arrived at the following conclusions:
On the international arena:
The First General Conference of our party was held in a transition period when the revolutionary
movement of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples was still in the period of defeat that it entered
in the second half of the 1950s, when the destructive consequences of this period was apparent, and
when imperialism and the world reactionary forces were carrying out a many-sided offensive
campaign, uniting all their forces and capabilities. However, this was also a period when all the
factors which were weakening the imperialist-capitalist system and deepening its general crisis were
developing.
The main characteristics of the period which have been experienced in the international arena since
our first General Conference are the sharpening of the fundamental contradictions of the imperialist-
capitalist system, the deepening of its general crisis, and the developments which show that this
system has been going towards a new stage of its general crisis, towards a period of new wars and
revolutions and of fundamental ups and downs.
In the period following our party's first general conference what happened was this:
a- The disintegration process of the capitalist-imperialist bloc led by the USSR has been completed.
This was presented in bourgeois-imperialist propaganda, supported by revisionism, as the end of
socialism and the ultimate defeat of the struggle for revolution and socialism. In the member states
of this bloc, the most open forms and methods of capitalist exploitation and of the hegemony of the
bourgeoisie, the forms and methods that are not hidden under deformed socialist forms, have become
dominant in all fields of the social structure.
b- In Albania, which was the only socialist country in the world after the 1960s, socialism was
destroyed and capitalism was restored. All the destructive consequences of the blow suffered by the
revolutionary movement of the world proletariat and the oppressed peoples in the second half of the
77
1950's have become more apparent. Revolutionary positions and foundations in the international
sphere have been lost. This has also been the weakest period for the revolutionary movement of the
world proletariat and the oppressed peoples.
The above developments paved the way for an ever greater demagogic campaign and for the many-
sided offensive waged by imperialism and world reactionary forces against the working class and the
oppressed peoples and against the struggle for revolution and socialism. The supremacy and ultimate
victory of capitalism was proclaimed. This victory was sanctified by revisionism and bourgeois
socialism which have been the internal basis for the defeat suffered by the world working class and
the peoples.
The disintegration of the imperialist bloc headed by the USSR, the collapse of socialism in Albania,
the loss of the last positions of the proletariat and the peoples, and the fall of the movement to its
lowest point, could not be and was not the ultimate defeat of the struggle for revolution and
socialism, or the end of the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system, or the end of
antagonistic class contradictions and of class struggle, or the beginning of a period of universal
harmony, peace and welfare. Since the second half of the 1950s, when imperialism and world
reaction struck the heaviest blow on the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and the peoples,
and when this movement entered a period of defeat and retreat, the material basis for the victory of
revolution and socialism was not weakened; on the contrary, it continued to develop and mature to
such a greater extent that it cannot be compared with the previous period.
Although the disintegration of the bloc headed by the USSR, which was the main target for the
demagogic propaganda carried out by imperialism and world reaction, has created some
opportunities for this or that imperialist state and monopolies, it did not create a breathing space, not
even temporarily, for the imperialist system as a whole. On the contrary, it has been a factor paving
the way to some many-sided developments that have deepened the general crisis of the imperialist-
capitalist system. What happened with this disintegration was this:
- It put an end to a period when the capitalist world was divided into two camps, both headed by a
super-power fighting for world hegemony, and when inter-relations and alliances between the
imperialist states and monopolies were being shaped by this division and struggle. The balance of
power and the relations between them have been turned upside-down. Despite the fact that the US,
whose hegemony has started to be shaken as a result of uneven development, is now the only super-
power of the capitalist world, Japan in the East and Germany and France in West Europe have
emerged as the main imperialist centres fighting for the redivision of the world. Facts show that
Russia is recovering over the ruins of the USSR and advancing to be a part in this struggle, and that
the fight between the imperialist countries and between the international monopolist corporations for
the redivision of the world is intensifying and becoming more complex.
- Contrary to the claims of the bourgeois-revisionist circles, "joining the Western bloc" has
nothelped these countries to overcome their many-sided crisis and enter a process of stable
development which could have been an element contributing to a new phase of progress in the world
capitalist economy. On the contrary, the crisis in these countries has deepened. They have moved
towards social disintegration and chaos, productive forces have been destroyed, and all of their
resources and social wealth have been looted by Western imperialist countries and monopolies.
The Gulf War broke out immediately after all this imperialist propaganda about capitalism entering a
period of harmony, peace and progress where there is no wars or class struggles. A vast area from
the Balkans to the Caucuses, from the Middle East to Africa, mainly the spheres of influence of the
ex-USSR, has become an arena for reactionary, religious, and even tribal wars provoked by the
imperialist states and monopolies.
78
Contrary to the claims of the bourgeois-imperialist circles, world capitalist economy has not entered
a period of steady growth and progress. While the process of unstable and uneven development has
deepened, the average rate of growth over a five year period has continued to fall, let alone increase.
Despite the differences in each country, the periods between the cyclical crises has shortened, the
periods of crisis and recession have become longer, and their destructive consequences have become
heavier. Even the bourgeois-imperialist circles can no longer negate this fact.
The retreat of the struggle of the world proletariat and the oppressed peoples has encouraged
imperialism to intensify its unbridled attacks. More frequent cyclical crises and recessions with more
destructive impacts, coupled with more competition and struggle for the redivision of the world,
have given some new characteristics to this offensive. The imperialist states and monopolies and
their bases in other countries have widened their economic and political attacks on a world scale to
the following extent in order to shift the burdens of these crises, recession and competition on to the
working class and the mass of the people:
a- Not only the backward countries but also small and weak advanced countries are becoming arenas
for the unlimited exploitation and hegemony of the international financial capital; they are being put
under the claws of new colonialist methods.
b- In addition to the backward countries, all the economic, political and social rights and gains of the
workers and labourers of the advanced countries are also being usurped.
The intensification of exploitation, absolute poverty and the usurpation of rights have become a part
of the daily life of the workers and labourers of the most advanced capitalist countries. In addition to
the backward countries, the increasing economic and political attacks of capital and the worsening
living and working conditions in the most advanced capitalist countries which are presented as the
societies of peace, harmony and welfare, have escalated anger, dissatisfaction and the tendency to
struggle among the workers, youth and other oppressed and exploited strata. As is seen clearly in the
examples of France, Italy, Belgium, Spain and Germany, the dullness and silence of the workers' and
labourers' movement has been replaced by the biggest and most united mass resistance of the last 50
years and by a new mobilisation in the form of strikes and general strikes together with street
demonstrations and marches. Facts show that a new period of mobilisation and awakening is
developing in the ranks of the proletariat of the advanced countries, which, qualitatively and
quantitatively, constitute the most advanced sections of the working class of the world.
In the ranks of the International Communist Movement, many-sided ideological, political and
organisational chaos and disintegration - which increased under the circumstances when imperialism
and world reaction, uniting all their forces, launched a massive offensive campaign - were replaced
by the process of reorganising as an international movement and of overcoming weaknesses. The
International Communist Movement has taken some practical steps in overcoming the disintegration
in its ranks, with the gatherings in West Europe in 1993, in Quito in 1994 and in Paris in 1995.
With the mobilisation in the movement of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples, bourgeois and
petit-bourgeois socialism and the remnants of revisionism (all of which once openly declared the
ultimate victory and supremacy of capitalism) intensified their attempts to organise as an
international movement and to impose their bankrupt theoretical and organisational-practical
platforms on the movement after having renewed them. Our conference draws attention to the
importance of the struggle against these currents and to their intensified attempts, as they are the
ones who were responsible and the internal bases for the heaviest defeat -which followed the greatest
victories- suffered by the world proletariat and the revolutionary movement of the oppressed
peoples.
79
Our conference adopted our party's theses on the international situation and trends, and highlighted
the following facts:
- The previous period has ended and a new one has started.
- The imperialist-capitalist system has not entered a period of stability and progress but one of chaos,
conflicts and instability, and is advancing towards a break up of one or more of its weakest chains.
- This process will be uneven in terms of its economic, political and social aspects in general and of
its reflections in each country in particular, and will develop in ups and downs.
Having discussed the multiple impacts of the changes in the international situation on our country,
and the consequences and tasks brought forward by these changes with regards to the revolution in
our country and the working class struggle, our conference draws particular attention to the
following points:
The present dimension of the economic, political, military, etc. relations between the countries
comprising the links of the imperialist chain on the basis of the high level reached by scientific and
technological revolution and the internationalisation of capital, the international situation and its
trends, are continuing to have an incomparably greater effect on the all economic, political and
ideological processes in our country, compared with those in the first half of this century. This is
particularly true if we bear in mind the increasing dependency of our country on imperialism in
every field and its level of capitalist development.
Despite the fact that at the present time, all the economic, political and cultural links between
countries (each one of which is a link in the imperialist chain) have developed to an unprecedented
degree, the uneven development of these countries is continuing. The process experienced by the
imperialist -capitalist system as a whole has a different level of impact on each link in the chain. The
processes undergone by each country have different features and are affected differently by the
process experienced by the system as a whole.
Our country is one of the links of the imperialist-capitalist system whose general crisis is deepening
and which is moving towards a new stage of its general crisis. As is the case in other links, not only
the victory of the proletarian socialist revolution but also of an uninterrupted genuine popular
revolution, of the struggle of the proletariat and the people of Turkey for their emancipation, would
mean a defeat for imperialism and the break up of one of the links of the imperialist chain. Such a
revolution must aim at uninterrupted transition to socialism and must be led by the proletariat.
Together with the alliance of the monopolist bourgeoisie and the big land owners, which hold state
power, imperialism is the main basis of the world reactionary forces and so constitutes the main
barrier to revolution in our country and to the struggle of the working class and the other oppressed
classes for their emancipation. For this reason, what the deepening of the general crisis of the
imperialist-capitalist system and its move towards a new stage of its general crisis mean is this:
- The barriers in front of the victory of revolution in our country, of the struggle of the working class
and the labourers for their emancipation, and of the anti-imperialist democratic revolution, which is
the necessary first stage of this revolution, are weakening.
- The international allies of the proletariat and the revolution in our country are getting stronger.
- The international situation and international factors do not have a consolidating or stabilising
impact on the present social system in Turkey but rather a weakening and destabilising one.
Despite the fact that the international basis for the proletarian world revolution has become more
mature and more developed in the present time, a new rise of the revolution will begin through a
break in the imperialist chain at its weakest links. Turkey is one of the links that feels most the
80
impacts which cause the imperialist-capitalist system to move towards a new stage of its general
crisis. Our conference highlights this fact which has a particular importance because of the
geopolitical situation of our country and draws attention to the dangerous consequences of the
narrow-mindedness of nationalist perspectives.
On Turkey:
Contrary to the claims of the spokespersons of the ruling classes who are the extensions of
imperialism in our country, the changes that led to many-sided developments in the international
arena since our First General Conference, have not created new opportunities for Turkey in the
Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia or the Middle East. Nor have they strengthened Turkey's
international relations and its international position. On the contrary, they played have promoted the
elements of instability. The following facts clearly demonstrate the correctness of this perspective:
- Under the conditions when the world was divided into two imperialist blocs headed by the US and
the USSR, and when the relations between the imperialist states and between monopolies were
shaped according to the struggle of these blocs for world hegemony - despite the rivalry between
them - Turkey was a forward station for the Western imperialist bloc and got its support. However,
this situation has changed after the disintegration of the bloc headed by the USSR, the upset of the
inter-imperialist balance of power and the emergence of new centres fighting for world hegemony.
Turkey has become one of the countries over which the struggle for hegemony between the
imperialist states and international monopolies has aggravated, since none of them has been able to
secure ultimate hegemony. Turkey is dependent on the US and on the international institutions under
the US control in terms of military and finance, and on Western Europe in terms of foreign trade and
indirect capital investments. Also, the fact that Russia is recovering adds to the impasse of the ruling
classes of Turkey with regards to which imperialist focus they should serve and to what extent.
- For the imperialist states and the international monopolies fighting for world hegemony, Turkey is
important not only because of its resources, market and economic potential, but also because of its
geopolitical situation, being a junction for the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, thus being
an important country for the hegemony over these regions and for expanding their sphere of
influence. Furthermore, these regions continue to be of a great importance for the imperialist states
and the international monopolies because of their natural resources, mainly oil, as well as their
markets and great economic potential. They also continue to be the regions which are most effected
by the changes in the inter-imperialist balance of power and where the inter-imperialist struggle for
redivision has escalated.
- In terms of its economic and military potential as well as its geopolitical situation Turkey is one of
the largest and strongest countries in these regions.
- Another characteristic of these regions is the existence of different nationalities and religions and
the fact that the problems among them remain unresolved. These problems get more complex as a
result of conflicting interests of local bourgeois-feudal groups and of the struggle for hegemony
among them. Turkey is one of these countries, with mainly the Kurdish national question. The
imperialist states and international monopolies continue to use these conflicts and contradictions in
order to expand and strengthen their sphere of influence and to weaken their rivals.
The 1990s have been years of unstability for the countries and regions surrounding Turkey. The
Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus have become the most unstable regions in the world
where the inter-imperialist struggle for the redivision of the world has grown more acute, where the
contradictions between the local bourgeois groups have been manipulated and provoked by
imperialist states and monopolies, and where reactionary national wars and the wars between
bourgeois groups for hegemony have followed each other. Facts show that the inter-imperialist
81
struggle for the redivision of these regions is continuing, that this struggle will have new features
and will become more complex with the recovery of Russia, and that instability will continue. And
Turkey is one of the countries which is at the centre of this ongoing chaos and of the whirlpool of
these conflicts.
The outcome of the so-called imperialist plans and attempts of the ruling classes of Turkey, to reach
new opportunities and possibilities by being the regional middleman and subcontractor of the main
imperialist countries, international finance capital groups and monopolies, basing everything on
some historical and cultural ties, has been a complete disappointment. Far from providing new
opportunities, these plans and attempts have aggravated the problems and the impasse that the ruling
classes were faced with, and has led to losses (the fall in trade with Arab countries after the Gulf
War) and new burdens (increased military expenditure), as was seen in the Gulf War, Yugoslavia
and the Caucasus.
Turkey's economic, military, political, etc. dependence on imperialism is increasing day after day.
As is suggested by the strategy experts of some "left" circles, especially by those who act as advisers
to the dictatorship, Turkey has not been able to play an independent role in this region in the new
conditions that arose after the disintegration of the USSR and the Soviet bloc. It could only play a
certain role as a cat's-paw of this or that imperialist centre fighting for world hegemony. While on
the one hand, the imperialist countries, above all the US, which are fighting to expand their sphere of
influence in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, are striving to be more influential on
Turkey, they are, on the other hand, increasing the pressure on it to play a role in line with their
interests and their policies determined by these interests. The following have been the consequences
of Turkey playing such a role and following a foreign policy in corresponding especially to US
imperialism's aggressive policies and its preferences.
- In addition to the problems - even in the form of embargo - with the US, to which it is politically
and militarily dependent and for which it is acting as a servant, Turkey could not escape from the
problems and threats of other imperialist centres.
- It had to be pulled into the whirlpool of the increasingly acute struggle for redivision waged by the
main imperialist countries and monopolies.
- It was unable to avoid the deterioration of and instability in its relations with its neighbours and
with other regional countries. Nor could it avoid isolation.
- The anti-national and pro-imperialist nature of its foreign policy has intensified and become more
evident.
Our conference draws attention to the fight against the foreign policy of the ruling classes and of
their fascist dictatorship which is shaped according to the interests and preferences of US
imperialism in the region and which is pushing our country into the whirlpool of inter-imperialist
conflict in the region.
On the economic situation:
While being the most faithful base for imperialism, mainly the US imperialism, and pursuing a
foreign policy accordingly, the ruling classes had a policy at home of destroying the final remnants
of the gains of the National Liberation War -which was a weak anti-imperialist revolution- and of
transferring the country into an area of exploitation for imperialist states and monopolies where they
have an unlimited hegemony in every field.
Customs and other protectionist measures have been lifted and the subsidies for agriculture and for
the state owned enterprises have been pulled down. All the barriers in front of the imperialist
82
monopolies' transfers of profit and their direct/indirect investments have been eliminated. Under the
directives of the IMF and the World Bank the economy continued to develop in the 1990s in the
direction of a typical colonial economy. The distraction in agriculture has deepened; industrial
enterprises, which are limited in numbers and which constitute the basis of an independent economy,
have been handed over to imperialist monopolies; the leftovers have been left to die with no renewal
of technology and no investment; the control and hegemony of imperialist monopolies have become
stronger in the commercial sector too.
Although the 1990s were announced to be the years of a stable growth, of catching up with the most
advanced countries, and of breaking the chains of backwardness, since our First General Conference
the economy could not get out of the process of a short-term recovery and growth followed by a
stagnation and shrinking. Moreover, in the last five years the average rate of growth fell below the
averages of the first and second halves of the 1980s, and its unstableness has deepened. The country
has entered in the heaviest economic crisis of the second half of the century, which started in the
financial sector in 1994 and spread immediately into commercial and industrial sectors. Although a
period of recovery began in 1995, partly as a result of the shifting of all the burdens of the crisis on
to the working class and all other exploited and oppressed masses, all the available data indicate that
the economy is moving towards a new crisis.
The main economic indicators such as the rate of inflation, internal and external debt, the level of
total investments, foreign trade and the balance of current account have shown a negative trend
compared to those of the 80s. The economy is on the verge of a financial bankruptcy as the
payments of internal and external debt and the interests on it can only be made through new loans
and through the selling of state enterprises for nothing to imperialist monopolies and their local
collaborators. While the proportion of productive investments decreases unearned incomes continue
to grow rapidly.
In addition to the poor of urban and rural areas, in all sectors of the economy the situation of middle
and small enterprises continue to deteriorate rapidly. While some of them are dragged into
bankruptcy, the suffocating yoke of finance capital and monopolies on those which manage to
survive has intensified further. The peasants' movements in Adiyaman, Bursa, Malatya and Mugla,
though developing under the influence of big landowners and agricultural bourgeoisie, show that
dissatisfaction and anger is rising among the small and middle property owners, that their orientation
towards struggle, though not wide-spread and permanent yet, is developing, and that the social basis
of the dictatorship, imperialism and the ruling classes among these strata has weakened. This is one
of the characteristics of the period we are going through. The Customs Union with the EU, the
negative consequences of which have not yet fully appeared, and the implementation of the IMF and
the World Bank programmes will worsen the destruction of small and middle property owners and
increase the suffocating oppression of imperialism and monopolies.
The burning down and depopulation of the villages in Kurdistan have deepened the destruction of
agriculture and cattle-dealing, deteriorated the situation of the peasantry and escalated migration to
the towns. Millions of labourers, mainly Kurdish peasants, had to migrate to big cities where there is
a high rate of unemployment and poverty and where they have no security for their future. The army
of unemployed and semi-proletarian masses is growing to an unprecedented degree.
The pay rises implemented after the rise of the workers' movement with the 1989 strikes and
demonstrations have been eroded through high inflation. This caused the decline of real wages.
Despite temporary fluctuations, the real wages of the workers and all other labourers dropped
throughout 1990s. The year 1994 was a turning point as it marked the beginning of a period of the
sharpest decreases and deterioration of real wages and of the living and working conditions of the
oppressed and exploited classes.
83
Turkey is entering a new period of an inevitable economic crisis and new offensives, following a
period of the most rapid rise in absolute poverty of the last fifty years. This is one of the most
significant characteristic of the period we are passing through.
On the political situation:
The 1990s have been the years when the mass and social basis of the ruling classes and of the fascist
dictatorship weakened, when the impasses and problems they were faced with in the country
deepened and their international relations deteriorated. The following facts demonstrate this situation
clearly:
Despite the demagogy about democratisation and liberalisation, no steps were taken in the 1990s
towards the recognition and constitutional guarantee of democratic rights and freedom (nor towards
the solution of Kurdish national question which is an element of this). On the contrary, oppression
and terror intensified and became wide-spread. The dictatorship's apparatus for attacks and
repression have constantly been strengthened with ever increasing power. It has also become clear
that with all its establishments the parliament was not an instrument of the realisation of bourgeois
democracy, but on the contrary, it was a puppet functioning to deceive people and to give a
democratic appearance to the fascist dictatorship. While the friction between the parties of the
bourgeois system are escalating, the "representative" establishments, with their political parties,
government and parliament are now more discredited than at any other time in their history.
Although the aggravating friction between the bourgeois parties is being used to divert the masses'
attention from real problems, they also help expose, even if only partially, their corruption and
rottenness.
In the 1990s, the balance of power between the parties of the bourgeois system changed such that it
kept governmental crises and snap-elections constantly on the agenda, which made even the Grand
National Assembly non-functional. Despite all the restrictions and anti-democratic election
regulations, none of the bourgeois parties was able to come out of the latest general elections with a
level of mass support big enough to enable them to establish the strong and stable government which
imperialism and the ruling classes wanted. None of these parties, including the Welfare Party - one
of the coalition partners - which increased its votes by using anti-system rhetoric and religious
motifs, have the mass support and strength that could calm down the anger and dissatisfaction of the
masses, and that could unify all the reactionary forces around imperialism's and the ruling classes'
policy of attacking the people.
No matter how restricted the power and role of the parliament is in the political life of the country,
the developments mentioned above weaken the ruling classes and the dictatorship, and aggravate
their impasse. However, these developments on their own do not paralyse or shake the instruments
of political hegemony of imperialism, monopolist bourgeoisie and big land owners. This is because
with its political parties, governments and other institutions, the existing parliament is not the power
that rules the country, even in appearance. The real power that is ruling the country not only in
practice but also in appearance is the oligarchy consisting of imperialism, the monopolist big
bourgeoisie, the big land owners, generals, police chiefs and other administrative institutions of the
militarist-bureaucratic apparatus, all of which are interlinked and combined. Our conference
highlights this fact and defines it as foolishness to consider the friction between the parties of the
bourgeois system and the change in the balance of power between them as an indication of a
political crisis and of a revolutionary situation.
Widespread corruption, decay and conflicts between different cliques are growing, although this
84
does not paralyse the state and its main instruments like the army and the police organisation, which
are the main instrument of the hegemony of the ruling classes and imperialism. It can no longer be
hidden that the police and the army have close links with mafia, with gangs and with all sorts of
scandals, corruption, bribery, etc.
Scandals following one another and the unbridled terror of the offensive apparatus of the
dictatorship, above all the police forces who are given unlimited authority, speed up the process
whereby the masses can realise through their own experience what the main functions of the state
and other institutions really are, resulting in the destruction of their reactionary prejudices with
regards to these institutions, especially among their awakening sections.
Another significant development is the growth of the dissatisfaction and anger among the lower
strata government employees whose living conditions are deteriorating rapidly. They are getting
organised as a separate force from the top strata of the bureaucracy. The fact that public employees'
movement is advancing and orientating towards uniting with the workers' movement, though it does
not include the police and the army, is an indication of disintegration in the state apparatus, and
bears significance as it is afactor in the weakening of the dictatorship.
One of the most significant developments of the 1990s has been the weakening of the masses' belief
in the improvement of living and working conditions and of democratic rights and freedom under the
existing regime. Their disillusionment with traditional bourgeois parties and the orientation towards
new expectations have escalated. Especially among the advanced section of the workers, the
orientation towards organising as a separate party has grown stronger. However, despite this
orientation, the disorganisation among the majority of the advanced workers has not been overcome
yet, and they are not yet organised in a revolutionary workers' party. This is one of the reasons why
the workers' movement has not been able to enter a process of stable development, why the
stagnation of the movement in 1992-93 has not been overcome despite the mobilisations in 1994-95,
and why the open mass movement of the workers is at its weakest point of the last ten years.
The reasons why the open mass movement of the workers and labourers and the Kurdish national
movement have been going through a new period of stagnation and disorganisation since the middle
of 1995 differ in some points from the reasons for the stagnation in 1991-94. This is because in the
former period the living conditions of the working classes and the Kurdish labourers got worse and
did not show any improvement such as it did in 1990-91. Furthermore, government's campaigns for
"democracy" did not give rise to expectations and become a factor blocking the mass movement. In
fact, the open mass movement was blocked mainly from within.
The policies of the traditional liberal "left" groups' and the trade union bureaucracy have dragged the
working masses into hopelessness. Terrorism stemmed from the complete rottenness of the
anarchistic "socialist" currents. All these have played a liquidating role which resulted in the
disorganisation of the mass movement, the destruction of the relationship between the advanced and
the backward sections of the working people, and the provocation of the political atmosphere and the
masses.
The "work" of the Kurdish nationalist current which is based on the enmity between the Turks and
the Kurds and which has been reshaped since 1991 within the orbit of the inter-imperialist struggle
for their interests, has had a two-sided effect. Firstly, it has pushed Turkish labourers into a position
that is exposed to the provocative activities of capital. Secondly, it has been a factor turning the
growing dissatisfaction and tiredness among the Kurdish population into hopelessness. The
organisations of the advanced workers struggling under such circumstances were not able to counter
all these negative factors or to minimise their destructive consequences. In spite of the fact that the
break away of the labouring masses from the system deepened in 1995-96, these factors that feed
and strengthen each other gave rise to the stagnation of the open mass movement, and to a
disorganising hopelessness among the lower strata of the population.
85
Terrorist attacks, actions on behalf of the youth, irresponsible attacks and looting by the "left" as was
experienced on the May Day, and their consequences, provocative activities against trade union
platforms, bureaucratic structures of the unions, etc., all these had a negative effect that destroyed the
morale of the masses. All these were used by the dictatorship to usurp the positions gained de-facto
by mass struggle (for example massive illegal demonstrations), to intensify its attacks and to create
more fascist laws.
The stagnation of the mass movement is not an absolute phenomenon. Possibilities and conditions
are continuing to develop and ripen for the mass movement to enter a new period of ascendance that
may also include explosions, to develop as a united struggle of all the oppressed and exploited
classes, and to overcome the factors that destroy and push backward the workers' and labourers'
movement.
Despite the constant strengthening of the dictatorship's apparatus for attacks and repression and the
intensification of oppression and terror, the scope of the democratic rights which are used in practice
continued to expand in accordance with the rise and fall of the mass struggle. Turkey is going
through a period where the living and working conditions of the oppressed and exploited classes are
deteriorating rapidly, where none of their immediate economic and political demands are being met,
where dissatisfaction, anger and the tendency for struggle are growing among the masses. On the
other hand, the ruling classes and the government are intensifying their economic and political
offensive and watching for the right moment to implement new packages of attacks. The present
conditions show that the economic and political attacks of the monopolist big bourgeoisie and the
big land owners, supported by imperialism - above all by the IMF and the World Bank - will
intensify, and the living and working conditions of all oppressed and exploited classes will become
worse. This will inevitably cause the growth of dissatisfaction, anger and the orientation to struggle
among the masses, and the sharpening of the contradictions between the ruling classes and those
who are ruled, and between labour and capital.
In Turkey, although the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution, between labour and
capital, and between the oppressed and exploited classes and the alliance of imperialism and the
ruling classes is not yet at the level of a final settling of accounts, the current process is approaching
this level. This development is not in the form of a straight line, but of rises and falls.
All these facts prove the importance and urgency of the creation of the united front for the struggle
and resistance of the masses. In contrast to the right and "left" opportunist groups, our party does not
consider the question of unity as one of "unity of the left" or as "an alliance between the left groups".
These groups which do not have any links with the working class and its movement, and the "unity"
or "alliance" among them do not play a unifying and advancing role for the movement. On the
contrary, they play a weakening and liquidating role because of their platforms and their
understanding of action. Our party's primary policy with regards to unity is the creation of the united
struggle of the broad masses of workers and of a Labour (and Popular) Front with the workers at its
centre, as well as the creation a single party of the working class. Existing workers' platforms, trade
unions and other social organisations are the instruments to achieve this at present.
In creating a strong front for the struggle against the attacks of capital and the dictatorship, in
repulsing these attacks and advancing in the direction of emancipation, the party is the fundamental
weapon of the working class. Our conference draws attention to the daily movement of the working
class and to the task of giving maximum assistance to the preparation and organisation of the masses
- above all the working class - for the revolution, the task of rebuilding of the mass party which will
have the ability use to the full all the necessary instruments and opportunities to this end and which
will embrace the majority of the awakening sections of the working class, and the task of rebuilding
86
the organisation of communist workers with iron discipline.
After assessing our party's activities in all fields since the First General Conference, our conference
came to the following conclusions:
The TDKP has been loyal to the cause of the emancipation of the proletariat in late 1980s and early
1990s when all the destructive consequences of the defeat that the revolutionary movement of the
world proletariat and the oppressed peoples began to suffer in the second half of the 1950s appeared
clearly, when the period of defeat and retreat was continuing, when imperialism and reactionary
forces intensified their offensive, and when the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and the
peoples fell to its lowest point. Our party drew attention to the fact that the victory of imperialism,
the bourgeoisie and their bases in every country and the defeat suffered by the proletariat, the
peoples and the struggle for revolution and socialism were temporary, and that the general crisis of
the imperialist-capitalist system has deepened and has been moving towards a new stage at the time
when it was proclaiming its final victory. The TDKP did not allow any jolt or any currents of
imperialism and capital with a socialist mask to appear in its ranks even in a period when all the
currents, organisations and parties which claimed to be revolutionary and socialist, were shaken,
disorganised and disintegrated under the increasing repression and attacks of imperialism, the
bourgeoisie and all shades of revisionism in our country and in the world. In such a period, in
February 1990, it held its First General Conference and unanimously adopted the resolution to fight
against the many-sided attacks of imperialism and all shades of revisionism, to defend all the
historical gains of the world proletariat and to continue the struggle until the ultimate emancipation
of the working class. It fought against bourgeois and petit-bourgeois non-working class tendencies
which emerged in its ranks and did not allow them to divert the party from its path. It learnt lessons
from its mistakes and its practice and struggled sincerely to fulfil its responsibilities not only for the
working class of our country but also for the working class of the world.
The TDKP placed at the centre of its activities the maximum level of help to the development of the
level of the leadership, consciousness, organisation and struggle of the working class and gave
special importance to the youth, despite all the weaknesses and shortcoming of this section of
society, as they represent the future. It has distinguished itself from other currents and organisations
in every field with its position in and relations with the mass movement, especially the workers'
movement. Our party has become the only current which carried out activities among the workers
and which has the potential to advance the workers' movement, while all other currents claiming to
make the revolution and establish socialism moved towards bourgeois liberalism or individual
terrorism.
What prevented our party from renovating and making the necessary changes in time in the relations
between its slogans and forms and methods of organisation and the struggle in accordance with the
changes in the conditions and according to the development of the workers' movement, were the
reflections of bourgeois liberalism in various fields, above all on organisational discipline, and the
practical opportunism in its ranks which represented the so-called underground work of the
traditional left. This so-called underground work of the traditional left has no links with the workers'
movement and with its needs. Instead, these elements hid behind the excuse of secrecy and security,
and did not have the courage to make the change and development in their way of thinking, living
and working that is required by the needs of the workers' movement. Our party did not have the
ability to use to the full all the possibilities and instruments developed both by the progress in the
workers' movement and by the activities it carried out.
Moreover, these possibilities were paralysed as a result of these tendencies and weaknesses in our
organisation. These tendencies had opportunity to develop in recent years when the dictatorship's
attacks intensified on our party and were able to be effective due to the delay in the rebuilding and
87
renovation of the party, and when extraordinary measures had to be taken in order to minimise losses
under these conditions.
The changes in conditions, the level of development of the tendency especially among the advanced
workers to organise as a separate class, the outcome of the activities carried out by our party so far
and its position and influence in the workers' movement, all these have proved that the agitation and
propaganda and organisational activities which - despite the mistakes and weaknesses - advanced
our party's work, and the organisations, positioning of the cadres and the relations between the forms
and instruments that it used in carrying out these activities have become obsolete. It has become
inevitable that we renew and develop these activities with new forms and instruments. It was not
possible to achieve this transformation through some partial changes, while keeping the old
organisation and old perspective. It could only be achieved through rebuilding our party in every
field -legal and illegal- and purifying and renewing its forces. Our conference approves all the
decisions of the Central Committee taken with this perspective and the steps taken in practice by our
party. It draws attention to the decisive relation between the rebuilding of our party, the renovation
of its activities in all fields according to the changes in conditions, and the ability that all the party
forces will show in overcoming their weaknesses and mistakes, and most importantly, between the
renovation of the working class and the youth with fresh forces and an iron discipline.
Not only in countries like Turkey where a fascist dictatorship reigns but also in the most democratic
and stable bourgeois republics, the revolutionary party of the working class has to have a sound
clandestine organisation in order to secure the continuation of its activities, the future of the workers'
movement, and the development of assistance to and influence on this movement with a
revolutionary line which is not restricted by (bourgeois) laws.
In addition to the maximum use of the legal possibilities and the consolidation of the work in this
field, one of the most important tasks of the day is the rebuilding and consolidation of the illegal
organisation which has the features required to meet the needs of the workers' movement. This is
necessary for the continuation of the activities of preparing and organising the revolution and for its
success. What is needed is not a so-called illegal organisation which has no links with the workers'
movement, which is far from meeting the needs of this movement, and which has become
degenerated and become an aim instead of an instrument (for the revolution). What is needed is an
illegal organisation with thousands of links, which is sound and capable of utilising all instruments
and possibilities and of organising and directing the struggle for revolution and socialism in the face
of the fierce attacks of counter-revolutionary forces. While utilising the possibilities in legal field to
the full, another fundamental task facing the conscious sections of the working class, above all the
organised forces of our party, is to become perfect in illegal work, to strengthen the clandestine
organisation and to encourage the awakening sections of the working class to organise in that
organisation.
Contrary to the suggestions of the right and "left" wing of the traditional "left", which stand on a
completely liquidationist platform today, legal and illegal organisation and work do not exclude or
alternate each other. On the contrary, they constitute the unity of two different aspects of a single
aim, complementing and strengthening each other. It is not possible to help the workers' movement
develop and to build a sound and constantly strengthened clandestine organisation by turning one's
back on the present tasks to advance the level of consciousness, organisation and struggle of the
workers' movement, on the most effective instruments and forms of this work, and consequently, on
the movement itself.
On the basis of organising revolutionary work based on factories and advancing this work, our
conference draws attention to the importance of strengthening and giving full support to the
organisation of the working class in the open-legal (economic-political) field, to supporting and
88
consolidating the open / legal workers' press which is one of the most influential instruments of
organising and advancing the struggle of the working class, and to using it effectively in the daily
work that must be carried out energetically in this field.
Our conference, which has passed resolutions on the questions of organisation, women, culture,
youth, overseas organisations and the national question, expresses its belief that all party
organisations and forces, advanced workers, and the youth will sincerely and with great sacrifice
carry out the decisions of the Second General Conference of the TDKP.
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)
October 1996
89
VENEZUELA
In the Face of Capitalist Chaos The political line of the

marxist-leninist communists in the current world situation
(Part I: Some considerations on the objective conditions)
Neo-Liberalism: Spearhead of Imperialism
One of the most important features of the current world capitalist crisis is that it has been developing
on the basis of a policy for the economic, political and social levels which, paradoxically, is
presented as a paradigm capable of guaranteeing the realisation of the new developments of
humanity. Neo-liberalism, accompanied by political, ideological and philosophical concepts, is
presented as the only possible policy in the current conditions of world development, even though it
has been the catalyst for the most perverse evils of this regime of production. Therefore it is
necessary to locate the current conditions of capitalism in the context created by neoliberal policies,
which have been used by the most conspicuous instruments of finance capital: the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO, formerly
GATT) to satisfy capital’s voracious appetite.
In general, the historical development of the bourgeois regime, which is writing a new and unique
chapter in its phase of decomposition and the transition to socialism, has been determined by this
policy. This is a question which has been posed by the objective conditions which arise from the
capitalist economy, and more particularly those which are developing in the conditions of the crisis,
which by its nature is structural and global, and which in turn deepens its general character.
The neo-liberal economic policy seeks to facilitate the process of concentration and centralisation of
capital and production, a process which in times of crisis like the present is greatly increased. To
accelerate this objective process, neo-liberalism deepens one of essential contradictions of the laws
of motion of capitalism: that which exists between the social character of production and the private
character of distribution of the social product, a circumstance which is of a global character, and
which makes itself more evident in times when the levels of production of commodities have
reached such a magnitude, in terms of volume and variety, that they indicate a new stage in the
development of the scientific and technological revolution.
This contradiction in the development of capitalism is a fundamental element in the dynamic of the
class struggle in all the capitalist countries, in particular in the nations which are dependent and
subjugated by finance capital. While, in an international scale, this is expressed in the deepening of
contradictions on the one hand between the imperialist powers, and between the dependent and neo-
colonial nations and the imperialist powers on the other. The global character of the crisis and of this
policy means that the analysis of the international situation, and of the neo-liberal paradigm upon
the basis of which its economic, social, political, cultural and philosophical evolution is legitimised,
is an unavoidable prerequisite for defining a general line for communists.
In the first instance, we have to locate neo-liberalism as an international product whose central axis
is the defence of the interests of finance capital. To be more concrete, it is a question of a response
on the part of world capitalism to the consequences of the bourgeois dynamic which embraces the
entire planet, because it has had to be implanted in almost all the countries of the world, keeping its
realisation in the hands of the blocs dominated by each neo-colonial or imperialist state, in
connivance with finance capital and its most conspicuous organisations, the IMF, the WB and the
WTO. The application of this policy is unequal, due to the specificities of each nation, the
90
contradictions which it generates - since the real objectives in many cases push in the opposite
direction to the one predicted by the theory - and the responses of the popular movement in each
country. Now then, neither the contradictions and problems of an economic or political character
which this produces for capitalism, nor the sharpening of class contradictions have been sufficient to
preclude the implementation of this neo-liberal policy, with its consequent acceleration in the
changes in the process of accumulation of capital, based on the increased exploitation of labour, the
introduction of new forms of organisation of the production process and the imposition of new
standards of consumption.
Neo-liberalism is the economic policy of international finance capital in this period, directed to
guaranteeing capitalist accumulation and the process of expanded reproduction in conditions of
crisis. This statement flows from the coherence that the neo-liberal policies maintain with respect to
the necessities and the objectives of finance capital, and which is expressed in the search for a
greater economic space where the growing mass of capital can be placed, which in turn leads to a
major offensive against the workers in order to increase the levels of exploitation and reduction in
the value of labour power, and which together put a brake on the fall in the average rate of profit on
an international level. All of this is manifested, on the side of capital, in the new levels of expanded
accumulation, in the favourable sales of the large-scale international firms and all their subsidiaries,
in the monopolistic associations and the absorption of some monopolies by others; while, on the side
of labour, we can locate the most complete expression of neo-liberalism in the alarming growth in
impoverishment.
As a rule, the result of these effects on macro economic equilibrium is a breakdown, deepening the
problems which they are meant to attack. The balance of payments is increasingly in deficit in the
countries where this neo-liberal schema is implemented, the budget deficit has turned into a chronic
problem, for the United States included, while monetary problems today affect not only the
currencies of the dependent nations but also the principal currency of the international market: the
dollar.
In the same way, when this recipe of measures is applied, other problems, which the apologists for
neo-liberalism say it will solve, are deepened. The liberalisation of the foreign exchange market, a
mechanism which is supposed to reduce inflation and increase competitiveness, has made the
economies of the weak nations more dependent on the most important currencies in the world
market, above all with respect to the dollar, such that the imperialist nations attain higher levels of
control over their foreign market, increasing the prices of imported products and turning inflation
into a chronic problem, while they lower the prices of traditional export goods, deepening the role of
these things as comparative advantage. Privatisation, which was supposed to make state enterprises
and public services more efficient, has been converted into an auction of state enterprises and the
undermining of fundamental human rights such as education and health, making public services
more expensive and elitist. The liberalisation of the external market, through the elimination of
protectionist barriers, has drastically deepened the inequality in the relations of exchange, thus
eliminating any possibility of raising competitiveness in the international market which does not
follow the path of realising comparative advantage, in the case of the dependent nations, while for
the imperialist nations such a rise is based in the increase in the organic composition of capital. In its
turn, external debt is continuing to grow, propped up precisely by this policy, despite being one of
the principal problems for the dependent and neo-colonial countries.
For its part, the states have become strengthened as instruments guaranteeing the capitalist order,
whose stability is affected by the rise in social conflicts linked to the deepening of the grave national
and social problems resulting from neo-liberal policies. This is why, on the side of the neo-liberal
economic offensive, the fundamental contradiction on a global scale, that between capitalism and
socialism, is being resolved in favour of capitalism, even if this is a temporary and circumstantial
91
question. The revolutionary forces, on an international level, have suffered a long period of defeats,
of dispersion, of the adoption of defensive positions, in conditions unfavourable to making advances,
a situation which today is passing through its last stages, giving way to a new period given the
current conditions, which is opening renewed possibilities for the development of the historical
vanguard of the peoples of the world.
But the implementation of neo-liberalism has experienced important setbacks, very much despite the
situation that the communist and revolutionary movements is passing through on a world scale. On
the one hand, we can see that the contradictory character of this policy leads to a deepening of the
difficulties and disequilibria which it is meant to address, such that it is rapidly seen as inefficient in
terms of producing solutions which are favourable to social development and achieving the
objectives which it promotes, so that “the cure is more harmful than the illness.” This process is to
be seen mainly in the dependent nations, since to convert these into important factors for
accumulation -as receptacles for capital, sources of cheap raw materials, markets for final goods with
a high technological component and artificially high prices, among other aspects- the neo-liberal
formulae lead to a deepening of the capitalist crisis, when they are precisely meant to be a policy
which has as its real basic objective the slowing down at all costs the fall in the average rate of profit
on a global scale. On the other hand, as a consequence of the above, neo-liberalism stimulates the
class struggle and political instability, as it is a policy which intensifies the rapacious and savage
character of capitalist exploitation, expressed in the levels of poverty of the workers and people of
the world, who see themselves forced to convert themselves into points of resistance to the
implementation of these measures.
Therefore we conclude that it is not a question of incoherence, as some critics of neo-liberalism

claim, but on the contrary the contradictory character of this policy means that what is said is one
thing and the objectives which underlie these measures which are being implemented are another
thing altogether.
The application of IMF policy shows common consequences: reduction in the pace of economic
growth and the rate of investment, up to the point of an absolute reduction; worsening of the level of
unemployment and underemployment; maintaining or aggravating the rate of increase of prices in
general; fall in real wages and other real incomes; deepening of monetary depreciation; redistribution
of capital and profits in favour of those sectors linked to foreign trade; financial strangulation and
bankruptcy for small and medium sized firms; deterioration in basic social services provided by the
state and an increase in their prices; progressive denationalisation of the economy; and, finally, a
massive increase in external debt.
This is the context in which have arisen postmodernism, globalisation and all the theses which serve
as alienating messages, whose material and objective basis is a global reality where finance capital
dominates in a brutal fashion. This is a context which is strengthened since there is no solid
resistance to neo-liberal policies which is based on a radical distinct order, such as in the days when
the socialist bloc was a real hope for the people of the world, with important benefits for the
workers, with amazing developments in science, culture and sport. In the current situation, on the
contrary, the free market is an abstraction which is seeking to strengthen itself through the
implantation of ethical, cultural and philosophical values, with all the limitations that are there
preventing the vast majority of the planet from having access to them.
Nonetheless, the postmodernist and neo-liberal apologia for the market, presenting it as a triumphant
power in the face of socialism, cannot provide a response to the global problems of this period. The
postmodernist and neo-liberal argument to problems like the hunger of thousands of millions of
human beings, the imperialist wars of robbery, the “humanitarian” interventions which only create
greater dependency and subjugation for the countries that have been intervened in, etc.., is that these
92
problems form an anti-democratic political reorganisation. They seek to weaken any vestiges of the
neo-colonial states, to make the labour market more flexible and to facilitate the entry of foreign
investment and the export goods of the capitalist transnationals. Meanwhile the imperialist nations
are strengthening their positions, each time seeking to secure better conditions for themselves in the
global dispute.
Taken together, all these aspects show us clearly that this policy has been converted into the main
lever for securing higher profits on capital invested in international production and usury, such that
the export of capital reaches an unusual level of development, very much despite the crisis. This is
what permits Michel Camdessus, Managing Director of the IMF, to affirm that: “the net inflow of
private capitals to the developing countries has gone from the level of $10bn per year on average in
the 1970s, to more than $100bn per year in the first half of the 1990s, and $166bn in the past year,”
referring to 1996.
Neoliberalism is a synthesis of approaches which guarantee the widening of the sphere of influence
of finance capital. It is, furthermore, a matter of a response by monopoly capitalism, of finance
capital, to a concrete situation at the root of which the limitations which have been created (in the
market, in the areas of investment and the development of the organic composition of capital) are of
such a magnitude that they demand radical solutions, which inevitably is placing many countries in
the position of facing a dilemma of choosing between the perpetuation of this regime or a radical
solution to the problems which it is aggravating.
The neoliberal perspective is not restricted to economic matters in a precise way. On the contrary, it
is linked to a combination of categories and concepts which impinge social, political and cultural
questions as well as those which are eminently economic. This perspective does not impinge
economic reality in order to influence it as part of a process of transformation, but rather is an
expression of the needs of capital. Its theoretical bases are the product of finance capital’s intention
to deepen the tendencies which guarantee capital accumulation in this period.
The concepts highlighted by the neoliberals who place themselves more in the philosophical,
ideological and cultural fields, corresponding to imperialist bourgeois ideology, are those which
refer to the problem of historical, economic and social development, inscribed within a philosophical
position which is metaphysical, sceptical and conservative. For example, the concept that the
highest, not to say the only, stage of human development is capitalism, as is the case also with Adam
Smith’s “natural order”. In its turn, “the end of history” has as its basis the temporary defeat which
socialism has suffered on a world scale, when the restoration of capitalism in the majority of
countries which had reached socialism in its different developments, the coming to power of
revisionism in those states and their subsequent defeat and overthrow with the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, even if they claim it is some philosophical aspects of the
Hegelian “dialectic”. This philosophical exercises are no more than a part of the intellectual rhetoric
whose general objective is to establish, in the framework of an absolute scepticism, that the market
rules over those process which dare to not recognise it, returning with a material forces which is
impossible to impede, at the risk of suffering the consequences which are manifested in scientific
and technological backwardness, the erratic performance of macroeconomic variables, etc..
In general, the historical context is propitious for a rebirth of irrationalism, nihilism and scepticism,
consolidating the possibilities for the development and realisation of neoliberalism. The most
important aspect of international politics during the last few years, summed up in the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the USSR, has been converted into a “real” base which serves
neoliberalism in its argument that there is no possibility of social development outside the
framework of economic and political liberalism. This reflects the fact that it is a part of a process of
reaccommodation of humanity to market logic in its search for the global domination..
93
These claims do not signify that neoliberalism has become the only bourgeois and imperialist option
for the development of economic policies which serve the interests of capital. However, in the
current conditions of the general crisis of capitalism, this is the economic policy which best suits the
development of tendencies and counter-tendencies which favour capitalist accumulation, and in
particular the accumulation of finance capital. The superstition of neoliberalism, its loss of validity,
is subject in the first instance to a change in the objective conditions, which means if capitalism can
overcome its present crisis, a question which without doubt will arise from the realisation, up to the
final consequences, of the innate tendencies of imperialism, from the most general, like the process
of the destruction of capital, and its most concrete expression: the redivision of the world, which
could lead to a more specific tendency, namely the development of the organic composition of
capital. While neoliberalism continues to be imposed on the whole capitalist order, even if it is
presented in various ways (globalisation, internationalisation, etc.., categories which in reality form
part of this general policy), or if it is accompanied by speeches which seek to hide its essence,
expressed on many occasions by governments which claim to differentiate its specific realisation in a
given country, in order not to lose the support which sectors of the population have given them.
Finance Capital Extends its Power
The fundamental premise which explains the survival of capitalism is without doubt the expanded
reproduction of capital, which is vital for the development of this regime of production. The market
has to develop parallel to this process and in a corresponding way - and more than this its
development has to go in correlation with the rhythm of production and accumulation, and if it does
not then the crisis of overproduction will appear. This tendency is the result of the limit on
production which is not accompanied by a proportional growth in the demand in the market, due to
the tendency of the rise in the organic composition, which in turn means proportionally less living
labour in the industrial product - and the fall in the rate of profit. From this comes the attempt to
devalue labour power as the principal mechanism for slowing down this fall. The demands of
accumulation for the development of the market, and the inherent contradictions of this, acquire a
supreme character and demand urgent solutions - even extreme solutions - in order to guarantee
investment, since without that the process will be interrupted with the consequent collapse of the
entire system: without investment-capitalisation, there is no accumulation.
Now then, the global crisis of capitalism, which has been developing in an increasingly rapid manner
since the 1970s, enormously reduces the possibilities for investment in general, but more particularly
productive investment, from which arises the tendency to favour investment in the area of
speculation and international usury, with foreign debt as its primary support. This explains the way
in which the international speculative market and foreign debt have accelerated over the past
decades, through which the relations of economic dependency on global finance capital of the neo-
colonial and dependent states have been strengthened.
We can observe the best proof of the development of this tendency towards speculative investments
in the facts that for the year of 1993, 60 per cent of global capital was bound up in financial
speculation. This shows that crises, which imply a process of massive destruction of capital, are also
the period in which monetary interests enrich themselves at the expense of industrial interests.
These questions become consequences of capitalist crises and matters for the overcoming of the
crises themselves in capitalist terms.
The IMF and neoliberal policies are designed precisely to open up spaces for productive and
unproductive investments of finance capital on a global scale in the current circumstances. The
conditions in which the capitalist world is developing have made the implementation of this policy a
matter of urgency, since the demand for economic spaces for the profitable investment of capital is
94
dependent on the level of accumulation that has been reached on a global scale, which has reached
an extremely high level, while on the other hand a level of social demand has not been created in the
world market which corresponds to such levels of accumulation.
In general, this neoliberal economic policy has permitted the widening of the possibilities for the
investment of capital. The IMF has been at the forefront, and has played a role of primary
importance, above all through the pressures it exercises on nations, in particular the less developed
ones, for them to implement the specific measures which facilitate investments coming from the
imperialist countries. The IMF programmes include the adoption of specific measures to give
incentives to the investment of foreign capital, the lifting of restrictions on the entry of foreign
capital, the increase in the proportion of profits which can be repatriated for the latter or the
elimination of the control which at times the state exercises in this regard, the establishment and the
extension of free zones and “tax havens” and superexploitation of the domestic working class, the
exemption of taxes on profits and tariffs in general, and finally an entire body of legislation to favour
foreign direct investment. In these conditions the tendency towards the export of capital finds greater
possibilities for being realised.
In general, the measures and orientations of the IMF, from its foundation in 1945, basically have to
do with the placement of finance capital in the form of state credits or even programmes which
guarantee the maintenance of credit capacity in a country which seeks the help of this international
organisation. The letters of intent, the control of the measures contained within them, the permanent
observation on the part of the IMF, the World Bank etc.. of the course of economic policies of the
countries that have been “helped”, form a part of this offensive which in its turn deepens the
relations of economic dependency. This is the context in which the sovereignty of nations which
receive capital tends to be violated. The result of this policy has been translated into the growth of
internal and external public debt of all the countries of the world, including the imperialist nations
themselves. On the other hand, direct investments carried out by the imperialist nations in the less
developed nations have reached a significative point.
This situation also leads to the deepening of the tendency towards parasitism and the shareholding
sector, that is of individuals who live off cutting coupons, completely alienated from participation in
any business, and whose profession is idleness. The exploitation of capital accentuates further still
this complete divorce of the shareholding sector from production, putting a seal of parasitism on the
entire country.
Neoliberalism adapts the economic activity of the dependent states
Finance capital, in order to extend the possibilities for the export of capital, promotes and demands
the privatisation of state enterprises and public services under the slogan of the markets superiority
of efficiency compared to the bureaucratism of the state. Put in more precise terms, this means
demanding the transition of state areas which can facilitate private business putting into place
mechanisms which are beneficial to the realisation of the process of extension of the financial arena.
Privatisation, on the other hand, becomes an important mechanism for making the labour market
more flexible and for the creation of the material conditions for the reproduction of the capitalist
regime in the current circumstances, in which it is sought to adapt consumption to the low levels of
production due to the crisis.
In the dependent countries, life expectancy is 43 years, while in the United State, Japan, France and
Great Britain life expectancy at birth is more than 70 year. In addition, in the underdeveloped
countries 50 per cent of deaths are due to transmitted diseases, in contrast to 25 per cent in the
developed countries. Each day 7 million people die because of tuberculosis, and each hour 10,000
95
new cases are discovered. Hepatitis B, avoidable through vaccination, causes a million deaths a year.
12 million children under 5 die each year in the dependent countries; a child dies every 8 seconds in
the world; 3 million children die of diarrhoea; 1.2 million of measles; a million of malaria and
500,000 of neonatal tetanus. These are the problems and the dramas of “triumphant” capitalist
development.
The concentration of impoverishment of the great majority, on the one hand, and the concentration
of riches on the other, is manifested in an even way in the more developed countries and the
dependent and neo-colonial countries.
Nonetheless, poverty is also reaching high levels in the biggest industrial power in the world, the
United States, where there are 36 million poor people, which is 14% of the population of this nation,
whereas in 1970 it was only 11%. The same is taking place in western Europe, where the level of
poverty has already gone beyond 12% of the population. The neoliberal policies have also led to
negative consequences in the more developed countries, creating a dual, dislocated society, where
dualism is in fact segregation, “economic apartheid” in full force in a society which is definitively
and cruelly “at twin speed”. A society where the different sectors of the population live in fact on
two different levels which are getting further away from each other each year. Dualism between the
rich and the poor, of course, but also between the great universities and an education system under
attack; dualism between ultramodern hospital and clinics and a health infrastructure as costly as it is
obsolete, etc..
At the international level, this dualism is manifested in short in the imperialist countries having an
advanced development, while at the other extreme we can see how the overwhelming majority of
countries of the world experience to an exaggerated degree all the great ills that the capitalist system
generates, made worse today through neoliberalism. In addition, this dualism is expressed within the
imperialist countries themselves and, also, dualism is developing within the nations dependent on
finance capital.
On the other hand, neoliberalism is leaving a clear imprint with regard to employment.
Unemployment is reaching a considerable level, and is being maintained over a long period. Wages
are lagging behind prices and the distribution of income is deteriorating in an accelerated fashion.
And it cannot be otherwise, since this is the logic of capitalism and the orientation of neoliberalism,
which finds in the low cost of labour power the “ideal” comparative advantage for attracting capital,
something which is achieved through increasing the level of unemployment such that the general
movement of wages is regulated by the expansion and contradictions of the reserve army of labour.
It is for this reason that alongside the high levels of poverty that have been reached on an
international level there are high levels of unemployment, above all in the countries that are less
developed in capitalist terms.
The necessity for capital to reduce the price of labour power, in order to slow down the fall in the
rate of profits, is what leads to these levels of poverty and unemployment, converting these dramatic
human conditions into a very important mechanism for the extension and the deepening of the
capitalist regime.
Technological advance is opposed to socio-economic development
In the final analysis, the export of finance capital determines economic policies at a global level and
the evolution of the international division of labour. Both this determination and the development of
the defined economic orientations strengthen some of the counter-tendencies which soften the
impact of the fall in the rate of profit. However, competition leads to the inexorable, even though
96
limited, development of the technical composition of capital, such that the neoliberal policies seek to
complement both contradictory developments in favour of capital, which is translated into higher
levels of accumulation and an increase in class contradictions.
An increase in the organic composition of capital has been evident above all in the last few years,
when the scientific and technical revolution has led to new developments in the imperialist nations,
expressed in the application of computer technology and robotics to the production process. In the
same way, the application of these innovations has led to the advance of new schemes in the
organisation of the production process which seek to increase labour productivity.
The principal expression of the advance in the organic composition of capital in the current
circumstances is industrial restructuring, which is presented as a qualitative leap in the organic
composition, as a new phase in the scientific and technical revolution which provokes readjustments
in industrial plant, both in terms of the use of new technologies and in the organisation of the labour
process.
In global terms, industrial restructuring is a process which has been generalised on a global scale,
having as its lever for its realisation the IMF’s orientation, which facilitates the export of finance
capital, in the form of direct investments, which are determinant in the introduction of technological
elements in industry. Now then, the differential way that the consequences of these economic
policies are expressed in the different countries is principally a product of three factors, namely: the
degree of development of labour power, the levels of accumulation of constant capital, and the size
of the internal market. This unequal development between countries is also reproduced within each
country.
The most important elements of this new phase of development of the industrial revolution are very
much present in the branches of microelectronics, biotechnology and new materials, the first of these
branches being the most dynamic factor in the changes which have been implemented in the
production process, which has had an impact on the labour process in global terms on a world scale.
As regards to the organic composition of capital, this is reaching a higher level of development on a
global scale through increased productive investment. Now then, due to the fact that this tendency
leads to a fall in the rate of profit in the imperialist countries, it acts as an incentive to the export of
capital, which reduces the economic space in the international scene to the point where there is no
correspondence between the capacity of depressed economies to absorb products and the deepening
of the competition between the imperialist countries.
Capitalist competition acts as an incentive to the application of technological innovations which

displace labour power. This produces a development in the productive forces in general, but only a
limited one. On the other hand, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall leads to the displacement of
capitals in search of new advantages -above all comparative advantages- translating these into new
exports of finance capital towards the markets which facilitate them, which offer a high level of
flexibility in labour mobility and which have an internal market of some significance.
Neoliberal globalisation breaks through all barriers
The neoliberal policies are deepening on a world scale the globalisation of economies, affecting
productive activity and the conditions for the realisation of the social product in a significant way
nationally and internationally. Globalisation is part of the offensive of finance capital, with specific
expressions in the case of each country, according to the degree of industrial development, the role
which they place in the industrial division of labour and the size of their markets. In the same way,
globalisation is linked to industrial restructuring, the extension of the capitalist world market, the
97
trade accords established by the WTO and, in general, to the current conditions of capitalist
development through profound inter-imperialist contradictions.
Globalisation in this period has been made more urgent due to the contraction of the market and the
increase pace of obsolescence which result from industrial restructuring.
The objective basis for globalisation is in the increase in the productivity of labour and capitalist
competition, which in turn put pressure on for changes in production and consumption goods, which
means the increase in the pace of obsolescence, which puts pressure on both capitalist producers,
who are embarked on merciless competition, and on consumers.
We cannot forget that the current conditions of capitalist development have had as one of their most
complete products the hunger of a billion human beings on the planet, a tragedy which barely allows
this section of the world’s population to occupy themselves with problems that are as subordinate as
that of the obsolescence of their goods when they lack even the minimum to survive, and the goods
that satisfy these necessities do not go out of fashion, but are simply vital.
Globalisation is realised in a very unequal way and its fullness is attained basically in the
development and the strengthening of a dual capitalist society, a dualism between rich countries and
poor countries, a dualism within the poor countries, between the native rich and poor, but also a
dualism between the rich and the poor in the countries which are more developed in capitalist terms,
something which has developed at a dizzy pace, and which is proof that currently problems like
hunger and poverty are not exclusively problems which affect the less developed countries in
capitalist terms but are beginning to be seen in an alarming way in the richest countries of the planet.
The objectives of globalisation are expressed in the spheres of production and circulation of capital.
On the one hand, we find the relation between the penetration of capital and its productive forms,
and on the other hand globalisation, which has as a determinant the search for comparative
advantages, such as cheap labour power and primary products. Therefore we can state that
globalisation is inscribed in the boundless growth of production and the relative and absolute
contraction of social demand.
Neoliberalism is becoming a factor which propels, facilitates and creates the conditions for the
realisation of globalisation in the sphere of production, and that it is a policy which pursues both the
cheapening of the price of labour power and the extension of the economic space open to capitalist
investment. In this way, neoliberalism and globalisation form a part of the same intention and the
same interests.
Globalisation fights for national barriers to be broken down and for the penetration of capital to be
permitted on a liberal basis, without customs barriers which make products more expensive, and so
promoting terms of trade favourable to the industrialised countries of the world. It is for this reason
that the dependent and neo-colonial countries are seeing themselves subject to an offensive aimed at
undermining national sovereignty and the character of peoples to the maximum degree possible.
World trade hammers inequality and benefits imperialism
Commercial relations and the terms of trade are converted into an important lever for capitalist
expansion, favouring the countries with a greater level of industrial development. The development
of industrial restructuring leads to the incorporation of a lesser quantity of living labour in the
production of commodities, thus resulting in more commodities but less value, such that as capitalist
competition develops, the organic composition of capital rises and possibilities are opened for selling
the product at a lower price than your competitor.
98
In conditions of imperialism, this question is interfered with in favour of supply, making the unequal
terms of trade worse, such that the monopolies manipulate prices, always driving them up above
their value, taking advantage of the control which they exercise over the market. This circumstance
impedes whatever sign of the competitive capacity of the less developed countries, due to the fact
that the value of the commodities they produce will always be higher than in the industrialised
countries, due to the unequal development realised in the organic composition of capital. This is
what leads the more industrialised countries to apply pressure for the opening up of markets on the
basis of the elimination of protectionist barriers of their products, apart from blackmailing the
weaker nations, imposing unfavourable terms of trade in exchange for the opening of their interior
markets.
The triad of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO form part of the same strategy, being
instruments at the service of international finance capital. The WTO complements the relations
between the dominant countries and the dominated countries in commercial respects, having as its
objective to guarantee the relations of exchange in favour of the imperialist nations, on the basis of
economic liberalism.
In summary, the imperialist countries are achieving their aims of the liberalisation of trade and
services, of reduction in agricultural subsidies, and of making no concessions to the developing
countries in terms of their interests.
Inter-imperialist conflicts are growing
The neoliberal economic policy has accelerated the extension of the economic aspect through
productive and speculative investment, having as its basis a greater exploitation of labour power on a
world scale. But, at the same time, this policy has deepened the processes which lead to an increased
decomposition of capitalism and which open new prospects for international development.
On the one hand, neoliberalism is based on inter-imperialist collaboration. But, on the other hand, it
has deepened the contradictions between the imperialist nations. The first tendency, dominant until
the 1980s, has been displaced in this period by constant and growing conflicts.
Since the world had gone through a long period in which the dominant tendency was inter-
imperialist collaboration, the idea was that the international situation did not offer possibilities for
revolutionary politics. This idea was supported by the fall of the revisionist bloc. In the new
conditions, when the dominant trend in inter-imperialist relations is contradiction, the possibilities
for national struggle to acquire a revolutionary character rest upon the ability to take advantage of
these circumstances in particularly favourable conditions.
Inter-imperialist collaboration continues to exist in so far as it is a matter of agreeing among

themselves for a greater exploitation of the peoples of the world and of the colonies and neo-
colonies. This is also manifested in the formation of economic blocs which in a singular fashion
obey the orders of the hegemonic imperialist power in each case, and struggle to conquer greater
economic space. The first is expressed in drawing up common strategies for the exploitation of the
peoples of the world, agreements for the extraction of primary products in these nations, improving
the terms of trade to the benefit of the industrialised nations, the implementation of trade regulations
which favour the imperialist nations, accords for the deepening of the monetary system to the benefit
of finance capital, and, finally, facilitating the process of export of finance capital.
Finance capital has a national support corresponding to its needs, including being able to count on its
own internal and external market. Its own rearguard, an army responsible for its international
development, all of which leads to the deepening of important contradictions. Up until now, this has
99
not led to a degree of confrontation which is capable of impeding the process of articulation, co-
operation and collaboration of capitals on an international level between the imperialist nations.
Because the export of finance capital is an international process, the tendency towards the extension
of the market is deepened, a question which runs up against the process of recession and inter-
imperialist competition for the domination of the world economy. All this means a further deepening
of the contradictions between the imperialist nations, who find themselves prevented from being able
to control their economic space and attempting to impinge on the “space of others”, on the countries
which form part of an imperialist chain belonging to another power. The economic spaces which are
in dispute, which today have been extended with the incorporation of the markets of Eastern Europe,
and the spaces which are opening up in China and the former USSR, including those which represent
“traditional” imperialist countries themselves. This circumstance acquires a great importance today,
manifesting itself in all fields of international relations, as the bloc of imperialist countries present
themselves in as homogeneous a way as in the recent past.
The deepening of inter-imperialist contradictions finds a determinant of the first order in the
development of finance capital, in the scale of its unequal realisation and at the technological and
industrial level. This situation is creating an international framework which, from a strictly
economic point of view, is new. It is expressed in the fact that the capitalist world is no longer
characterised by US hegemony in industrial and financial matters, but rather by the presence of
various poles participating in the dispute in order to assume the leadership in these aspects.
This reality of competition has reached such a degree that it has become fairly evident that the
metaphysical character of the claim that since the defeat suffered by the ex-USSR, the bipolar world
in which the US and the USSR used to compete for international hegemony, has given way to a
unipolar world under the hegemony of the former, with its military superiority, as shown by the Gulf
War. In general terms it can be claimed that the CIS, led by Russia, continues to be an important
factor in the current development of capitalism, not having lost all of its economic capacity and
much less its military and geographical power. For this reason it is not out of line to claim that the
CIS is one of the powers which are entering into the international dispute over economic spaces. But
the countries which have moved against the world hegemony of the US to the greatest degree are
Japan and Germany. This has been strengthened by the way in which these countries have emerged
as the most developed through the process of uneven development.
These are the principal conditions in which the international situation is currently developing.
Covering up the global character of the crisis and the policies of finance capital leads to subjective
and localised or regional conclusions which contribute nothing to the development of an
international revolutionary line, nor to a national line with the perspective of seizing power. The
unity of finance capital with regard to maintaining imperialist domination is what makes it possible
to unleash this global offensive. Therefore, in the same way, we communists, as the expression of
the vanguard of the proletariat, must work on world scale to equip ourselves with an international
line whose first goal must be a unified response to this policy of the sworn enemy of the peoples of
the world.
Red Flag Party of Venezuela (Bandera Roja)
100

Unity &amp; Struggle No 04

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Unity &amp; Struggle No 04

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UNITY & STRUGGLE

Unity & Struggle

The resolution of the International Conference of M-L Parties

The workers’ and popular movement of Latin American countries is reawakening.

Workers of all countries, unite!

International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations

Santo Domingo, 1996

Observations and suggestions from the Communist Party of

Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Benin

Overcoming the past, we are marching towards the future

Comrades and Friends,

The narcotraffic pretext

Military hand at the centre

Not everything that shines is gold

The hydra’s heads

Symbiosis of narcotraffickers, military command and monopolistic associations is evident, and

Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)

The situation of the country reinforces the necessity of

I. What underlies monetarist and neoliberal policies

II. Once again, the national question

Our central tasks

Struggle for the defence of Marxism-Leninism

The ideological struggle against capital

To continue the ideological-political combat against revisionism and opportunism

Revolutionary propaganda is the key to reaching the masses

Organising the struggle for popular power and for socialism

Reflections on the class analysis: The position and the role

Finally, we encountered various difficulties in drawing up a thorough analysis of the tele-

1. THE TRANSPORT INDUSTRY: A CONSIDERABLE BRANCH OF INDUSTRIAL

These items are illustrated in the following overall table:

Individual consumption is unproductive. It is that of a person using a means of transport to move

How is the magnitude of the useful effect -transfer- value computed?

2. THE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES

a) La Poste (mail state company)

ON THE CONSUMPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AS A COMMODITY

Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF)

What is our standpoint towards the Peoples Republic of Korea

About some tendencies of Marxist-Leninist parties

The Korean people is longing for reunification

The dictatorship in the South

The independent development in the North

Isn’t that socialism?

The Pyongyang Declaration

Communist Party of Germany (KPD)

The century coming will be the century of the revolutionary

- Reclamation in rigorous and scientific terms of Marxism-Leninism, in particular of the ideas of

Organisation for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy

The party considering the workers’ question

The founders of the scientific theory of the class struggle said:

Robotization, automation, computerisation and innovation of other - accompanying or separate -

Exactly the opposite is the case:

In his book “Work and Monopolist Capital”, H. Braverman convincingly explains:

“Where is then the positive possibility of emancipation residing?

The tasks of the Party in order to organise the proletariat as a class

strong influence it has been subjugated by so many decades of opportunism, of bourgeois

Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)

The true face of bourgeois democracy and its agent, social

Reformist illusions among the “leftists”

The truth about the “success” of social democracy

The Norwegian parliamentary commission gives solid proof of

The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in black and white

A historical scandal becomes public

The “supremacy” of bourgeois democracy

Unity & Struggle No 04

Unity & Struggle No 04