WHAT DISTINGUISHES OUR PARTY: The political continuity which goes from Marx to Lenin, to the foundation of the Communist Party of Italy (Livorno, 1921); the struggle of the Communist Left against the degeneration of the Communist International, against the theory of „socialism in one country“, against the Stalinist counter-revolution; the rejection of the Popular Fronts and the Resistance Blocs; the difficult task of restoring the revolutionary doctrine and organization in close interrelationship with the working class, against all personal and electoral politics.
Each issue of our periodicals carries the following words on the cover:
«What distinguishes our Party is the political continuity which goes from Marx to Lenin, to the foundation of the Communist International and the Communist Party of Italy (Livorno, 1921); the struggle of the Communist Left against the degeneration of the International, the struggle against the theory of «socialism in one country» and the Stalinist counter-revolution; the rejection of the Popular Fronts and the Resistance blocs; the difficult task of restoring the revolutionary doctrine and organisation in close interrelationship with the working class, against personal and electoral politics.»
The purpose of these few words is to give a brief and general indication of what characterises our Party. Although it was not intended to be a detailed explanation (synthetic formulas mark a trace, do not claim to illustrate it), a distinctive feature of our movement is immediately made clear to the reader: for us, contrary to the whole myriad of «modernisers» of Marxism, there exists a continuous, unchanged, unalterable line which defines the revolutionary Communist Party. This is so precisely because its line rises above the ups and downs, the setbacks and advances, the rare but glorious victories and the numerous and catastrophic defeats of the working class, on the difficult path of its struggle for emancipation. It is in fact only thanks to the uninterrupted permanence of this line that the proletariat exists as a class; indeed this line does not reflect the temporary and often contradictory position of the proletariat at this or that stage of its path, in space and time, but the direction that it must necessarily take, starting from its situation of exploited class), to become the ruling class and then achieve, throughout the world, the abolition of all classes and communism. While the material conditions for this path were created by the capitalist mode of production itself, this path does not fall from the sky and it can be travelled to the end only by struggling. And only the Marxist doctrine knows its necessary phases, its indispensable means, as well as its ultimate aims.
Read more ...“Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat”.
The Communist Manifesto (1848)
Today. Great surprise has been caused by the so-called “gilets jaunes movement” (the yellow vests), arising in France in mid November, apparently out of nothing, and, reaching its peak at the beginning of December, subsequently losing momentum and potential for mobilization after the Government concessions of 10 December.
Read more ...All over the world, proletarians are under attack. The bourgeoisie and its organs of mass disinformation maintain that “we have come through the crisis”. Yet, disguised as precarious, unemployment grows endlessly. The pace and conditions of work worsen constantly. The veritable mass murders of proletarians in factories, building yards, on the streets and in the fields reaches shocking figures. What is paid out on rent (if and when it’s possible to find a hole to live in!), food, gas and electricity (which, together with a roof over your head, are basic necessities!), transport (to get to work or look for it!) becomes a stranglehold.
Read more ...Imperialist dynamics and the Europeanist Illusion
In the post-second-world-war period, the weakness of Europe’s defeated or devastated ruling classes demanded the reconstruction of their economic, political and military apparatus. The USA directed this reconstruction, which was warmly welcomed by the bourgeoisie in the defeated countries as the premise for renewed capitalist accumulation. The Marshall Plan allowed national reconstruction to be launched, once the defeated had been obliged to set up an indefinable artefact called “Europe”. In any event, it would be the “grande bourgeoisie” to install the project for “economic integration”and put it into practice in the defence of diverse national interests. The prospect of a “politically united” Europe was, instead, an illusion of the “petite bourgeoisie” in big European states, providing the “little ideals” and driven by the need for them to be widely involved in the process of capitalist development.
Read more ...We are not surprised by the dispatch of the one hundred missiles launched by the “coalition” of USA-Great Britain-France (after notifying Russia), to bomb the Syrian chemical plants. Our anger grows at the unceasing massacre of proletarians sacrificed in a war without end.
There is no “humanitarian intervention” today, just as there never has been in the past: this is merely a further step in the assumption of positions by the various competitors (from the USA to Russia, from France to Turkey, from Israel to Iran: and we should not marvel, if the “allies” of yesterday become the “adversaries” of today), with a view to more serious, future, inter-imperialist clashes.
Read more ...