Preamble

With capital's global domination over society the proletariat has become a global class. This is confirmed by the two fundamental characteristics of the term “proletariat”: a class in itself and a class for itself. As a class in itself - i.e. as the variable element of capital in the process of production and reproduction - the proletariat follows capitalism's international destiny. In this advanced imperialist epoch that destiny has now been achieved: absolute domination over every corner of the Earth. As a class for itself - as the historic adversary of the class which has control over the capitalist mode of production - the proletariat will only be able to assert its own programme of emancipation at an international level.

Socialism is international or it is nothing. Over the last seventy years the Communist Left (especially the Italian Left) has defended this fundamental tenet of the communist movement in its struggles against a counter-revolutionary onslaught whose ideological starting point is the illusion of “socialism in one country”. The proposal to build socialism in one country betrays the methodological framework and scientific achievements of Marxism but it had to be employed to justify the economic reconstruction of the USSR, after war and revolution, on the national basis of state capitalism. Such a capitalist reconstruction was made possible by the revolution's elimination of the feeble bourgeois economic structure of the classical private variety and was aided by the defeat of the revolutionary wave in the 1920's.

With the international existence of the proletariat and its historic perspectives, reflecting the international rule of capital, goes the single international programme of the proletariat. Thus, one class, one programme! Concretely this means we reject the idea that the proletariat should act alongside other classes or accept other programmes in order to get through economic stages or establish a society or state somewhere between the present bourgeois order and the future dictatorship of the proletariat.

From this methodological principle there follows another important question to which the international communist movement must give a clear reply in order to eliminate an old ambiguity. Does the distinction between the maximum and minimum programme make sense?

This distinction between the two programmes was the characteristic trait of the Second International. By concentrating on the minimum programme the organisations of the Second International pushed into the distance any perspective of achieving the maximum programme (i.e. proletarian power and the building of socialism), first by forgetting about it and then by openly betraying it.

Nor did the Third International manage to solve the problem. Although its programme and platform were those of the socialist revolution - opposed in words and deed to reformist ideas and to mediation with bourgeois forces - the International still did not develop a clear and definitive position on this point.

Thus it is up to the present-day communist movement to overcome the old ambiguity, stating clearly that:

the Communist Party has only one programme: the dictatorship of the proletariat for the abolition of the capitalist mode of production and the construction of socialism.

It is this which differentiates the communist Party from all other parties and petty bourgeois organisations, and even from the rest of the “proletarian camp” which has no perspective of the final outcome of the proletarian class movement. By defending and following this programme the proletariat can be guaranteed the creation of its indispensable political instrument.

The particular tactics the Communist Party will have to adopt from time to time and in specific situations must be subordinated to the overall programmatic objectives.

In any case, justifiable partial, contingent and tactical aims cannot be assimilated into the programmatic objectives of the communist Party. That is to say they cannot, and must not in any sense, become part of the communist programme.

Whoever departs from this principle is led inevitably to very serious errors. In order to clarify this with an example, let's look at the question of the proletariat's class-wide organisations. The national and international centralisation of workers councils based on their productive and territorial unification; the estimation of social needs; the management of production which follows on from this and executive control, etc. - all this is in the communist programme. On the other hand, the communist programme does not contain - though it is a communist tactic - the liberation of the working class from the union jail via its autonomous organisation in factory and/or territorial assemblies, co-ordinated and centralised by the election of revocable delegates.

Here's another example: Although the passage of time means universal suffrage and democracy [obtained in western Europe] are no longer a strategic objective this legacy of the Second International remains as a heavy weight in every left organisation, even the extra parliamentary left, who interpret anything democratic as the object of their attention and/or unconditional solidarity.

When we define the general tactical lines of communist policy in the peripheral countries we must first of all take into account the new forms of reformist opportunism in “revolutionary” guise which assign regressive and inferior programmatic tasks to the communist party and thus in effect substitute a bourgeois programme for a communist one. Unless the programme is a communist programme the cadres and the organisation as a whole cannot move along communist lines. Once the programme in reality goes against a communist line of action for the movement and during the struggle then the organisation will follow all the more easily a non-communist course.

Thesis 1

• The motley collection of definitions given to countries outside the imperialist metropoles (“developing countries”, “under-developed countries”, “dominated countries”, etc.) reflects the manifold ideological responses of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie to the problem of defining how they fit into the whole framework of the contemporary world.

Developing countries. This term is used by those who, animated by a reassuring bourgeois idea of progress, consider each country's population as a collectivity which is marching along the same road of development, each one with identical aims, differing only in the speed of the march. The upholders of this definition don't even begin to take into account the differing social and economic histories of these societies, let alone consider their subordinate role imposed from outside by a capitalist mode of production which has reached its imperialist phase. Since their theory and methodology ignores all this they can produce facts and figures based on the assumption (for them an axiom) that one day somewhere like Uganda will be like Australia today.

Dominated countries. This term is used by those whose starting point is based on premises borrowed from Marxism but who develop their ideas in a dangerous one-sided way. Even though the ideas are valid in themselves (for example, it is precisely imperialist domination which holds sway over the economies of these countries), the methodology leads to erroneous conclusions. Those who begin with the concept “dominated countries” are led to theorise about liberation from this domination independently - at least for an unspecified length of time - of the proletarian revolution. The concept of “dominated countries” necessarily implies that of “dominating countries”. But such a dichotomy necessitates a rigid classification of features which are applied mechanically to make the “dominated” and “dominating” countries recognisable and distinguishable. Now, if it is easy enough to define the USA or Germany as “dominating countries” it is not so easy for countries such as Italy or South Africa. According to the criteria adopted by the “dominated countries” theorists there is a long list of countries (from Venezuela to Brazil, from India to South Korea, from Spain to South Africa) which would merit both definitions: Such countries are dominated by the imperialist centres which dictate laws suitable for their own financial capital investments and a corresponding division of labour. But they dominate over others in so far as they are part of the international financial network and in so far as they possess an extensive industrial apparatus and a high organic composition of capital.

Thesis 2

No definition, therefore, can encompass the multiplicity and complexity of the phenomena which come together to determine the existence of these countries. Any definition can, and must, only express in general terms the position they occupy in relation to the citadels of imperialism. Thus, only a close examination of any one country will be able to establish its most characteristic aspects, how they in turn affect its economic and social dynamic and consequently the tactical line for communists.

Since, for example, India's social and economic relations cannot be considered the same as those of Uganda, we have adopted the term “peripheral capitalist countries” in order to make a general distinction between them as a whole and the metropolitan countries whilst at the same time leaving open the possibility of making necessary distinctions between them.

The concept of centre and periphery indicates the Marxist conception of the present historical period. Having super-imposed the laws of its international market and the economic mechanisms which accompany it on diverse pre-capitalist economic-social forms, imperialism dominates even the remotest corner of the globe. The relations of production found on a plantation in a given country may not yet be typically capitalist (i.e. a wage labour relationship between the free worker and the owner of capital and the means of production) plantations are working for the international capitalist market and the population of the country lives by what it can acquire on that market. Thus capitalism exercises a real domination over a society which is untypical of capitalism. Niger and Malaysia, Togo and Colombia are thus an integral part of the world capitalist market, of the capitalist globe, but they are on the periphery of this system which has its centre in countries like the USA, Germany or Japan.

Until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet imperialist bloc the world was divided between two blocs headed by the USA and the USSR. The non-aligned countries (India, Egypt, and a few others) were able to survive in precarious equilibrium between the two, using the antagonism between the two contenders in one way or another for their own advantage. The end of the Soviet (Eastern) bloc opened the contest for the division of the spoils amongst the remaining metropolitan countries: the rationale and the conditions of existence for the 'non-aligned countries' has disappeared, their situation on the periphery remains.

Thesis 3

The concept of countries peripheral to the world imperialist system allows us to pinpoint the basic coordinates of a Marxist analysis, either country by country or group by group. The centre of the capitalist system draws these countries into its orbit through the export of goods and capital, the import of raw materials and agricultural products and their integration into the international system of the division of labour. At the same time as incorporating each country into its own cycle of reproduction and accumulation capitalism exports its own contradictions to these countries. By super-imposing itself and its economic laws on societies whose origins are different from its own, imperialist capitalism draws them directly into its accumulation cycle and into the network of its own economic contradictions and class antagonisms. The various modes and relations of production encountered by imperialism are subjected to imperialist interests and the policies associated with that. The old economic relations continue but with a marginal existence, and thus traditional social and political relations are also marginalised.

In one sense the perpetuation of pre-capitalist economic relations and of “pre-bourgeois” social and political systems was necessary and functional for the domination of imperialism.

Necessary in the sense that the superimposition of capitalism is not determined by an overpowering will to dominate socially and politically but by the general economic needs of capital. The underdeveloped geopolitical areas are first of all sources of raw materials and cheap labour power and then of investment markets for capital (productive and parasitic). This could not, nor cannot, signify the immediate bourgeoisification of that society with the rapid transformation of all productive activity, of work in general, into capitalist forms.

But the perpetuation of pre-capitalist relations of production is also functional for the domination of imperialist capitalism. On the one hand the contrast between the living and working conditions of the industrial proletariat and the rest of the disinherited masses assures the class is divided. On the other hand it means that social and political tensions will find their outlet on the terrain of bourgeois progressivism.

Thus in the apparent contradiction between a backward, pre-capitalist world and an advanced, capitalist world international capital finds the justification and the instruments for its own domination. Above all, it is thanks to the perpetuation of patriarchal relations and to the strength of political and administrative institutions linked to the civil and social traditions of these countries that the solidity of international capital's economic domination is assured.

The gradual (or, when necessary, the accelerated) adaptation of social structures and political institutions to the classical capitalist schema is a consequence of the real economic domination of capital and the subordination of these countries to the international laws of the capitalist market. In conclusion, there is no contradiction between capitalist domination and the perpetuation of pre-capitalist economic relations and social structures which can even be a condition of that very domination.

Thesis 4

The perpetuation of the old economic and social relations and their subordination to the interests of international imperialist domination means that social and political formations in the peripheral countries differ from those in the metropolitan citadels. But this difference concerns the intermediate social strata which exist between the two fundamental classes. It is not a difference between the two fundamental and historically antagonistic classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The diversity of social structures is thus a diversity in the forms of domination and oppression by the bourgeoisie over the proletariat and the entire collectivity, but this does not negate the existence of the two classes.

It is undeniable that in countries such as Niger or Bolivia there are other social strata and classes beyond the modern proletariat and the bourgeoisie. These are hangovers from social systems which preceded imperialist domination and correspond to the various earlier dominant tributary and mercantile modes of production. But this doesn't mean that contingent conflicts between these middle strata and the regime of the present-day ruling class relegate to second place the historical antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie since it is precisely this antagonism which reflects the domination of capital over society.

Even bourgeois economic and sociological studies clearly show that when social stratification atypical of capitalism survives it tends to be breaking down, in a word, in a state of agony. What tends to increase is the extent of proletarianisation of strata previously occupied in traditional subsistence economies of local trading. ⁽¹⁾

Thesis 5

The diversity of social structures, the fact that the imposition of the capitalist mode of production upsets the old equilibrium and that its continued existence is based on and translated into increasing misery for the growing mass of proletarianised and disinherited, the political oppression and repression which are therefore necessary to subjugate the masses, all this leads to a potential for a greater radicalisation of consciousness in the peripheral countries than in the societies of the metropoles.

Radicalisation does not necessarily mean to the left, as is demonstrated by the recrudescence of Islamic fundamentalism following on the real rebelliousness of the poverty-stricken masses (Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon). The material stirring of the masses produced by the objective conditions of hyper exploitation is always and necessarily expressed in the ideological and political terms of those who have an active presence in the given situation. In general the domination of capital in these countries still does not mean its total domination over the collectivity, nor does it involve the sort of subjugation of the whole society to capitalist ideology and legality as in the metropolitan countries. In many of these countries the ideological and political integration of the individual into capitalist society is not yet the mass phenomenon it is in the metropolitan countries because the exploited, impoverished and oppressed individual is still not the citizen-individual of the original capitalist centres.

Revolutionaries must take this into account when they plan their activity and intervention.

In the peripheral countries conditions are different. Here capital cannot dominate in the same way as it does in its birthplace, in its metropolitan centres. Bourgeois democracy - “the most effective weapon for the preservation of capital” - has a precarious and therefore “different” existence in the peripheral countries. Here there is no democratic opium to lull the masses into submission, only the harshness of repression. Thus even the demand for the most elementary of bourgeois freedoms is likely to be the political form taken by the struggles which are unleashed by the dire material situation. The South American experience - El Salvador, Nicaragua, Mexico, Colombia - confirms this likelihood.

Nevertheless it is still likely to be the case that the circulation of the communist programme will be easier and the “level of attention” received by revolutionary communists will be higher than in advanced capitalist societies. Such 'better' conditions certainly translate into the possibility of organising a greater number of militants around the revolutionary party than in the countries at the centre.

Thesis 6

The possibility of “mass” organisations led by communists is not the same as revolutionary leadership of the trades unions as such. And it doesn't imply the massification of the communist parties themselves. Rather the opportunity will be used by the communist party to organise strong workplace and territorial groups as its instruments of agitation, intervention and struggle.

Even in the peripheral countries trade unions - as bodies which negotiate the price and terms of sale of labour power - retain the general and historical characteristics of all unions. Moreover, as recent experience in Korea shows, the unions act as mediators in the interests of capital towards the workers. Thus, even though they remain one of the areas where communists work, intervene, make propaganda and agitate, they are not - and never will be - instruments for revolutionary attack.

It is not therefore the leadership of the unions which interests communists, but the preparation - inside and outside of them - for going beyond them. This is found in the mass organisations of the proletariat which are a preparation for the assault on capitalism. Communist militants, organised as a party, are the driving force and political vanguard first of all in the formation of mass struggle organs and then in the struggle for power. And the party will be that much stronger when it has learnt how to organise appropriate organs throughout the area where it has a direct influence.

For these reasons therefore, even in the peripheral countries there is the possibility of organising communist territorial groups. Territorial groups because they group together the proletarians, semi-proletarians and the disinherited of a particular area under the direct influence of the communist party; communist precisely because they are directed along communist lines; that is to say, because they are animated and guided by party members and party organisms.

Thesis 7

The “national bourgeoisie” of each peripheral country is national only by virtue of the birth certificate of its members and by the particular type of oppressive political institution it bestows upon “its” national section of the proletariat. But the bourgeoisie of the peripheral countries is a constituent part of the international bourgeoisie which dominates the whole system of exploitation because it is in possession of the means of production on an international scale. As such, every national section of the bourgeoisie participates with equal responsibility and with the same historical destiny in the division of surplus value which is extorted internationally from the proletariat.

We are deliberately saying “in possession” of the means of production and not “ownership” because the term “ownership” implies a particular juridical notion of property which can assume a variety of forms until is negated. It is of fundamental importance to note that formal state ownership of the means of production:

1. does not eliminate the relations of capitalist exploitation;
2. does not eliminate the existence of a class which materially appropriates the surplus value produced.

In many peripheral countries in particular the few industries not owned by multinationals are legally owned by the state. This does not alter the fact that a capitalist class exists which receives from the state a hefty share of the surplus value produced in these industries in the form of interest in its bank accounts an which participates, with its finance capital, in the speculations of international capital throughout the world. Further, in many peripheral countries the capitalists who own plantations and agricultural estates (where pre-capitalist relations often exist) which produce monoculturally for export and from which they draw huge profits, do not even invest in the industrial production of their own countries (despite the mystificatory theories of industrial development). Instead they participate in the international circuit of finance capital. In fact they invest in the banks and international credit institutions - or in the credit bonds etc. of their own or other countries - who in turn operate in the field of industrial production where the returns are higher and where the field of choice is the entire planet. This “national bourgeoisie” is no more interested in leaving behind underdevelopment and the domination of imperialism than the American bourgeoisie. The difference between the bourgeoisie of a peripheral country and the metropolitan bourgeoisie concerns the way in which the surplus value is divided between them and the heavy taxes the one may have to pay to the other in order to deposit its share of the spoils in the bank. Such differences and conflicts do not, and will not, affect the substance of the relationship of exploitation between capital and labour. On the contrary, they both defend these against the dangerous presence of the proletariat.

The peripheral nature of these countries gives a peripheral character to their respective bourgeoisies in relation to the metropolitan capital concentrations. This results in a sort of subordination of one to the other and therefore in a natural tendency for each bourgeoisie to redefine its own position by modifying or reversing roles. Even so, these roles always involve exploitation of the proletariat.

Thesis 8

• Sections of the “national bourgeoisie” who, due to particular economic weaknesses as a result of many different factors, are still not directly involved in capitalism's international circles, or rather who still do not directly participate in the joint exploitation of the international proletariat, often demand their own place at the share-out table. Such demands can also assume the form of opposition to the relationship of political and economic domination which metropolitan capital establishes over their countries. But this opposition cannot in any sense be confused with the historical antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Nor can it in any way be utilised in the form of a class alliance in the struggle of the proletariat against capital and its imperialist centres.

In a war between two sides the internal discords and friction on one side can be utilised by the opponents, but this does not mean an alliance, not even temporary, between one side and a section of the other. Thus the internal differences amongst the world bourgeoisie can ease the struggle of the proletariat - in the sense of a relative weakening of the enemy at certain historical conjunctures. But only counter-revolutionary opportunists can think that the proletariat's tactic could consist of an alliance with one part of the class enemy in order to defeat the whole. Such “tactics” are none other than the enslavement of the proletariat to the interests of a section of the bourgeoisie; they are part of the capitalist mode of productions' whole dynamic of strengthening itself and self-preservation.

What happened in Nicaragua and what is about to happen in Mexico's Chiapas shows that a fraction of the bourgeoisie will use whatever means it can to channel the rage of the poor and oppressed masses and organise them around itself. The masses find themselves submitting to a new oppression, with one group of exploiters substituted by another.

Thesis 9

In the imperialist epoch proletarian tactics absolutely exclude any sort of alliance, however, temporary, with any bourgeois fraction. A proletarian policy does not recognise any such fraction as “progressive” or “anti-imperialist”, arguments which have been used at various times to justify united front tactics.

Even though the Theses of the 2nd Congress of the Communist International state:

...the Communist International's policy on the national and colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie...

Thesis 4

When they come to reciprocal relations between the CI and the revolutionary movement in backward and dominated countries, they assert:

In order to defeat foreign capital, the first step towards revolution in the colonies, the cooperation of bourgeois nationalist revolutionary elements is useful.

Theses on the National and Colonial Questions, 2nd Congress of the Communist International, 28th July 1920.

With this - as is universally acknowledged by all those currents who in one way or another base themselves on the Third International, the theses clearly affirm the necessity of a proletarian alliance or collaboration with revolutionary bourgeois national forces. It was Lenin who clarified the thinking behind the Theses in the Congress itself. First:

The notion of the distinction, of the division between oppressed and oppressing peoples inspired all our theses.

Second:

The second guiding idea behind our theses is the following: In the present international situation, after the imperialist war, economic relations between peoples and the entire world system of states are determined by the struggle of a small group of imperialist nations against the soviet movement and against the soviet states, at the head of which is soviet Russia. If we were to lose sight of this fact we would not be able to correctly pose any national or colonial question...

Third:

The question of the bourgeois democratic movement in backward countries. It is precisely this problem which has led to some disagreements. We discussed whether or not it is theoretically correct, on the level of principle, that the International and its communist parties should support the bourgeois democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of this discussion we have unanimously decided not to speak of “bourgeois democratic” movements, but of national revolutionary movements.

Report of the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions, Complete Works, Volume 31

The first “guiding idea” meets propagandist criteria but it is not acceptable as a line of principle. The division between oppressed and oppressing people is misleading. On the one hand it assumes that the metropolitan proletariat belongs to the oppressors; on the other hand it assumes in passing that the category of “oppressed” includes both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat of the peripheral countries.

The second “guiding idea” is the central one which, in the way Lenin formulates it, allows us to understand the whole spirit of the Theses. This, despite the fact that the above-mentioned methodological errors mean that the core problems are left essentially unresolved. In fact, in the same speech Lenin clarified the perspective:

If the victorious proletariat propagandises methodically amongst these peoples, and the soviet governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal, it is a mistake to suppose that the capitalist stage of development is inevitable for such peoples. In all the colonies and in all the backward countries we must not only create autonomous fighting cadres, party organisations, we must not only spread propaganda for the creation of peasant soviets and get used to adapting it to pre-capitalist conditions. No, the Communist International must also establish and theoretically develop the thesis that the backward countries, with the help of the proletariat of the advanced countries, can pass to the soviet system and, through definite stages of development, arrive at communism, [thus] jumping the capitalist stage.

The International neither established nor theoretically developed such a thesis, but it is obvious that the spirit behind the thinking of the 2nd Congress was to get national liberation movements to join together on the side of the Russian workers' state and the International itself. This was part of an overall strategy (of economic and political support, etc.) which aimed to keep them detached from the orbit of world imperialism and thus aid their development towards socialism. The very fact of being assisted economically by the State of the proletarian dictatorship (soviet Russia and other potentially revolutionary advanced states) and therefore materially supported in their struggle against imperialism, would have turned them into real anti-imperialist forces in the global strategy of international socialist revolution. Despite being couched in terms of “peoples” and “countries” the strategic formulation could have appeared to be valid, i.e. effective. In reality though this was not the case, even in the immediate sense, as the tactic employed in Turkey demonstrates.

Thus, what Lenin maintained is very true: outside of the clear existence of soviet Russia struggling against the capitalist states, the national question cannot be correctly posed. It should not be forgotten that at the time of the Second Congress of the International there was absolute belief in the imminence of the proletarian revolution, at least in Europe. And it was this belief, soon to be bitterly shattered, that inspired in Lenin the extreme tactic of admitting temporary alliances with the national bourgeoisie in the struggle against the European capitalist states. They would have thus created a further force in the frontal attack on western capitalism and would have soon become feeble opponents of the international march towards socialism - the backward countries would have thus squarely “leapt over” the capitalist stage.

This belief in the imminent European revolution together with Lenin's audacious tactical perspective coherently explain the third 'guiding idea' of the congressional theses. In fact at the Second Congress the Commission's discussions on Lenin's theses and those of the Indian, Roy (who insisted on the distinction between the bourgeois national democratic movement and “the struggle of the landless peasantry against every form of exploitation”) was artificially resolved by verbal artifice. The expression “democratic bourgeoisie” originally used by Lenin when referring to national liberation movements was substituted by “revolutionary bourgeoisie”. Following the discussion it was Lenin himself who said, ... we have decided not to speak of bourgeois democratic movements but of national revolutionary movements. In the same speech Lenin implicitly recognises that perhaps it is not correct at the level of principle for the International and its parties to support bourgeois democratic movements. But the “unanimously” recognised urgency was to somehow link these movements to the revolutionary process which everyone believed was growing in the advanced countries. Again, Lenin himself asked for further theoretical study of the issue in the future work of the International.

However, there was no international revolution The Soviet Union developed nationalist policies on the basis of state capitalism and bent its international policies and those of the Communist International to its own interests. The 3rd Congress practically ignored the issue. The 4th, on the other hand, began to consolidate the worst parts of the ambiguous theses of the 2nd Congress. This was a pointer towards the Chinese tragedy, towards the dogmatism of “Leninism” and support for any national movement which was in any way useful to Russian interests. What began as a weak theory, as an ambiguous political perspective, became transformed into a theory of support for a policy of maintaining imperialism. Yet the problem which had been posed remain theoretically unresolved: In the epoch of imperialism and in countries where capitalism is “imported”, can the “national bourgeoisie” play a revolutionary role which can somehow be included in the revolutionary strategy of the international proletariat? In practice the answer to such a query was an opportunist “Yes”, in outright contempt for the more valid Leninist theses on imperialism [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism]. These theses in fact are saying “No”. the national bourgeoisie of the “backward countries” is such because it is linked by a thousand threads to the imperialist centres and to their world financial, industrial and political operations. Therefore it can only develop within the overall imperialist process, not against it. Its conflicts with this or that front, with this or that imperialist country, are not class conflicts but are struggles inside the capitalist process and consistent with its logic. “National revolutions” are thus destined to end up on the ground of inter-imperialist equilibrium, part of the configuration of capitalist states and governments and linked to this or that imperialist front. And in fact Russia has long been one of the imperialist centres.

Thesis 10

Communist internationalists consider as immediate enemies those bourgeois and petty bourgeois political organisations who, in the name of progress, economic development or political democracy, preach and try to reach a class alliance between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; who consequently advocate social peace and the postponement of the proletarian class struggle. We therefore reject any form of alliance or united front, however temporary, in order to reach a hypothetical intermediary stage between the present situation of capitalist domination and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the case of movements which give way to so-called “new democratic” or “revolutionary democratic” regimes and governments, the internationalists will put forward the true communist programme and play a genuine revolutionary role.

There are currents who, whilst protesting that they are against the sort of Leninism we have just examined, maintain the need to support the “revolutionary” fringes of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie in order to construct an intermediary form of state between the bourgeois democratic state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They justify such opportunist tendencies with the theory that the proletariat would not be ready, by virtue of its subjective state of development and the existing balance of class forces, to play an autonomous, revolutionary role with a class dictatorship. But:

1. The proletariat's present hypothetical unreadiness for its historical role does not justify an alliance of the political vanguard with bourgeois forces. Such an alliance not only does not facilitate, but directly obstructs the proletariat's revolutionary development.
2. If a state which has emerged from social movements and insurrections is not the proletarian dictatorship it must be a bourgeois state. Such a state would not allow improvements in the living standards of the proletariat except to avoid internal social tensions. Even then it would demand in return an end to class struggle in order to guarantee continued levels of production with big enough returns for individual firms and the economy as a whole to ensure the survival of the country in the capitalist world market. Such a policy is unambiguously against the interests of both the national and the international working class and all the political tendencies involved in the administration and direction of this state would be responsible for it.
3. The very “immaturity” of the proletariat that prevents it from acting autonomously means that any alliance with the “democratic” or “revolutionary” fringes of the bourgeoisie implies subordination to that bourgeoisie. In other words, it is impossible for any existing proletarian tendency to influence this “intermediate” regime from within without abandoning revolutionary political tasks and thus betraying its class. Either the proletariat is strong and makes its own revolution or it is objectively and subjectively still weak. In this case its political organisations work to strengthen it in the class struggle against the bourgeois state, whatever form it takes.
4. The opposite thesis - the idea that proletarian political organisations can develop the conditions for revolution within the bourgeois state - takes us back to the gradualist, essentially reformist formulations of the Second International and to the worst national-communism. It doesn't matter how many revolutionary words or phrases are uttered, the opportunist organisations which today uphold these ideas will be revealed as counter-revolutionary at crucial political points and during the living movement of the insurrection in the peripheral countries.
5. The main task of internationalist communist organisations is the political and organisational preparation for the class' assault on capitalism on a national scale in each country where they operate. But this is founded on a strategy which sees that only the international proletariat is capable of overthrowing capitalist rule and building a socialist society. They cannot therefore conceive of a tactical plan which posits intermediary stages in the revolutionary process towards the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, which ignores the international balance of class forces. In a situation which is still unfavourable internationally the only “intermediate” stage (which, however, is permanent) is the class struggle. But there will be no shortage of more favourable conditions in the international balance of class forces - in the sense that the bourgeoisie will find a worryingly strong proletariat aligned against it and its imperialist apparatus. Then the proletariat's political organisations will be obliged to adopt direct tactics of attack in order to install the proletarian dictatorship.

Thesis 11

In the peripheral countries communist internationalists do not include in their programme a regime which guarantees the elementary freedoms and forms of democratic life. Their aim is rather the dictatorship of the proletariat which goes beyond bourgeois liberty by giving to the proletariat, organised in workers' councils, the task of emancipating an entire society from the chains of capital. They will thus make themselves the firmest and most consistent defenders of freedom. In so doing they will unmask the bourgeois and petty bourgeois organisations which campaign for a bourgeois democratic regime whilst being prepared to deny it immediately afterwards - in the interests of the domination of capital in the advanced countries. This is the modern translation of the traditional revolutionary motto: overthrow the reforms against the reformers.

Thesis 12

When faced with any residual nationalist movements communists distinguish between the nationalist expression of the movement and its deeper root causes. Once again these can be identified in the severe oppression and deep poverty which foreign occupation or direct domination brings to the masses. Using this distinction communists denounce the bourgeois character of nationalism and its incapacity to resolve the problems of poverty and super-exploitation facing the mass of proletarians and dispossessed of the area. To support this accusation communist internationalists must act inside the concrete struggle of the masses against oppression and super-exploitation in strict harmony with the general demands of the working class. The work of agitation, propaganda and political struggle around these questions will lead to the accentuation of the class character of the struggle movement and therefore to its fundamental unity with the struggles of the proletariat in the oppressing countries.

Mass national movements are not simply due to the existence of bourgeois nationalist organisations. On the contrary, they are due to the widespread disposition to struggle of the oppressed, disinherited and super-exploited masses which bourgeois nationalism is able to play on with its propaganda and take over by means of its organisational activity. The programmes of bourgeois nationalist organisations claim that the only solution to the dramatic problems of the masses is the acquisition of their own national identity and a territorial base which would guarantee equality of rights, freedom of movement and bourgeois democratic freedoms in general. According to them this would be enough to secure development and therefore the prosperity of everyone. Thus they tie all the social and political strands in society that want to fight against imperialism to their own political bandwagon. In so doing they nourish the illusion that national liberation, or even the pursuit of nationalist aims, somehow undermines the basis of imperialism and generally weakens it in relation to the forces of revolution.

The national solution in no way solves the problems which motivate the mass movements in these countries:

1. With the creation of a bourgeois national state the double exploitation which led the masses to struggle continues. No longer in the clear shape of economic domination and exploitation by occupying forces, or of direct political domination and exploitation by capitalists acting on behalf of capital - rather the unified form of exploitation of the worker and peasant masses by capital is now in national garb. However, it continues to obey the laws of the international division of labour and of the international market of finance capital.
2. So far the creation of each national state has occurred because it has been with the support and under the aegis of one of the imperialist fronts. They have never undermined the basis of imperialism nor altered the balance of class forces in favour of the international proletariat. The implosion and collapse of one of those fronts (that of the Soviet Union) and the present situation which involves reshuffling the cards amongst the metropolitan centres does not alter the general framework. (For the time being it is enough to replace the term “one of the imperialist fronts” with the term “one of the metropolitan centres”.) On the contrary, uniting the masses under the banner of nationalism and behind nationalist political leaders reinforces imperialist domination by withdrawing entire national sections of the proletarian class from their antagonist role against capital. This is all the more true when every aspect of the mass movement becomes subordinated to nationalist ends, leaving no opportunity or legal ground for the proletariat to struggle against the capitalists and immediate bourgeois exploitation.
3. Since the national solution in itself - the creation of a state, whether or not a democratic one - involves a clash with a previous occupying or dominating power, favours the enemies of that state at the level of imperialist competition for the division of the world into zones of economic and political spheres of influence. The departure of a state from the periphery of one metropolis, whilst it weakens the latter, strengthens the adversary which admits the new state into its own peripheral orbits.

Thesis 13

Thus communist organisations in countries where the “national problem” still exists do not use nationalist demands in their agitation and propaganda. Instead they will take up the fundamental issues in their slogans and guidelines for struggle, linking them to the material situation of the oppressed masses and showing how the bourgeois nationalists are using them for their counterrevolutionary ends.

To the proletarians and disinherited for whom foreign occupation appears as the cause of all their ills, communists do not advocate the conquest of the national state but rather the winning of more humane conditions of life and work; class unity with the proletarians of all countries, towards the common objective of the dictatorship of the proletariat and international socialism.

This is so much more valid and important in those situations where nationalism habitually degenerates into the most mindless and reactionary localism as is the case with the insane splinter groups which have brought the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In fact in these cases it is not even “foreign oppression” which is the object of the bellicose demagoguery but the local ethnic minority. In the darkest reactionary fashion whatever marks people out as different - it may be extreme poverty or extreme wealth, language or religion - becomes the enemy. In such situations, where obscurantist ideology has already replaced the elementary principles of class solidarity, it is all the more necessary, though so much more difficult, to reaffirm basic class solidarity. This is the essential pre-condition for any revival of the revolutionary communist movement.

(1) See General Tendencies in Class Composition in Prometeo 8, p.81.