For the self-organised struggle of the working class, for the formation of independent strike committees, mass assemblies and workers’ councils.

Im going to agree with AKAshug's point about the word 'led' It is not at all what you normally say, indeed you contradict this term yourself in the above quote. The revolution will be led by the working class itself in its workers councils. The party will have a pollitical role to 'guide' the working class maybe 'advise' the working class and be in the vanguard politically but i cant see it be able to leading the the working class ie telling it what to do, is something we have surely learnt is not what is wanted. Maybe this is a problem of terminology as AKAshug suggests but it is an important point as 'to lead' has significant connotations.

Seems to be the latest in what could be a longer list of "define the word/s"/ Define it one way, define it another... The word "lead" could be interpreted as putting a party in power. for sure. But I think anyone who has followed ICT output knows this is not our position and in For Commnism it is pretty much spelt out. In one sense we are looking at a leading role for the party, but that is not the same as party rule. Party members will attempt to gain the mandate and even if subject to the same rules as anyone else, I think it highly likely that the leading organ of a genuine proletarian power be populated in the main by members of a party we would recognise as a genuine communist party. In fact, it is not impossible that the highest organ of the workers councils system be occupied entirely by members of one party, buit this is not the same as simply putting the party in power. The mechanisms of election and recall would still be in place. The result of these mechanisms would be entirely in the hands of the participating proletarians. If they recognse themselves in our future party, so be it. Such is my understanding.