For over a decade the International Bureau had to face increasing political isolation as the working class lost confidence in itself under the blows of economic restructuring and political disorientation (the twin myths of the collapse of communism and the disappearance of the working class). However, as the old millenium breathes its last we are encouraged by a marked resurgence of interest from new political elements throughout the world and by the movement of existing sympathisers to consolidate themselves and become fully integrated organisations of the Bureau.

Last Spring delegates of the IBRP met comrades from north America - Internationalist Notes and Los Angeles Workers Voice (LAWV) from the US - and Internationalist Notes/Notes Internationalistes from Canada. Our aim was to clarify and consolidate the process of political and organisational coming together. At the same time we were also able to discuss how to strengthen our relationship with sympathisers in Latin America and then, in similar fashion, with comrades of Peyke Anternasionlisti, exiles from Iran.

Through all these discussions the IBRP has been obliged to reiterate and elaborate on its own nature and functioning, both now and in relation to the development of the future international communist party. The International Bureau is the outcome of the political confrontation and clarification which emerged during a series of three international conferences of the communist left (1977-80). These conferences collapsed when only the CWO supported Battaglia’s resolution that all participants in future conferences should recognise them to be a step towards the international party, “the indispensable organ which politically guides the revolutionary class movement and the proletarian power itself”.

The coming together of the CWO and Battaglia Comunista to form the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party was the natural consequence of this mutual recognition of the central need for an international party. However, we do not make the absurd claim that the Bureau is the ready-made organisational embodiment of the future party. The task of building the international political organisation is more complicated than simply gathering new recruits to fill or expand an existing vessel. In fact the IBRP itself is still in its infancy and can only mature if the political groupings who come to it are able to realise their potential and develop politically and organisationally so that they can carry out the basic tasks of a proletarian political organisation. (This means, for instance, maintaining a regular press, establishing a programme for political education, holding public meetings and developing the capacity to respond quickly and act coherently inside the class struggle.) As Battaglia have described the current situation of the International Bureau:

It’s not yet a question of the Party, although we believe there is necessarily a continuous line between the one and the other. We have already said and written and on this we base our constant work that the Party will not be formed by cloning or duplicating BC or the IBRP in various countries, but through the international cohesion of the real organisations that originate from the class struggle and the political battles of the countries in question. The IBRP does not open sections, it doesn’t create national organisations, but rather gathers them to it if and when they are formed. Its task is to contribute to the growth of these advance guards, by virtue of its political method, analysis and positions, and to get them to organise themselves.

Something is Moving in the World”, Battaglia Comunista 5, May 2000

The thinking behind this is not political indifferentism, nor uncertainty of how the IBRP should operate, much less a fear of political centralisation. Our reasoning is based on our understanding of the development of revolutionary class consciousness and the historical experience of the Third International. If nothing else this should tell us that it would be a disastrous mistake to wait for the “spontaneous” emergence of the international party during the revolutionary crisis itself. As Battaglia have always argued, an effective party is not the product of the last minute. Nor is it controlled by only one of its sections.

These points we have made many times before, but it is significant that in this changing political climate we now see the need to elaborate further on the experience of the Third International in order to be clear about the way forward “Towards the New International”. In case there is any room for doubt, let’s reiterate that this is in no way a change of perspective on our part. Given the groundwork needed before a world party of the proletariat can come into existence, this prospect is still some considerable time ahead.

Yet “something is moving in the world” and in recent months the IBRP has made practical steps forward. In the USA the comrades are now working together to make Internationalist Notes a regular publication for distribution over as wide an area as possible. The comrades in Canada are now directly involved in the work of the Bureau. In Colombia a move has been taken towards the creation of a local political nucleus. (Their article in this issue graphically shows the need of the Colombian working class for an independent political organisation.) Peyke Anternasionalisti have determined to organise along the line of the IBRP. Most recently, in France sympathising comrades are in the process of forming an organised political nucleus with a regular journal to be called Bilan et Perspectives. All the comrades have made a commitment to being part of the unified response of the Bureau to key events of international importance.

Perhaps the above phrase is an over-estimation of the significance of last September’s ‘anti-capitalist’ protests in Prague but at any rate the nature of the protest demanded a comment from us. As well as the signatures listed, the Statement was translated into Swedish and distributed by IBRP supporters in Stockholm. We were also very pleased to hear from Radical Communists of the Ukraine, a group which recently got in touch with us (see pp.23-25), that they agree with our analysis and have translated the statement into Russian and Ukrainian.

The appearance of more and more proletarian groups in the lands of the old Soviet empire is living repudiation of the lie that communism, and the struggle for communism, finished with the collapse of the USSR. Here, the crisis of world capitalism is biting as hard as anywhere on the planet and bringing with it the hardships of unemployment, poverty and war familiar to proletarians everywhere. The statement we are publishing here on the war in Chechnya dates back to the beginning of the year 2000 but its political significance remains undiminished, especially as that war continues almost forgotten in the West. Finally, the latest article on the US and the world economy in the so-called epoch of globalised capitalism, is an indication of how Marxist analytical tools can very well explain what bourgeois economists themselves have difficulty explaining: how the US has been able to sustain an economic ‘boom’ for the past decade; a boom which has brought only worsening conditions for the working class.

Who said Marxism was dead?