Rebuilding the revolutionary communist praxis! Founding the new proletarian international! [Mikel Erro]
"Having set out to change the world, not to elaborate a new interpretation of it,
Marxist theory must be evaluated in the balance of history".
Alvin W. Gouldner: The Two Marxisms.
(Page: 354. Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1989. 1st English edition: 1980).
HERRITAR BATASUNA ACTIVIST
EUSKAL HERRIA, JULY 11th, 2019. OMNIA SUNT COMMUNIA!
This writing is a personal contribution to the International Conference with the slogan: "Rebuilding the revolutionary left to promote the Socialist/Communist Revolution", convened by the sister organization AGORA GALIZA in Compostela on July 24th this year (2019). This is a first attempt at a global theoretical reflection based on my current experience as an activist of the Movement of Popular Unity for the Basque Socialist Revolution, Herritar Batasuna, and my activism since 1984 within various organizations of what was once the M.L.N.V, the Basque National Liberation Movement: Herri Batasuna, A.E.K., A.S.K., K.A.S. and E.T.A. It is, therefore, the fruit of more than 35 years of organized revolutionary militancy, plus my years as unframed supporter, since 1981. This text is totally open to criticism, suggestions and contributions from any revolutionary activist. These are theses that I will develop verbally in greater depth at the Conference itself and that I hope will be debated and criticized radically so that we can all arrive at a collective synthesis.
The first thing I have to do is to explain the title: "Rebuilding the revolutionary communist praxis, founding the New Proletarian International". I think that these two slogans synthesize the priorities of the revolutionaries of the whole planet in these first decades of the 21st century, in the face of the deep global crisis of Imperialism that has lasted since 2008 and is getting worse every day. The hypothesis that underlies this text is that Karl Marx's analysis of the tendency to the economic collapse of Capitalism is being confirmed, with a sharpening of all the contradictions of the system and especially of the class struggles, which brings us closer to a scenario of World War III and fascisms of a new kind in the whole planet. At the same time, the global ecologic crisis and the depletion of resources add to the seriousness of the situation. Our response as revolutionary communists to this challenge is to take up Lenin's slogan again, adapting it to the 21st century and taking it with our struggle, to its ultimate theoretical and practical consequences: "Transforming Imperialist Wars into Socialist Revolutions!”
We're talking about the reconstruction of revolutionary communist praxis, so the first thing we have to do is to clarify this concept. Praxis is the dialectical synthesis between theory and practice. It is neither theory nor practice, but both at the same time, in an endless dynamic spiral. Praxis is practiced theory and theorized practice. The philosophy of revolutionary praxis was first based on Karl Marx's: Theses on Feuerbach. Let us mention the most significant quotes: "Social life is, in essence, practice. All the mysteries that lead theory astray into mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the understanding of this practice." (8) "The problem of whether human thought can be attributed an objective truth is not a theoretical problem, but a practical one. It is in practical terms, that man has to demonstrate the truth, that is, the reality and power, the earthiness of his thought. The dispute over the reality or unreality of a thought that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic problem". (2) "The materialist theory that men are the product of circumstances and education, and that, therefore, modified men are the products of different circumstances and of a modified education, forgets that it is precisely men who make circumstances change and that the educator himself needs to be educated. (...) The coincidence of the modification of circumstances and of human activity can only be conceived and rationally understood as revolutionary practice". (3). Written in the spring of 1845. First published by F. Engels in 1888 as an appendix to his book: Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.
In our opinion, the priority at the moment is to reconstruct the scientific communist revolutionary theory, applying the same method used by Marx and Engels to build it, the materialist dialectical method, and to analyze through it both Marxist ideology and all the revolutionary processes of socialist transition to the communist mode of production carried out throughout the 20th century, which, as we all know, have failed giving a counter-revolutionary return to the capitalist mode of production. At the same time as the reconstruction of theory, new revolutionary practices must begin to be carried out in accordance with this theoretical reconstruction.
The concept of revolutionary praxis is key to understanding the thought of Marx and Engels. It is intimately linked to the dialectical materialist method. Both constitute a profound conceptual unity that lies at the heart of scientific communist revolutionary theory. The Andalusian communist philosopher Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez, in his book: Philosophy of Praxis (1967 and 1980), deals extensively with this subject, despite the fact that his life is an example of the counter-revolutionary nature of anti-Stalinism, as we read in his prologue to the 1980 edition, page 19: "The dominant Marxism in the world communist movement did not recover, and has not yet recovered, from the deep crisis in which it had been plunged by the bankruptcy of Stalinism. However, the need to overcome the dogmatism and the sclerosis that for many years had dented the critical and revolutionary edge of Marxism, was already clear enough, at least for an increasingly important sector of Marxists".
We will quote here some of his reflections: "The vindication of praxis, as a central category, had become an indispensable task to rescue the Marxist marrow from its ontologizing, theoricist or abstract humanist wrappings. Certainly, it was necessary to delimit Marxism from that which philosophically, as dialectical materialism, reduced it just to a new philosophy of being or just to one more interpretation of the world. But it was also necessary to mark the distance from a scientific or epistemological Marxism which, driven by the legitimate desire to rescue its scientificity and, with it, the rationality of political practice, led to a new division of theory and practice. Finally, it was obligatory to reappraise the humanist content of Marxism, but without forgetting that the emancipation of man necessarily passes through the emancipation of the class, of the proletariat, founded in turn on a scientific, objective knowledge of the social world to be transformed". Ibidem.
"Marxism is, above all, - we continue thinking- a philosophy of praxis and not a new praxis of philosophy. The constitution of Marxism as a science opposed to ideology or utopia is certainly capital, but it can only be explained by its practical character; that is, only from, in and through praxis. The very destiny of Marxism as a theory (new theoricism or weapon of revolution) depends on the role given to praxis”. Prologue to the 2nd edition. 1972, page 23.
"Hegelian philosophy, by taking to its ultimate idealistic consequences the principle of autonomy and activity of the subject, cleared the way for a conception of human activity as practical, real, revolutionary. Feuerbach did not grasp what that active dimension of consciousness represented, emphasized, as it had been, by German idealism. It is true that he anthropologized the subject, and that instead of God or the Idea, he tried to focus on the real man, but by reducing the true human behavior to its theoretical side, he did not succeed in seeing the practical side of the relationship of man with the world. Marx could carry out the principle of the subject's activity, once anthropologized, when conceiving the real man not only as a theoretical being, but as a practical being (or, more exactly, theoretical-practical) that deploys his transforming material activity as historical-social being. Therefore, the true characterization of Marxism has to be made on the basis of the recognition of the central place occupied in it by the category of praxis. Any attempt to reduce its importance or to limit its content entails the risk of falling into a scientific, objectivist conception, or into an interpretation that makes it go back to philosophical positions that Marx himself tried to overcome, and that he effectively overcame, by setting the praxis as the axis of his philosophy". Conclusion. Pages 474-475.
"The problem of determining in which work or period of his thought Marx breaks with the previous philosophy presupposes, above all, a stance regarding the moment or realm in which this break takes place. If it is considered that he breaks, fundamentally, with the Hegelian idealist philosophy as a mystifying philosophy that, with its mystification, conceals the reality that has to be transformed, the breaking point will be the philosophy of law and the State, and, in this sense, the criticism to which Marx submits the Hegelian idealism in 1843 in his: Contribution to the Critique of Hegel´s Philosophy of Right, gets the prominent role that Galvano Della Volpe has given it (cf. Galvano´s: Rousseau and Marx, Buenos Aires, Platina, 1963). Marx tears there the idealistic veils that hide the true reality: the material conditions of existence. His critique puts reality before us, but the point is - as he will say later - to transform not a false, mystifying idea about reality, but the reality that engenders this idea. Marx's breakage with the previous philosophy, therefore, is not yet radical. He is not yet bending the rope that will allow him to see the firm ground of philosophy as a theory and guide of action. Now, if it is thought that Marx breaks with ideology to elaborate the scientific theory of socialism, his break will mean the substitution of an ideological thought -that is, unreal, false, illusory, by virtue of its class conditioning- by other scientific one, and, then, it is not without reason that the works that preceded his: German Ideology (1845), are considered to be imbued with ideological elements, and that a truly scientific conception of society, based on the discovery of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, will come about only on the basis of this work, in which the cardinal principles of the materialist conception of history are already in place. All this is true, and yet what is decisive in the formation of Marxism is not a change of concepts, without in any way excluding their necessity; this change is necessary for theory to fulfill the function of an instrument for the transformation of the real. The break does not take place, therefore, exclusively at the level of theory, but in relation to a praxis closely linked to it insofar as it generates and, at the same time, embodies it. The reduction of Marxism to a change of concepts, of theory, even if this change is seen in the passage from ideology (or utopia) to science, means falling back on a scientific or neo-positivist conception, since it is forgotten that Marxism emerged as a theory - scientific, of course - from the revolutionary praxis of the proletariat". The conception of praxis in Marx. Pages 133-134.
"This revolutionary praxis as it has been shown in: Theses on Feuerbach, is not pure practical activity, but the realm in which the unity of thought and action operates. If in his: German Ideology we are told that human history is, above all, the history of production and that this history conditions a revolutionary praxis, in his: Theses on Feuerbach, the rational character of praxis and therefore the unity of theory and practice is pointed out. It is not enough to define the conditions of revolutionary praxis - as the materialist conception of history does - but it is necessary to point out the way for this historically and socially conditioned praxis to become a reality. It is necessary to move from the consciousness of revolution, inscribed as a possibility in the very social structure and in the historical movement, to real, effective revolution. A concrete theory of revolution must be developed as an indispensable step, by virtue of the unity of theory and practice, to transform existing social relationships”. Ibidem. Page 188.
In order to reconstruct the revolutionary communist praxis, destroyed by imperialism and its fifth column within the International Communist Movement -the various revisionisms, opportunisms and reformisms- it is necessary to make a global balance of the history of scientific communism since its foundation, in 1848, with the publication of: The Communist Manifesto. In our opinion, making a balance of what has been called the October Cycle, that is, the different socialist revolutions of the 20th century, is necessary and indispensable, but not sufficient. The theoretical and practical roots of the defeats of the revolutionary processes of socialist transition towards the communist mode of production are much deeper than it seems.
The scientific communist revolutionary theory was created by Marx and Engels in the second half of the 19th century. This theory did not fall from the sky all done. It emerged from the real material conditions of production and social reproduction within the capitalist mode of production in Western Europe. This theory is born from the reflection on the practice of class struggle. It synthesizes, radicalizes and clarifies its problems, generates new practices that in turn enrich the theoretical reflection in an endless dialectical spiral. From the beginning it was known as Marxism, which has produced a series of both theoretical and practical problems of enormous significance, the consequences of which we are still suffering. Our working hypothesis is that one thing is the scientific communist revolutionary theory built up over more than fifty years by Marx and Engels, and another different thing is the so-called Marxism, a more or less revolutionary ideology with components of petty bourgeois origin. In our defense we appeal to the two founders of scientific communism: "The materialist conception of history has now many friends, too, of those for whom it is nothing but a pretext for not studying history. Marx had said in the late 1870s, referring to French "Marxists," that "tout ce que je sais, c'est que je ne suis pas marxiste (All I know is that I am not a Marxist)". Engels to Conrad Schmidt. London, August 5th, 1890.
The construction of the scientific communist revolutionary theory by Marx and Engels is an enormously complex process that took over fifty years. Specifically, from the spring of 1845, when Karl Marx wrote the: Theses on Feuerbach, described by Friedrich Engels in 1888 as: "...the first document containing the initial germ of the new conception of the world", until 1895, the date of the death of the great German revolutionary militant. This process of theoretical elaboration was always based on observation, analysis, reflection and formulation of hypotheses to be verified in the real practice of the class struggle. In other words, it was the scientific method of investigation that was used, more specifically, the dialectical materialist method of investigation. This method is the heart and core of the scientific communist revolutionary theory, and its most elaborated fruit is the three volumes of: DAS KAPITAL, the masterpiece of Karl Marx, which unfortunately he could not finish, leaving the titanic task of finishing it in the hands (and on the shoulders) of Friedrich Engels. Karl Marx himself was very conscious from the beginning that the dialectical materialist method was the central core of his theory, and that the fact that it was not well understood and not even taken into account was going to produce many problems in the future. "The method applied in Capital has been little understood, as it is already shown in the contradictory appreciations about it”. Epilogue to the second German edition of DAS KAPITAL. London, January 24th, 1873.
Marx is alarmed by this lack of understanding of his method, and in order to facilitate a better study of it, he quotes extensively an article that originally appeared in Russian, in May, 1872, in a St. Petersburg magazine, where the bourgeois economist Ilarion Kaufmann rigorously analyzes this subject. Marx exclaims: "By characterizing what he calls my true method in such an accurate way, and so benevolently as to my personal use of it, what does the articulist do but describe the dialectical method?" and he continues later: "My dialectical method not only differs from Hegel's, but it is its direct antithesis. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he even turns into an autonomous subject under the name of Idea, into the demiurge of the real, for him the real is nothing but its external manifestation. Conversely, for me, the ideal is nothing other than the material transmuted and translated in the human brain". Ibidem.
The terrible thing about the incomprehension of Marx's method is that the results obtained by means of its application are exegetically made, but it is not used to go further. This fact was denounced by Henryk Grossmann in 1929: "The result to which I arrived through my studies is double; in first place, for the first time the method that serves as foundation to Marx´s Capital is reconstructed; in second place, from the base thus achieved, important domains of Marx's theoretical system are clarified from essentially new angles. One of the conquests consists in the understanding of the theory of collapse that is exposed here and that forms the spine upon which the whole Marxian conception of economy rests. Although the theory of collapse has been erected, from the first decade of this century, in the nodal point of the violent theoretical controversies, until now it had never been tried to reconstruct, incorporating it again to the Marxian theory considered as a whole. It is clear that it would be a difficult task if it were reduced to the swell of Marxist dogma, thus helping to confirm G. Briefs' expression that Marxism has become a question of interpretation. Strictly speaking, the still unsatisfactory state of the research on Marx and his theory must be attributed to the fact that, until now, not only has a clear understanding of the research method used by Marx not been reached, but -strange as it may seem- not even a serious reflection on it has been carried out. In reality, it was all about holding on to the results achieved by that theory: these became the point on which interest was focused and around which both the criticism and the defence of Marxism revolved. But along the way the method was lost. The fundamental rule of all scientific research, which states that every result -however interesting it may be- is worthless if the path by which it was obtained is unknown, was thus forgotten. Only in this way, separated from the course followed for its elaboration, could it be transformed -with the changes proper to each epoch- into the object of the changing interpretative efforts, The exposition of Marx's research method remains for my main work". Henryk Grossmann: The law of accumulation and the collapse of the capitalist system. Siglo veintiuno editores. Mexico, 1979. Original edition in German, 1929.
Here we come to the heart of our theses: Marxism is a more or less revolutionary ideology according to the times and authors, which was created by petty-bourgeois intellectuals on the basis of deforming, mutilating and manipulating the scientific communist revolutionary theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. According to this hypothesis, the true founders of Marxism would be, fundamentally, Bernstein, Kautsky and Plekhanov.
We will not dwell on the criticism of the reformist and revisionist positions of Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, which are known to all. Let us simply remember that they were both literary executors of Marx and Engels at the latter's death. This is by no means a coincidence, of course, and leads us to be quite critical of the last years of theoretical and practical activity of an Engels deprived of his backbone, Marx. In order to better know these two petty-bourgeois reformist intellectuals it is enough to read two fundamental works: Reform or Revolution, by Rosa Luxemburg, and: The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, by Lenin. We have nothing more to add for the moment, but to underline that they were never revolutionaries, and that Bernstein was more honest and consistent than Kautsky, showing his real face after Engels' death, without waiting for the fire test (the praxis) that was the total bankruptcy of the European social democracy before the First Imperialist World War.
As a testimony to the fact that even then true revolutionaries knew the profound religious, scholastic and Talmudic character of the vast majority of Marxists, these words by Franz Mehring, German revolutionary communist, Spartakist and comrade of Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknetch (biographer of Karl Marx), remain: "This book has its little history. When it came to editing the correspondence between Marx and Engels, Laura Lafargue, Marx's daughter, made it a condition for giving permission where she depended, that I intervene in the editing as her representative; the power of attorney granted at Draveil, dated November 1910, authorized me to introduce into the edition of The Letters all the notes, clarifications and deletions that I considered necessary”.
“In practice, I had no need to make use of this authorization. Among the publishers, or rather, the editor of The Letters, Bernstein -since Bebel did nothing but to stamp his name- and I did not raise any major discrepancies of opinion, and I understood, interpreting the mandate of Marx's daughter, that I should not and did not have to interfere in that task without a compelling or powerful reason to justify it; for my part, I did not feel any inclination to proceed in this direction either”.
“The long hours of work that I devoted to examining this correspondence rounded off the image that I had formed of Karl Marx over ten years of study, and I unwittingly felt the desire to give this image a biographical framework, especially in the knowledge that this would bring great joy to his daughter. If I had earned his friendship and trust, it was not precisely because he considered me to be the most cultured or the most intelligent of his father's disciples, but simply because he believed that he saw in me the one who had gone deepest into his human personality and who knew how to expose it most accurately. By letter and by word of mouth, he assured me quite a few times that the account I gave in my: History of the Party and, above all, in my edition of: Various Writings of Marx, Engels and Lassalle, refreshed and brought to life in it quite a few already blurred family memories, and made quite a few of the names frequently heard on his parents' lips come back to life”.
“Unfortunately, this magnificent woman died long before her father's correspondence with Engels could see the light of day. A few hours before she voluntarily went to her death, she sent me a warm farewell greeting. She had inherited her father's qualities, and I have to show her from here, already at her grave, my gratitude for having entrusted me with so many treasures of her father's heritage for its publication, without ever making the slightest attempt to influence my critical judgment in the face of that task. And so, knowing how he knew from my: History of the Party, how many times and with what energy I had defended Lassalle's right against Marx, he had no problem entrusting me with Lassalle's letters to his father, for their publication”.
“Those two jealous guardians of Marxism, who, as soon as I laid hands on the execution of my biographical purpose, began to very vocally express their moral indignation because I had allowed myself to express in the Neue Zeit some observations about the relations of Lassalle and Bakunin with Marx, without, as was customary, bowing to the official legend of the Party! Karl Kautsky opened fire by accusing me of "anti-Marxism" in general and in particular of an alleged "breach of trust" against Marx's daughter. And since I, ignoring this, was obstinate in my intention to write the biography, he sacrificed no less than sixty pages of the space, which is known to be very precious, of the Neue Zeit, to make room for a pamphlet in which David Riazanov -under an avalanche of accusations, whose lack of scruples can only be equated with his foolishness- intended to build on me the image of the most vile of Marx's traitors. I have allowed these people to have the last word, moved by a feeling that courtesy prevents me from qualifying, but I owe it to myself to declare that their doctrinal terrorism has not intimidated me in the least, which is why I shall continue in this work to expose Marx's relations with Lassalle and Bakunin without adhering in any way to the legend of the Party, obedient only to the postulates of historical truth. Here too, of course, I have tried to avoid any controversy, although in the notes at the end of this work, I examine some of the most important accusations made by Kautsky and Riazanov, for the greater honour and benefit of those who follow us as researchers in this field, for it will always seem to me little contribution to inject in tomorrow's scholars, and as soon as possible, a feeling of sovereign contempt for the epileptic attacks of Marxist priests”.
“If Marx had been really and truly that boring little model boy that the priests of Marxism venerate in him, I would never have been tempted to write his biography. My admiration and my criticism -and neither of these two things can be lacking in any good biography, in equal doses- never lose sight of the man of genius who liked to say nothing so much and nothing more often about himself than that nothing human was foreign to him. To make him live again, in all his powerful and rough greatness: such is the mission I have set myself." Franz Mehring: Marx. Story of his life, Editorial Marat, Buenos Aires, 2013. First edition in German in 1918.
I use this long quotation to revive a historical truth long hidden.
Let us now turn to the Third Person of the Holy Marxist Trinity, Georgi Plekhanov, the founding father of Russian Marxism. In a book that has marked a milestone in the knowledge of scientific communist revolutionary theory: Late Marx and the Russian Way, edited and presented by Teodor Shanin (Editorial Revolución, Madrid, 1990. 1st edition in English, 1983) it is clearly demonstrated, with all the details and the most exhaustive documentation, that both Plekhanov, Pavel Axelrod and Vera Zasulich hid and censored Karl Marx's letter to the latter of March 8, 1881, where he disavowed the Russian Marxists and showed his sympathy for the armed revolutionary group "Narodnaya Volya" (The Will / Freedom of the People).
In order not to lengthen this writing unnecessarily, we will limit ourselves to quoting Theodor Shanin briefly: "Regarding Marx's critical view of the 'boring doctrines' of the Black Partition group –also Known as Black Repartition-, see his letter to Sorge, dated on October 5, 1880, in Collected Works, vol. 34, page 380. The way in which Marx (and in the 1880s Engels as well) explained his position on The Will of the People to his other contacts is very interesting. The same letter of Marx, in which he speaks with admiration of the human qualities of the members of The Will of the People (April 11,1888 (????), describes Kautsky as "mediocre, not very capable, self-sufficient and of the 'know-it-all' type... surely very hardworking, he spends a lot of time with statistics without going very far with it, and naturally belongs to the tribe of the 'Philistines', while, on the other hand, he is undoubtedly an honest man. On April 23, 1885, Engels responded to Vera Zasulich's request to express his opinion on Plekhanov's book in which he declared his Marxist creed against Russian populists, refusing to express a judgment: "My friends of The Will of the People do not speak to me of such things," and then proceeded to defend The Will of the People's belief in the possibilities of immediate revolution in Russia”. (Ibidem, page 40).
At the International Conference itself I will further expand this crucial debate for the reconstruction of revolutionary communist practice. I conclude with Theodor Shanin explaining my working hypothesis: "Already in Marx's own generation there were Marxists who knew better than Marx what Marxism was and were prepared to censor it, on the sly, for its own good”. Ibidem. Page 36.
Without breaking with the Marxist paradigm at all, but in a titanic struggle to study and understand Marx's work, assimilating his method and trying to apply it to go further in theory and practice, we have to highlight two exceptional militants: Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg. Both fought with all their strength against the reformism and opportunism that totally destroyed the Second International, in order to recover the revolutionary communist praxis at all levels, in the path of the Paris Commune and the Socialist Revolution. From Rosa Luxemburg we must emphasize her will and her sincere revolutionary audacity, even though we know today that she did not understand well: DAS KAPITAL, having to invent in her book: The accumulation of Capital a sui generis theory to justify the tendency to the collapse of Capitalism, something that Marx had already done scientifically based exclusively on the development of the law of value. What remains is the testimony of the revolutionary humanism of an extraordinary communist militant and her contributions in other fields of theory that we cannot go into in depth here, but which should be the collective task of this International Conference in the coming years.
Lenin is a revolutionary genius of the same magnitude as Marx; we have not the slightest doubt about that. Trapped in the epistemological prison that is the paradigm of Marxism, lacking key texts and documents for a full understanding of Marx's thought, he nevertheless managed to come closer than anyone else to the dialectical materialist method of scientific communist revolutionary theory, developing it in many aspects and leading the first victorious socialist revolution, the Soviet Revolution of 1917.
For us, it is a matter of applying the dialectical materialist method to the practice of Lenin, who underwent the same process of ideologization as Marx's theory and practice. In the following thesis we will talk about the four Leninisms fighting for the leadership of the Bolshevik Communist Party: the versions of Stalin, Zinoviev-Kamenev, Bukharin and Trostky. We will see that the same process of canonization, ideologization and manipulation of Marx's thought happened in turn with that of Lenin. And it had the same dire consequences.
Much has been written about the different Leninisms in struggle in the years 1922-1937. It is the Great Debate. My opinion is clear: none of the four Leninisms that were forged in those years reflects in its integrity Lenin's thought, but the Leninism that comes closest to his thesis, with all the limitations that the very harsh criticisms of Vladimir Ilich himself show in documents, is that of Stalin. This indicates that another way of building Socialism in the USSR could have existed if Lenin had lived to avoid, with a bold and revolutionary theoretical synthesis, the split and civil war within the Bolshevik Communist Party of the USSR. Unfortunately this did not happen, and we can only try, to the extent of our possibilities, to elaborate that revolutionary communist criticism of the Stalin era based on the fragmentary indications left by Lenin and on the teachings of the history of those heroic and terrible years.
Prior to anything, an insurmountable red line. The revolutionary communist criticism of Stalin and the construction of socialism in the USSR in the years 1923-1953 must necessarily involve the staunch defence of Stalin and the Bolshevik Communist Party of the USSR against imperialism, against the bourgeoisie, against reaction and against Nazi-fascism and all the opportunists, revisionists, defeatists and traitors of the social-democratic fifth column within the International Communist Movement. 35 years of revolutionary militancy have fully convinced me that the so-called "Stalin question" and so-called "Stalinism" is the touchstone that marks the boundary between the petty-bourgeois positions of the left, the different reformisms, opportunisms and revisionisms, and the position of the proletarian, revolutionary communist, firmly anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist class. Obviously, this does not mean that the leadership of the first triumphant socialist revolution, and the first process of building socialism, is free from errors. There are, and I think many of them, as Leninpointed out, and it is the priority task of the revolutionary communists of the 21st century to elaborate a reasoned and exhaustive critique of the errors of Stalin and the rest of the leadership of the Bolshevik Communist Party of the USSR. But neither in just any shapeless way, nor by feeding the capitalist counterrevolution.
I quote extensively from the Belgian revolutionary communist Ludo Martens, who had the courage and audacity to write a seminal book on this subject: Another Look at Stalin, Kimetz liburuak, 2008. Original version in French, 2003:
"All the communist and revolutionary organizations in the world will be forced -one day or another- to re-examine the opinions and prejudices formulated since 1956 on the work of Comrade Stalin. (...) Rediscovering the revolutionary truth of the period of the pioneers of the Soviet and international communist movement is a collective task for all communists in the world. (...) The class whose fundamental interest is to maintain the system of exploitation and oppression imposes on us daily "its" vision of Stalin. To adopt another view of Stalin is to study Stalin's historical personality through the eyes of the opposite class, that of the exploited and oppressed". Page 10.
"For 35 years, the revisionists have fought to demolish Stalin. Once Stalin was demolished, Lenin was liquidated in the blink of an eye". Page 15.
"The anti-Stalinist campaigns carried out by the Western "democracies" between 1989-91 have often been much more virulent and slanderous than those carried out in the course of the 1930s by the Nazis, because today the great communist achievements of the 1930s to counterbalance the slander no longer exist, nor do the significant political forces capable of taking up the defence of the Soviet experience under Stalin”. Page 16.
"The wars that imperialism has carried out with the greatest ferocity and the most colossal means are the anti-communist wars. Military wars, clandestine wars, political wars and psychological wars. Is it not the very evidence that the campaign against Stalin has become the center of all ideological struggles carried out against Socialism and Communism?". Page 16.
"On the five continents, all the right-wing and ultra-right-wing forces have been so fierce against Stalin, using the most colossal means and with such frenzy, that no genuine revolutionary has been able to escape making a new evaluation of Stalin's work. For it is becoming increasingly clear that the right wing has been fiercely anti-Stalin in order to be able to formulate immediately its conclusions on the historical defeat of communism and the ideological and political collapse of Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, when the bourgeoisie proclaims the definitive failure of communism, it is using the regrettable defeat of revisionism to reaffirm its hatred for the great work accomplished in the past by Lenin and Stalin. In doing so, it is thinking more of the future than of the past. The bourgeoisie wants to make believe that Marxism-Leninism is definitely buried, because it is perfectly aware of the actuality and vitality of communist analysis. The bourgeoisie has a plethora of cadres capable of making "scientific" and "world development" evaluations. It can also foresee major crises, upheavals on a planetary scale and wars of all kinds. After the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, all the contradictions of the world imperialist system are exacerbated. In the face of the abyss of unemployment, misery, exploitation and wars that are opening up before the toiling masses of the whole world, only Marxism-Leninism is capable of showing the only way out. Only Marxism-Leninism can provide the working masses of the capitalist world and the oppressed peoples of the Third World with the weapons for their liberation. All the hype about the end of communism is intended to disarm the oppressed masses of the whole world with a view to the great struggles of the future. The defense of Stalin's work, which is by essence the defense of Marxism-Leninism, is a current and present task to confront the reality of class struggle under the New World Order”. Page 17.
"There is a close interrelationship between the restoration of Capitalism -which we have witnessed- and the virulent campaign against Stalin that preceded it. (...) It is evident that in the course of the last few years, all the fanatics of Capitalism and Imperialism, in order to put an end to what was left of Socialism in the USSR, have taken Stalin as their target. The disastrous deviation initiated by Khrushchev shows, by opposition, the relevance of most of the ideas enunciated by Stalin. Stalin claimed that the class struggle was continuing under Socialism, that the old feudal and bourgeois forces were not abandoning the fight for restoration and that the opportunists within the Party, the Trotskyists, the Bukharinists and the bourgeois nationalists were helping the anti-social classes and strata to regroup their forces. Khruschev declared that these theses were aberrant and led to arbitrariness. But in 1992, the massive figure of Tsar Boris (Yeltsin) stands as a monument testifying to the correctness of Stalin's analysis. The opponents of the dictatorship of the proletariat have not ceased to assert that Stalin embodied not the workers' dictatorship but his own autocratic dictatorship. The Word Gulag became synonymous with "Stalinian dictatorship". Now, those who were in the Gulags of Stalin's time are part of the new bourgeoisie in power today. To demolish Stalin was to bring about a rebirth of socialist democracy. But once Stalin is buried, Hitler has come out of his grave. And all the "black heroes", the Vlassovs, the Bandera, the Antonescu, the Tiso and other collaborators of the Nazis are rehabilitated in Russia, Ukraine, Romania and Slovakia. The fall of the Berlin Wall marks the rise of neo-Nazism in Germany. Today, confronted with the development of Capitalism and Fascism in the East, we understand better why Stalin defended Workers' Power so courageously. (...) In our days, in the Third World all forces that oppose, in one form or another, imperialist barbarism are harassed and massacred in the name of the struggle against "Stalinism". Pages 18-19.
"Stalin's work is of vital and burning relevance to all the peoples who have initiated the revolutionary struggle to end the bestial domination of Imperialism. Stalin represents, as Lenin did, the firmness in the fiercest, most implacable class struggle. Stalin has shown that in the most difficult situations, only a firm and inflexible attitude towards the class enemy can solve the fundamental problems of the working masses. The conciliatory, opportunistic, defeatist and capitulationist attitude necessarily leads to catastrophe and bloody revenge by the reactionary forces. (...) In all extreme situations, Stalin's example shows how to mobilize the masses for the ruthless and victorious struggle against all-out enemies". Page 20.
"If Lenin led the October Revolution and laid out the major directions for the construction of socialism, it is Stalin who has carried out socialist construction over a period of thirty years. All the hatred of the bourgeoisie has concentrated on the titanic work accomplished under Stalin's leadership. A Communist who does not adopt very firm class positions vis-à-vis the one-sided, tricked or falsified information constantly disseminated by the bourgeoisie will be hopelessly lost. On no other subject in recent history does the bourgeoisie have as much interest in blackening and denigrating its adversaries as in the case of Stalin. Every Communist must adopt an attitude of systematic mistrust of any "information" the bourgeoisie (and the Khrushchevians) give him about the Stalin period. And, on the contrary, he must set about studying the basic theories in order to discover the few alternative sources of information, of those who objectively study Stalin's revolutionary work. The opportunists in the different parties do not dare to face the anti-Stalin ideological offensive as the objective is obvious. And bowing to the pressure, they say "yes to the criticism of Stalin" but pretend to criticize him from the "left". Today, we can take stock of 70 years of "leftist criticism" formulated against the revolutionary experience of the Bolshevik Party in Stalin's time. We have hundreds of works written by social democrats, Trotskyites, Bukharinists and "independent" left-wing intellectuals. Their views have been taken up and developed by the Khrushchevians and the Titists. We can better understand today the true class sense of all these works. Have all these critiques created more consistent revolutionary practices than those that Stalin put forward in his work? Theories are judged, in the end, by the practice they are capable of arousing. The revolutionary practice of the world communist movement under Stalin disrupted the whole world, giving a new orientation to the History of Humanity". Pages 24-25.
"Of all the episodes of the period 1923-1953, one must strive to know in all its integrity the line and policy advocated by the Bolshevik Party and by Stalin. We cannot subscribe to any criticism of Stalin's work without having verified the data on the question under discussion and without knowing in depth the version given by the Bolshevik leadership”. Page 26.
It is not the function of this work to establish in a scientific and exhaustive way the fraternal criticisms of the revolutionary communists of the beginning of the 21st century against Stalin and the Bolshevik Communist Party of the USSR. In the following thesis we point out some research tracks to be developed.
The steel defence of the revolutionary work of Stalin and the rest of the leadership of the Bolshevik Communist Party of the USSR does not blind us in any way to the titanic task of drawing the lessons from the process of building Socialism in the USSR from 1921 to 1953. We know that Lenin's theoretical and strategic elaboration did not fall from heaven all done and dusted, but was a long and complex process of revolutionary praxis, with its advances and setbacks, its dead ends and extraordinary discoveries. If we are critical of Lenin's work, being aware that the great Russian revolutionary communist was progressively divesting himself of all the enormous burden of petty bourgeois ideology that the dominant Marxism of the Second International, and very especially that of Kautsky and Plekhanov had introduced into the reading of the scientific communist revolutionary theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, we are even more critical of Stalin's theoretical and practical work. We cannot deal here in depth with this critique, which will have to be collective and scientific, but we can point to the key book by the Portuguese revolutionary communist, Francisco Martins Rodrigues: Anti-Dimitrov, as a fundamental milestone. The centrist and opportunist turn carried out by the VII Congress of the III International in 1935 under the benevolence of Stalin indicates that an incipient state bourgeoisie was taking shape in the heat of the enormous weight that the Soviet state apparatus was having. A state bourgeoisie that advanced its positions during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, and which staged a coup d'état on Stalin's death, in the event that he had not been killed by this gang of counter-revolutionaries. The fact hat this process would not have triggered a real civil war in the USSR between the sincerely revolutionary communist forces, the proletariat of the different Soviet nations and the revisionists grouped around the dark, miserable and mediocre Khrushchev, clearly indicates that the process of the advancement of the Soviet state bourgeoisie was much deeper and more global than the staunch supporters of Stalin want to admit. The end is known to all of us: the terrorist liquidation of the USSR and the remnants of Socialism under the leadership of the Secretary General of the CPSU, the infamous and treacherous Gorbachev, representative of this state bourgeoisie.
From February 1956, when Khrushchev delivered his secret report against Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party began to discreetly mark its distance from the new leadership of the USSR. It is to the credit of Mao Tse Tung and the rest of the Chinese Communist Party and of Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour of Albania that they opposed the clearly revisionist and liquidationist turn of the CPSU, which ended, as we all know, with the counter-revolutionary restoration of Capitalism and the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
For years, a bitter polemic developed between the two sectors of the International Communist Movement, which ended with splits in most of the communist parties of the planet. The Sino-Albanian line in turn split when the Chinese Communist Party began to turn to the right and accept peaceful coexistence with Imperialism, following the defeat of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Making an overall assessment of this period is totally beyond my capabilities, but I would like to contribute a number of reflections. The Chinese-Albanian opposition remained all the time within Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, without questioning at all not the very concept of Marxism, but even the 7th Congress of the 3rd International and all its consequences. In this sense, it was condemned to repeat the same mistakes in the construction of Socialism that were committed in the USSR, insofar as the strengthening of the Socialist State, without a scientific communist revolutionary theory that would arm the Communist Party and the whole proletariat with a strategy of transition to the Communist Mode of Production that would prevent the rise and seizure of power by the state bourgeoisie, ends up creating the material economic, political, military and ideological conditions to paralyze the socialist transition to Communism, and later, to return to Capitalism. This law, which has been regularly fulfilled in all the processes of socialist transition to the Communist Mode of Production, shows us the imperative need to make a leap in quality within the scientific communist revolutionary theory, based on Marx, Engels and Lenin's ideas about the Socialist State, the Proletarian State, the Commune State, which is not a state in the classical sense of the term.
In the midst of the Chinese-Soviet controversy, of the terrible war in Vietnam that spread to all of Indochina and of the heroic struggle of the Cuban Revolution less than a hundred kilometers from the imperialist monster, a revolutionary communist militant of the vanguard, an extraordinary theoretician and an exceptional guerrilla fighter, sets out in search of a new theoretical synthesis that will find the way out of the labyrinth where Marxism was sinking, sinking and disorienting itself, and at the same time takes revolutionary communist practice to its highest peaks. This is the CHE, Ernesto Guevara. In our opinion, the third key figure in the long march of the Communist Revolution.
We bring here in full his most important text, the preface to his never finished book: Critical Notes on Political Economy, written in the years 1965-1966, before his assassination by Imperialism in 1967. At the International Conference itself we will comment on and draw conclusions from this key text for the reconstruction of revolutionary communist practice and the founding of the New Proletarian International, the 5th International:
"Since the appearance of Capital, the revolutionaries of the world had a theoretical monument that clarified the mechanisms of the capitalist system and the internal logic of its irremediable disappearance. For many decades it was the encyclopedia from where the theoretical material indispensable for the new generations of fighters was drunk. Even today, the source has not dried up and the clarity and depth of judgment of the founders of dialectical materialism is marvelous. Without knowing: El Capital, one is not an economist (note by Mikel Erro: I think I should say communist) in the full and deep sense of the Word.”
“However, life went on and some of Marx and Engels' statements were not sanctioned by practice, especially the time frame for the great transformation of society was short. The vision of the scientific geniuses was clouded by the peremptory illusion of the exalted revolutionaries. However, the social upheavals were growing in depth and breadth, and the conflicts caused by the division of the world among the imperialist nations gave rise to the First World War and the October Revolution.”
“Lenin, the leader of this revolution, also has the theoretical merit of having elucidated the character of capitalism under its new imperialist form and enunciated the uneven pace of the development of society (as in everything else in nature, by the way), foreseeing the possibility of breaking the imperialist chain at its weakest link and turning it into facts.”
“The enormous amount of writings he left behind after his death constituted the indispensable complement to the work of the founders. Afterwards, the source of his death was weakened and only a few isolated works by Stalin and certain writings by Mao Tse Tung remained as witnesses to the immense creative power of Marxism.”
“In his final years, Stalin feared the results of this theoretical deficiency and ordered the writing of a handbook that would be accessible to the masses and deal with all issues of political economy up to the present day.”
“This manual has been translated into the main languages of the world and has been made into several editions, undergoing pronounced changes in its structure and orientation, as changes took place in the USSR.”
“When we began a critical study of it, we found so many concepts that were at odds with our way of thinking that we decided to start this enterprise -the book that would express our views- with the greatest possible scientific rigor and the utmost honesty. This last quality is indispensable because the serene study of Marxist theory and recent events put us in the position of critics of the USSR, a position that has become the trade of many opportunists who throw darts from the extreme left for the benefit of reaction.”
“We have made a firm determination not to conceal a single opinion for tactical reasons, but at the same time to draw conclusions that, because of their logical rigour and high-mindedness, help to solve problems and do not contribute only to raise unsolvable questions.”
“We believe that the task is important because Marxist research in the field of economics is going along dangerous lines. The uncompromising dogmatism of Stalin's time has been followed by an inconsistent pragmatism. And what is tragic is that this does not concern only one particular field of science; it is happening in all aspects of the life of socialist peoples, creating disturbances that are already enormously damaging but whose final results are incalculable.”
“In the course of our practice and theoretical research we came to discover a great culprit with a name and a surname: Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.”
“Such is the magnitude of our daring. But whoever has the patience to reach the last chapters of this work will see the respect and admiration we have for this "culprit" and for the revolutionary motives behind the acts whose ultimate results would amaze the filmmaker today.”
“It has been known since olden times that it is the social being that determines consciousness, and the role of the superstructure is known; now we are witnessing an interesting phenomenon, which we do not claim to have discovered, but whose importance we are trying to deepen: the interrelationship of structure and superstructure. Our thesis is that the changes produced as a result of the New Economic Policy (NEP) have penetrated so deeply into the life of the USSR that they have marked this whole stage with their sign. And its results are discouraging: the capitalist superstructure was increasingly influencing the relations of production and the conflicts caused by the hybridization that the NEP meant are now being resolved in favor of the superstructure; there is a return to capitalism.”
“But we do not want to anticipate in these prologue notes but the extent of our heresy; let us take the time and space to try to argue it out at length.”
“Another characteristic of this work is that it is a cry from underdevelopment. Up to the present time, revolutions of a socialist tendency have taken place in extremely backward countries (ravaged basically by war) or in countries of relative industrial development (Czechoslovakia, eastern Germany) or in continental countries. And all of them forming a geographical unit.”
“Until now, no small isolated country, without the possibility of large markets or a rapid exploitation of the international division of labour, but at the same time with a relatively high standard of living, had attempted the socialist adventure. The errors, the blind onslaughts, will also take place, as a useful history, in these pages; but the most important thing is our reasons, reasons that we identify with those of the countries of scarce development, as a whole, which is why we intend to give value of certain universality to our approaches.”
“Many will feel sincere amazement at this accumulation of new and different reasons, others will feel hurt and there will be those who see in the whole book only a rabid anti-communist position disguised as theoretical argumentation. But many (we sincerely hope so) will feel the breath of new ideas and will see their reasons, until now unconnected, inorganic, expressed in a more or less vertebrate whole.”
“The book is fundamentally aimed at this group of men and also at the multitude of Cuban students who have to go through the painful process of learning "eternal truths" in the publications that come, above all, from the USSR and observe how our attitude and the repeated statements of our leaders kick in with those who read the texts.”
“To those who look at us with mistrust based on the esteem and loyalty they experience towards the socialist countries, we give only one warning: Marx's statement, set out in the first pages of: Capital, on the inability of bourgeois science to criticize itself, using apologetics instead, can unfortunately be applied today to Marxist economic science. This book is an attempt to get back on the right track and, regardless of its scientific value, we are proud to have tried it from this small developing country.”
“Many upheavals await humanity before its definitive liberation but -we are guided by this absolute conviction- it will only be able to arrive there through a radical change of strategy on the part of the main socialist powers. Whether this change will be the result of unavoidable imperialist pressure or, of an evolution of the masses of those countries, or of a concatenation of factors, is something that history will tell; we contribute our modest grain of sand with the fear that the enterprise will be much superior to our forces. In any case, here remains the testimony of our intent.”
“Our strength of heart must be tested by accepting the challenge of the Sphinx and not by dodging its formidable questioning.” Ernesto CHE Guevara: Critical Notes on Political Economy. Prologue: The need for this book. Editorial de Ciencias Sociales. Havana. 2012. First Edition, 2005.
The only thing we want to add as a commentary to this text is that it is written in red ink, that of the revolutionary internationalist communist combatants armed in the Congo and Bolivia, and very especially that of CHE itself. All these theses are nothing more than an attempt to take up again the theoretical weapons where the assassination of our dear and admired comrade forced us to abandon them, accepting the challenge of the Sphinx and responding in the following four theses to his formidable question: how to reconstruct in the first half of the 21st century the revolutionary communist praxis and to found the New Proletarian International. The 5th International.
The time has come to present in a telegraphic way, while waiting for a more detailed verbal presentation at the International Conference itself, the main lines of our proposal for the reconstruction of the revolutionary communist praxis. The first central idea is that Socialism is not a specific mode of production, on the same level as Despotism, Slavery, Feudalism or Capitalism.
Socialism is actually a process of transition to the Communist Mode of Production.
In this sense, being a process, it brings together elements of the two antagonistic modes of production. The debate on the socialist character of the different post-revolutionary states is a Byzantine and scholastic debate, insofar as what is decisive is the concrete analysis of the concrete situation, to determine in a scientific way where a certain social economic formation is heading, whether it is towards Communism or towards Capitalism. This point of view clarifies and facilitates the assessment of the Socialist Revolutions of the 20th century and avoids many endless and sterile discussions.
We recall here the far-sighted words of Karl Marx:
"The beginnings are always difficult, and this applies to all sciences. Understanding the first chapter, and especially the part devoted to the analysis of the commodity, will therefore present the greatest difficulty. I have given the most popular character to what concerns more concretely the analysis of the substance and magnitude of value. The form of value, the finished figure of which is the form of money, is extremely simple and devoid of substance. However, for more than two thousand years human intelligence has been trying in vain to unravel its secret, while it has succeeded in doing so, at least approximately, in the case of much more complex and content-filled forms. Why? Because it is easier to study the developed organism than the cells that make it up. When we analyze the economic forms, on the other hand, we cannot use the microscope or chemical reagents. The faculty of abstraction has to act as one and the other.”
“For bourgeois society, the form of the commodity adopted by the product of labour, or the form of the value of the commodity, is the economic cell form. To the layman it seems that to analyze it is no longer to get lost in mere minutiae and subtleties. It is indeed a matter of minutiae and subtleties, but in the same way that it is to them that the micrological anatomy is devoted.”
“Except for the section on the form of value, this work cannot be accused of being difficult to understand. I trust, of course, that its readers will be people who are eager to learn something new and therefore also to think for themselves.”
“The physicist observes the natural processes where they occur in the clearest form and are least obscured by disturbing influences, or, when possible, he carries out experiments under conditions that ensure the uncontaminated course of the process. What I have to investigate in this work is the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it. The classical seat of this mode of production is, up to now, England. This is why in developing my theory I use that country as the main source of examples". Karl Marx. Das Kapital. The Capital. Critique of Political Economy. Prologue to the 1st edition of 1867. Pages 43-44. Siglo XX. Madrid. 2017.
We could add here extensive quotes from the: Critique of the Gotha Program, but we will do so at the International Conference itself. What we would like to emphasize here is that Marx does not use a mechanical simile to explain the functioning of the Capitalist Mode of Production, but a biological metaphor. Capitalism is not a machine, but a living being, whose cells are commodities. This has enormous theoretical and practical implications for revolutionary communists in the 21st century.
Capitalism is a living being, yes, but of a clearly cancerous nature. Its functioning reproduces in a fractal way the tumoral development of this disease. This indicates that a Communist Revolution is a healing process of the living organism of Humanity, through which the tumors and metastases that Capitalism has produced in the social body are eliminated and/or reabsorbed by the healthy cells of class society, guided by the Revolutionary Communist Party. This is the proletariat, of course, and the rest of the social strata of the Working People.
If this vanguard organization is not armed and equipped with a vanguard theory that makes it identify the cancerous social cells capable of reproducing Capitalism from zero if they are left, the socialist healing process will stagnate, and it will begin to retreat towards Capitalism.
It was the deep knowledge and creative mastery of Karl Marx's theory of value/work that allowed CHE to realize that the increase in the circulation of trade, in the exchange of goods, in the circulation of money within the Soviet social formation, and at the same time, the reduction of the weight and power of socialist planning clearly indicated that the USSR had stagnated in its transition to the Communist Mode of Production and had begun the counter-revolutionary retreat towards Capitalism.
Twenty-five years later, the process was completed and the Soviet Union collapsed, along with the rest of the Eastern European socialist states.
A similar process happened in China in a less traumatic and more planned way, and it is happening right now in the rest of the socialist-oriented countries of the planet, including Cuba, of course.
What to do?
Precisely what we're doing right now. To meet in an International Conference to debate and delve into these issues and to draw the strategic reconstruction lines of the revolutionary communist praxis and the Proletarian International. A titanic and heroic task for the coming decades. We will fulfil our activist duty.
Class struggles are radicalised and accentuated during the process of socialist transition to the Communist Mode of Production, and one or more Communist Revolutions will be necessary during socialism so that it does not stagnate and retreat towards capitalism.
During these life-and-death struggles, the Proletariat needs to be guided by a vanguard organization, theRevolutionary Communist Party, which knows how to maintain its critical autonomy and worker and popular counter-power as regards the socialist state apparatus, and which quickly identifies the creation of bourgeoisie layerswithin it. This demands that the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat is effectively exerted by the working masses, and that the Party makes an effort to convince them and achieve the hegemony and strategic leadershipwithin the soviets, batzarres, assemblies, councils and boards of proletarians.
Revolutionary praxis in the 21st century: Communism or extinction!
There is no other way out. The collapse of capitalism is inevitable.
Practical measures that we propose for this International Conference:
1.- Writing a simple founding Manifesto that summarizes the general conclusions we will reach at this International Conference. Giving it the widest possible disemination on a world level.
Holding an annual International Conference of this type, which will mark the theoretical and practical evolution of the organizations that participate and bring together other ones from around the world.
Founding the Revolutionary Internationalist Coordinating Committee, as a new stage in the development of the Internationalist Manifesto of Santiago de Compostela and as a revolutionary detachment on the road to the foundation of the New Proletarian International, the 5th International.
Creating its Executive Committee in which all the participating organisations are represented, and which is at the same time the theoretical and strategic reflection group that prepares the annual International Conferences. It will meet three times a year.
5.- Recovering July 19th as the Peoples of Spain anti-fascist revolutionary insurrection Memorial Day, and celebrating an annual event on that date in the different nations in Spain.
6.- Massive creation of study groups of: DAS KAPITAL, the masterpiece of the scientific communist revolutionary theory, to prepare a new generation of revolutionary militants.
Establishing relations with the other international revolutionary coordination detachments from different organisations, with a view to having debates and exchanging information, in order to advance in the construction of the 5th International.
8. Creating a biannual digital theoretical magazine to prepare the Conferences and boost training in our organizations.
9.- Facilitating the strategic convergence of our organizations.
10.- Appointing the Coordinating Committee facilitator in the plenary session.
To Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknetch, on the 100th anniversary of their assassination by Social Democracy.
HERRITAR BATASUNA ACTIVIST