International Conference

Rebuilding the revolutionary left to promote the Socialist / Communist Revolution


«Completely contrary to what happens in German philosophy, which descends from heaven on earth, here one ascends from earth to heaven. That is to say, one does not start from what men say, represent or imagine, nor from the man preached, thought, represented or imagined, in order to reach the man of flesh and blood; one starts from the man who really acts and who, departing from his real life process, is also exposed to the development of ideological reflections and the echoes of this life process». [Marx-Engels: "The German Ideology"] 

«To be radical is to take the issue at its roots. But the root for man is man himself». [Marx: "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law"] 

«Everything is illusion, but power». [Lenin]

We start from the premise, well established both in the denunciation of the "founding fathers" and by the incontestable reality of the class struggle, that almost since the first decades of the elaboration and configuration of the Marxist theory, since the foundation of historical materialism and materialist dialectics, the process of sterilization and deturpation was begun by its "followers".

Being Karl Marx and Friedrich Engelsstill alive, the radicalized petty-bourgeoisie tries to appropriate this scientific method of analysis and interpretation of reality. The seriousness of the ongoing disfigurement forced Marx to declare the many times deliberately misinterpreted lapidary expression: "I am not a Marxist".

With his fine irony, the bearded man of Trier launched an indisputable message of warning to those who altered the core of a system of thought, a transforming philosophy, and a guide for revolutionary action with the objective of both the overcoming the capitalist mode of production and the construction of a new society without exploitation.

In a letter dated November 11, 1882, addressed to his soul friend Engels, he said angrily about his sons-in-law: "The hell with Longuet, the last Proudhonian, and with Lafargue, the last Bakunist".

Years later, Engels himself conveyed to Paul Lafargueyet again, also via letter, dated October 27, 1890, his disappointment and disgust for so many a careerist who had taken over the German Social Democratic party:

"Students, literati and other declassed young bourgeois have jumped at the party and have arrived in time to fill most of the posts of editors in the new newspapers that swarm and, as usual, consider the bourgeois university as a school of Saint Cyr Socialist, which gives them the right to enter the ranks of the party with the title of official, if not general. These gentlemen all practice Marxism, but of the kind that has been known in France for ten years, and of which Marx said: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist." And he would probably say of these gentlemen what Heine said of his imitators: "I planted dragons and harvested fleas".

The two revolutionaries were therefore well aware of the misrepresentation, misreading and incorrect interpretation of their theses, by those who claimed to define themselves as their "coreligionists".

Marxism is first and foremost a scientific conception of the world carried out from the perspective of the oppressed. An articulated, systematic and coherent set of philosophical, economic, political and social ideas elaborated initially by Marx and Engels, and later developed by a diverse set of followers, which seeks to denounce the exploitation of the working class and promote the Socialist/Communist Revolution as an alternative.

But being the two authors of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party"still alive, the transformation of Marxism into a dogma, thus fossilizing its dialectics,had already began, turning it into a deceptive label that does not correspond to what it claims to be and wants to do.

The mechanicism and economism that defines nowadays a great part of the currents and forces that claim to be Marxist was also denounced in September 1890 by Engels in a letter to Joseph Bloch:

"Unfortunately, it happens with great frequency that a new theory is considered to have been fully understood and that it can be handledby the mere fact of having only its fundamental theses assimilated, andnot always exactly. Many of the new "Marxists" are not exempt from this reproach and this explains many of the odd and weird things they have contributed...».

Regrettably, this trend, with some exceptions, has been the dominant one in the 130/140 years since, and it is currently dominant.

The mutation was developed throughout the 20th century and it is still nowadays the main challenge of revolutionary communism to recover the founding principles, without which it is not viable to reconstruct the discursive line, and basically, the actions of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement, which is in a full fascistizing drift, so characteristic of the upper imperialist phase of monopoly capitalism.

Marxism has been detached from its deeply subversive content, becoming a deceptive brand where the prestige of Marx and the rigor of the scientific method of his analytical method is accompanied by a fraudulent social-democratic policy, worlds apart and contrary to its founding objectives, being, as they are, the overthrow of capitalism through the revolutionary path.

The positions defended by the revisionist Eduard Bernstein and the renegade Karl Kautsky – coauthors, along with August Bebel, of the Erfurt Program – as well as by prominent members of what we could consider the second Marxian generation - that caused so much damage to Marxism - are unfortunately today the hegemonic line, both in the academic and in the political realms.


Progressive mutation: from the intense red to the colorless red, from the sickle and the hammer to the pink of social-democratic aroma

After the world catastrophe generated by the process of implosion that crystallizes with the fall of the Berlin Wall [November 9, 1989] and the subsequent dissolution of the USSR [December 26, 1991], a large part of the parties that claimed to be the heirs of the political tradition promoted by the Bolshevik Revolution, did not opt for desertion and claudication, since this had already occurred decades earlier.

What they really did was to shamelessly recognize what they really were: social-democratic and progressive organizations, which only aspired to a "social" management of capitalism. This was just the cherry on top of a long and contradictory degenerative process.

The "paradigmatic" social-democratic mutation of the PCI -crystallized in 1991 with its conversion into Partito Democratico della Sinistra [PDS] -, had already begun decades earlier, in a long process that goes from the Giro de Salerno [Svolta di Salerno] implemented by Palmiro Togliatti in 1944, until the policy of "historical commitment" promoted by Enrico Berlinguer three decades later.

The solutions to the Gordian knot that will allow us to explain, understand and fundamentally correct the amorphism in which the remnants of the parties and organizations of the various "Marxist" currents are located, which today claim to be heirs of their heroic tradition, are to be found in Marx, Engels, Lenin and Che.

We know that the renunciation of the axes and ideological foundations, as well as the disfigurement of their praxis and political objectives, are not a genetic deformation of Marxism. It is a pathology inoculated into the communist parties by administration departments with a class composition alien to the proletariat and exploited sectors of the working people.

This is a deviation that disguises strategic turns, possibilist acting and broad alliances in which the quest for workers' hegemony is renounced in order to break the "isolation", to facilitate the "social implantation", "to gain followers", always under the justification of the erroneous interpretation of "Leninist tactical flexibility".

In these more than 150 years of Marxism, or Marxism(s), the brilliant judgment of the German revolutionary that: "history repeats itself, the first time as a tragedy and the second as a farce" has been a constant reality in the development of the fight and struggle to "take the sky by assault".

The shipwreck continues. Regrettably, we are still witnessing the transformation of organizations that claim to aim at the Socialist Revolution, into harmless forces that only seek parliamentary alternation in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The pitiful situation in which the communist revolutionary movement is found on a world scale, is a direct consequence of this parasitic disease that has been accompanying,practically since its inception, this open theoretical system, this method of analysis and interpretation of the present that needs to be permanently contrasted by the reality of historical, social, political, economic and cultural events in permanent movement and constant dialectical relationship. All this maintains an inseparable link with the subversive content and insurgent vision of an eminently revolutionary praxis.

With some notable exceptions, namely Lenin and Che, the majority of the leaders of what we can vulgarly define as Marxists, or more recently Marxians, has only contributed with their theoretical-practical action to disfigure Marxism as a compass of the whole working class, as a GPS for the exploited and humiliated peoples in their legitimate and necessary permanent struggle against any and all forms of opression and domination

The relentless combat andthe harsh and tireless polemics which for decades Lenin addressed with all his brilliant vehemence and sharp speech against the social democratic deturpation, must be part of the concern of the legitimate political and ideological heirs of Marx and Engels, when facing the grotesque denaturalization imposed within the labor movement.

We do not have to worry about pleasing the different reformisms, nor to seek their liking. Our priority is not to influence their cadres or rank and file. Our goal is to bring the working class closer to the field of revolutionary Marxism, organize it and mobilize it, while simultaneously combat the false readings of what the implementation of the communist line should be.

Without resorting to this essential arsenal that allows us to sort wheatfromchaff, to tell the reformist field apart from the revolutionary, we are condemned to continue muddled and without the maneuvering capacity that will allow us to climb out of the pit.


Different and diverse types of reformisms

Obviously,we can not lump together the entire set of parties that claim to be Marxist-Leninist. The Eurocommunist reformism of the PCE (Spanish Communist Party), a vulgar and degenerate Spanish social democratic and chauvinist party, direct correspondent of the consolidation of the post-Franco regime, is not the same as that of the centrist forces.

The work: "Anti-Dimitrov. 1935/1985 - half a century of defeats of the revolution", an insufficiently known work of the best contemporary Marxism, defines centrism as the: «original form of "communist" opportunism of the 20th century, a typical product of the era of imperialism, which had inBukarin, Dimitrov, Stalin, Mao or Gramsci its ideologues and most renown political leaders. Centrism as an expression of an intermediate worker-petty-bourgeois current, therefore obliged to protect its political and ideological incoherence with an "iron" armor, made up of: a "revolutionary" despotism, "to defend the dictatorship of the proletariat," a monolithic organization, "to defend the unity of the Party", and an ideological paralysis, "to defend the purity of the doctrine". Centrism, as the architect of revisionism that later came to take over the workers' movement. Centrism, in short, as a midwife of a new social regime in history, State Capitalism, the last redoubt of the bourgeoisie, which allows it to be reborn out of the ashes under a new "socialist" form».

The fascist involution that various fractions of the bourgeoisie are promoting-given the inability of the liberal model to be stabilized by the permanent economic and political turbulence generated by the structural crisis of twilight capitalism- must be fought with courage and determination, but not by using the failed tools that front-populists initially tested in the interwar period and that later inspired failed processes such as Salvador Allende's Chilean Popular Unity or Sandinismo.

In Francisco Martins Rodrigues we will find cognitive keys regarding principles defining a coherent communist line that boldly and audaciously asserts that "democratic and popular unitarism" blocks the proletarian revolution, since it aligns the people down with the most moderate common lowest denominator. That unitarism puts aside the revolutionary objectives of the working class, which obviously are not common.

The hypocritical and misleading appeal to the "unity" that defines the actions of the UPG's reformism inside the BNG (Bloque Nacionalista Galego), or the "unitary" spaces of the new social democracy [United-Podemos, Mareas, municipalist confluences, etc.] revolve around «a certain unity: a unity around the limited demands of the petty-bourgeoisie, common to all the people, sacrificing thus the revolutionary demands of the working class».

The Popular Fronts are the ideal organizational model where the petty-bourgeois hegemony integrates and limits the workers' positions in their defense of democracy and in their fight against fascism.

Lenin, as affirmed by the aforementioned Portuguese revolutionary, considered compromises, tactical maneuvers, and struggles for reforms, necessary,but only since they favored in each moment the elevation of the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat; the preparation for the ultimate combat.

“The question is to know how to apply this tactic in order to elevate and not to lower the level of general consciousness of the proletariat, its revolutionary spirit, its capacity to fight and to win”.

But we must not forget that the petty-bourgeoisie is an auxiliary branch of the capitalist system of exploitation of the proletariat and semi-proletariat

Of course, we must participate in ample spaces of concrete and partial demands, because revolutionary communism can not isolate itself from the real political movement of the masses, but neither can it «subordinate itself to its spontaneous reformist dynamics, but it must be able to penetrate into them to bring up the proletarian line and lead it through the zigzags of the class struggle on the road to revolution».

Recall that at the dawn of First World War, in October 1914, in a letter to Alexander Chliapnikov, Lenin said: “Henceforth I hate and despise Kautsky more than anyone, for his vile, dirty and self-satisfied hypocrisy».

A hundred and five years later, after this masterful depiction of one of the fathers of reformism, in the year in which we celebratethe creation of the 3rd International, which had to be founded on the ashes of the 2nd International-blown up by the contradictions generated by the chauvinist infection-, we continue fighting the social-democratic current, now majority among the parties that are still called "communist".

A few months ago, on the anniversary of the capitulation of Nazi Berlin before the Red Army, a statement supported by ten Latin American communist parties was released.

The manifesto, signed in Montevideo [Uruguay], whose title is: "For anti-imperialist solidarity, for peace, democracy and socialism", already hints at its clear reformist and social democratic content. The document is a set of guidelines in tactical and strategic matters ranging from the uncompromising defense of the experiences of the liberal-social governments of the Uruguayan Frente Amplio, of Lula and Dilma Rousseff´sBrazil, of López Obrador´sMexico, to the legitimization of the peaceful transition to socialism or the pointless gestures demanding for compliance with the peace agreements in Colombia, up to the reaffirmation in the Dimitrovian front model. The statement provoked an adequate, albeit incomplete, response from the Communist Party of Mexico.

What to say of a heroic and glorious communist party in arms that signs a wholesale capitulation under the justification of a peace agreement, and that, in a jiffy, gives up advocating the Socialist Revolution and the Patria Grande Bolivariana (the Bolivarian Great Homeland), just to defend national reconciliation, democracy and peace.

In the spring of 1990, Francisco Martins Rodrigues, one of the communist theorists who has made the most contributions to the reflections convened by this International Conference, wrote a synthetic and accurate article entitled: "Don´t they want Marxism? We´ll back it up!", from which we draw his conclusión:

“During the last half century, we have lived through an exasperating agony, during which the workers´ movement has reduced its identity, its values, its ambitions, tied as it has been, to the slow collapse of the revisionists, who asserted that each capitulation was being done in order to transition more quickly and more gently to socialism. The labor movement has thus been reduced to a rubbish, without confidence in itself, without hatred of the enemy. From now on, before the consummation of this great historical treason, the labor movement will be forced to seek its way again. And at this point, the Marxism and Leninism that you now leave with so much contempt will again become a devastating weapon".


Staging of the kidnapping process of Marxism

In addition to the natural degeneration, which undoubtedly has been and dialectically will be an inherent travel companion of the workers' movement until it reaches the "ultimate outcome", Marxism has been sequestered by eclectic readings that have turned it into a petrified dogma to be cited, but not to be applied.

This process of deturpation and contamination, as we are showing, began taking shape from its very founding process, almost since its origins.

We could divide it in four major phases or stages:

1st –The Period going from right after the publication of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" [1847] until the foundation and disappearance of the AIT, or 1st International [1864-1876].

2nd- Fom the 2nd International [1876] to the Bolshevik Revolution [1917] and the foundation of the 3rd International [1919].

3rd- From after Lenin´sdeath [1924] to the implosion of the USSR [1991].

4th - From the post-Soviet moment to the present.

A period so long, hectic and complex, covering the second half of the 19th century, the entire 20th and the first two decades of the 21st century, can not be easily schematizedwithout plaguing its analysis with hundreds of nuances and footnote explanations. We have thereforedecided to put this analysis aside in order to better focus onthethesis we want to defend and disseminate.

Almost all the revolutionary attempts and processes inspired by Marxism which have taken place throughout this historical interval -where, as it couldn´t be otherwise, there were cycles of profound transformations, but also of involutions and setbacks-have been conditioned by the adulteration that accompanies the theoretical-practical legacy settled by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

From the Paris Commune [1871] to the Cuban Revolution of January 1959, all the convulsions that questioned thegradually imposed by the bourgeoisie and imperialist relationsworld social (dis)order, failed to consolidate.

Most of the main processes were inspired by the October Revolution of 1917, and promoted by organizations and forces directly linked to the universe of the Comintern. From the immediate insurrectional attempts tried in Germany [1918], Hungary [1919], or the Italian biennio rosso [1919-1920], through the class war of 1936-1939 in Spain, to the subsequent triumphs of the Chinese [1949], Vietnamese [1975] and Nicaraguan revolutions [1979], up to the Bolivarian process of "Socialism of the 21st century", currently agonizing in Venezuela, there is an invisible thread that allows us to understand the causes that have led to the failure to lay the solid foundations of a socialist society, as a period of transition towards communism.

The lack of a genuine proletarian ideology and the absence of a worker´s orientation and leadership -due to the hegemonic composition of petty-bourgeois class members- makes it difficult at best, if not impossible, to implement a revolutionary program.

Most of these processes deliberately opted for intermediate formulas of mixed socio-economic models, which do not question the bases of the market economy and therefore do not smash the political and ideological superstructure of bourgeois domination.

Not only the vast majority of the so-called European “communist”parties, but also much of the rest of the planet, has been run, almost since the 1960´s, by cadres of petty-bourgeois origin, which block or make it impossible to maintain an anti-capitalist theoretical-practicalaction.

As inter-class-forces-turn-into-electoral machineries, they choose to defend gradual changes using the institutions of the "bourgeois democracies".

It is no coincidence that the International Conference convened by Agora Galiza-Unidade Popular on July 24, 2019, in Compostela is illustrated with a globe dominated by red flags and the effigies of Marx, Lenin and Che. Of course, more references could have been incorporated, but none of them would have a degree of coherence as those chosen for this important and necessary initiative.


Part of the Marxist theory continues unpublished

A part of Marx´s monumental work is still hidden or has intentionallynot been disclosed and publishedyet. Let us not forget that "The German Ideology", written between 1845-1846, was not published until 1932 by the Marx-Engels Institute of Moscow, led by David Ryazanov, whose lack of knowledge about Lenin gave way to an erroneous use of the concept of ideology in: "What to do? Hot issues of our movement" [1902].

In November 2018, Agora Galiza-Unidade Popular promoted a set of initiatives aimed at reclaiming the validity and necessity of Marxism. Accompanied by Néstor Kohan, we had the opportunity to launch and disseminate in Galiza the anthology work: "Comunidad, nacionalismos y Capital. Marx 200 años", a compendium of unpublished texts by Karl Marx, compiled by the vice-president of Bolivia, Álvaro García Lineras, and introduced by a preliminary study by the ArgentinianMarxistrevolutionary, theoretician and academician Néstor Kohan.

It is necessary for communists to carry out a systematic and critical source-basedreading of Marxism, without which the advance and triumph of the Socialist Revolutions in the 21st century will not be possible.

Without reading and studying in depth Alexandra Kollontai, we will not be able to confront the petty-bourgeois liberal feminism, but neither will we be able to confront the leftist shapelessness, which aims to replace the class contradiction with the absurd contradiction of gender.

Without reading and thoroughly studying Marx and Engels, we will not be able to face the “decrease”, another more absurd and false anti-capitalist alternative by the post-metaphysics.

Without reading and thoroughly studying Lenin, we will not be able to face the hegemonic chauvinism in the Western "communist" parties that refuse to apply the three central concepts of the theoretical basis of Marxism: a) nations are historical products, neither natural nor eternal; b) a nation that oppresses another can not be free; c) the liberation of the oppressed nation is the premise for the socialist revolution in the dominant nation. As a consequence, these parties refuse to also apply Lenin's subsequent strategic elaboration for the labor movement based on the right to self-determination.

Let us insist:we will find the solutions on the millions of liters of published ink, but also on the incomplete works of the parents of Marxism.

In this vital debate, the prophetic words addressed to Palmiro Togliatti by Ignazio Silone -one of the founders of the PCI, although he would later evolve towards liquidationist positions-bear maximum relevance: «the final struggle will be between communists and excommunists».

In fact, we, too, the new Galician communism organized in the mid-1990´s, are co-responsible, for having directly or indirectly contributed to feed some of the fallacies installed within "Marxism"; fallaciesdeliberately and uncritically diseminated for decades, with all their  shortcomings and limitations.

Marxism did not care aboutthe feminist question and the specific oppression suffered by working women... Marxism underestimated the ecological crisis... Marxism did not pay attention to the right of self-determination of peoples... all these are just but a string of fallacious "truths" that are easily dismantled simplyby accessing the sources, simply by studying and debating their texts.

Two years before his death, once captured in combat in Bolivia, Che had already warned:

“We consider the task important because Marxist research in the field of economics is going down dangerous paths. Inconsistent pragmatism has superseded the intransigent dogmatism of Stalin's time. And, what is tragic, this does not refer only to a certain field of science; it happens in all aspects of the life of the socialist peoples, creating already enormously harmful disturbances, but whose final results are incalculable (...) Our thesis is that the changes produced by the NEP (New Economic Policy) have penetrated so deep in the life of the USSR, that they have marked all this stage. And the results are discouraging: the capitalist superstructure got to influence more and more the relations of production, and the conflicts provoked by the hybridization that the NEP meant are being resolved today in favor of the superstructure. Capitalism is slowly back».

The economism that characterizes the actions of trade unionism, a trade unionism non existant not only in Galiza or in the whole of Western countries, but also in most of the social formations of the periphery, characterizes the political program of the formations of the self-styled "Marxist Left", and is one of the cancers that makes it difficult to accumulate forces geared up to the Socialist/Communist Revolution, because it generates expectations about the possibilities of achieving improvements using the limited "democratic" mechanisms that the bourgeoisie allows, and because they feed the electoral illusionism that mortgages the reorganization of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninistleft.


Parliamentary fetishism, congenital cowardice and ideological battle

The superstitious respect for the prevailing legality that defines the actions of the various reformisms, as well as of the "communists" abducted by the false brilliance of parliamentary cretinism, with all the nuances that we may add, is one of the clearest expressions of the inability to transcend and to get rid of the electoralist virus that anesthetizes and distorts a revolutionary theoretical-practical action.

In 1919, the 3rd International asserted without euphemisms that the "bourgeois democracies" are a "machine for the repression of the mass of workers by a handful of capitalists". A century after this lucid reading, most of those who claim to be Marxists, socialists and communists, ignore and put off this characterization.

Previously, Lenin had stated that: "Democracy in a capitalist society can never be more than a truncated, miserable, false democracy, a democracy just for the rich, for the minority."

The renunciation of the ideological battle by the hegemonic left, uncritically assuming the limits imposed by our class enemy, as well as the terror of defamatory campaigns and manipulations byour class enemy´s means of mass (dis)information, only contributes to the progressive loss of positions and to the advancement of the false consciousness, of the reactionary "ideology", which, contrary to what the self-conscious and timorous leftists say, clearly states what it is and wants to do.

The substitute leader of the M.Rajói partyaffirmed without hesitations in the heat of the last Spanish electoral campaign that the PP party would reinstate the agreements previously reached by the pactist unionism, by the Spanish Employer's Association and by the Spanish Government in all the mattershaving to do with the SMI (Sueldo Mínimo Interprofesional – National Minimum Wage).

We must always bear in mind the words of the heroic guerrilla fighter and great Marxist thinker: "Economic socialism without communist morality does not interest me. We fight against misery, but at the same time we fight against alienation".

Che was clear that no economy was possible without politics, nor was politics possible without an economy, but he also clearly defended that politics was in command of the economy and not vice versa. The same applies to military issues, which are the ones that generatethe most itching and hivesamong the various reformisms and revisionisms that today control almost all "communist" forces and organizations. Paraphrasing Mao: "power is at the tip of the gun"; politics should always be in charge of revolutionary military action, and not the other way around.

If Marx and Engels have been "easily" manipulated, and the distorted effigy of Che turned into merchandising, everything that Lenin represents is unaffordable for Capital and the immense majority of reformism.

Contrary to what one might think, the greatest threat to Leninism -as continuity, development and perfection of Marxism- does not come from outside the political field that claims to be "communist".

All attempts of imperialism to manipulate and criminalize its coherent theoretical and practical action have failed to prevent Lenin from continuing to be a reference for the workers' struggle.

In fact, the real danger is the adulteration of the foundations of Leninism practiced by the vast majority of forces and parties that claim to be "communist".

It is necessary to rescue him from the shapelessness and folklorization practiced by the social democracy disguised as communism, to purge the slightest banalization of his legacy, and to defend with pride and determination his anti-capitalist and revolutionary project. Lenin is the inspiration and guide of the world´s proletarian struggle, and of the Galician communists against the capitalist exploitation and in favor of the national liberation of our Homeland.

Lenin affirmed that Marxism is accurate because it is dialectical. Although it seems a classic example of apparent contradiction, it expresses an admirable coherence: the dialectics accuracy lies precisely in dialectics itself, subject to changes, evolutions and an infinite and perpetual development.

The electoral "left" forgot in its actions that bourgeois democracy is the softest form of the dictatorship of Capital. Through a combination of political tightrope walking and amnesia,this left defends on the idea that capitalism is reformable. Its obsession when managing bourgeois institutions is to demonstrate that it is capable of doing things better, more effectively and more honestly than the reactionary organizations. Fleeing the essential political pedagogy, forgetting to organize working people, to move it, this left only contributes to reinforcing the opposite of what Marxism defends. Instead of increasing contradictions, this left cushions them for the sake of proving that it is posible, "yes, you can" change things using the institutionality of the enemy. A fallacy that consolidates the system logics, absorbs energy, diverts attention and makes it impossible to accumulate rebel forces.


Promoting a new International

We are aware of the Herculean task that this entails, and of its complexity, but we know that only at an international scale it will be viable to open a path. This is why the construction of internationalist coordination and debate spaces between organizations and revolutionary parties continues to be - as in 1919 with the founding of the Comintern in March - one of the main tasks.

Currently there is a set of spaces that are trying to act as something similar to an International. However, they are either the fragmented Trostquist 4th International, characterized by an empty radicalism on the theoretical plane and an unlimited political opportunism, or they are coordinators of the remnants of the communist parties of the Maoist current, such as the International Revolutionary Movement, or of the Hoxhaism represented at the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations [ICPMLO].

The most "similar" to the embryo of a new international continuation based on the theses of the 4th Congress [1935] of the 3rd International, given the composition of its integrated parties and their Dimitrovian political line, is the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties [IMCOP], founded in 1998, which brings together, amongst enormous tensions, more than fifty organizations that survived the collapse of Soviet "socialism".

With another character and dimension, not strictly communist, we must mention the Continental Bolivarian Movement [CMB], re-founded in December 2009 in Caracas, Venezuela, as a continuation of the Bolivarian Continental Coordinator [2002]. This is a space very much linked to Farian communist insurgency, currently in the process of reactivation.

Already in a much more modest and embryonic phase we must also cite the Compostela Internationalist Manifesto [CIM], created on July 24, 2017 in the capital of Galiza, which brings together a group of parties and revolutionary organizations from the Iberian Peninsula.


Final proposals

• We must assume that we are approaching the eye of the hurricane in the most devastating stage of ideological ebb in recent decades. It is therefore necessary to configure a global insurgency with local specificities and singularities.

• We must internalize that the panorama of fascist involution has no sign of changing in the short term. We must prepare for an inevitable collision in the inter-imperialist struggle.

"We will have to resist and we will have to resist not only by resisting but by attacking, we will have to build an awareness of struggle, and we will have to be willing, we will have to be trained, we will have to be ready for when the moment arises, for when the opportunity appears..." [Justo de la Cueva, August 2011].

• It is a priority to rid Marxism-Leninism of the deturpations carried out bythe most diverse variants of reformism and revisionism, that have transformed it into ashapelessgrotesque and inoffensive project.

Without achieving this goal, the proletariat will remain incapable of defeating the bourgeoisie, the oppressed peoples will not achieve their freedom, and senile capitalism will continue advancing in the destruction of the planet and of humanity.

As long as the vast majority of those who declare themselves "communist" continue feeding electoralism, feeding parliamentary cretinism, acting as a wall of contention for the rebellion, sterilizing popular struggles, condemning their combativeness… the Socialist Revolution will not be viable.

• The ideological battle is therefore essential to get rid of this virus that has seized Marxism, turning it into a "progressive" extension of bourgeois thought.

• The reconstruction of a new Socialist/Communist current both in Galiza and at an international level demands fleeing from paralyzing nostalgia, from fossilized readings, from false antidotes to social democratic claudication, from the comfort of inertias that only lead us to defeat.

• In this task we must incorporate Lenin, because it represents the most genuine Marxism, the full validity of the most elaborate analysis of capitalism in its imperialist phase; because it symbolizes the right to rebellion of the exploited and oppressed, and the need for the workers' insurrection as a strategy for the seizure of power by the working class aimed at the destruction of capitalism and the building of a socialist society.

It is necessary to prevent the petit-bourgeois "left" from appropriating Marxist theoretical-practical action, thus hollowing out its subversive content.

• The reconstruction of the revolutionary left to promote the Socialist/Communist Revolution is not a cosmetic operation, nor a set of patches. It is a complex and difficult process, where there are no shortcuts.

We know where we want to go and how to do it. We also know well what we do not want and the paths we should never take. We have to recruit essential forces to successfully achieve the objective.

• Following a process of theoretical maturity and practical implementation tested in the three previous five-year periods, the 5th Congress of Primeira Linha [2010] clearly defined the characteristics, the process of accumulation of forces, the strategic objectives of the Galician Revolution, its phases and stages, as well as its tasks and the role of the working class in the development of the National Workers' and Popular Insurrection [NWPI]. The 6th and 7th National Assemblies of NÓS-UP [2011 and 2013] tactically developed the line of the new Galician independence and socialist left, based on class independence and the articulation of a socio-political space worldsapartfrom the essentialist positions and ethnicisms,andfrom the identity claims disconnected from the class strugglethat define the actions of Galician nationalism and its satellites.

• We must separate ourselves from the quakery of the TV preachers that, having promised miracles, have been highly functional to the consolidation of this second post-Franco transition, still in progress and with many open ends, but where the ability to recompose the 3rd Bourbon restoration has been verified.

• It is necessary to set the limits to confront the new social democracy that has only contributed to stabilize the regime, leading the mass movement to a long period of ebb, fueling the electoral illusion that has frozen popular struggles, strikes and social conflict.

But it´s also necessary to unmask the emergence of groups that, claiming to be Marxist, only seek to occupy and organize the revolutionary left around nostalgia. Despite the very good intentions expressed by some of the people who promote them, these groups are sterile and unablein the firt place to turn intoa subversive force, into a revolutionary vanguard.

On the one hand, they reproduce a similar Spanish paradigm of the bourgeoisie that they claim to fight. Even if they evoke, and also include in their political program the right to self-determination, they do nothing to exercise it. This right appears, from the first years of its foundation, in the program of the PCE (Spanish Communist Party) and its divisions of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, as a mere democratic formality whose practice they dailydeny. They have thus acted as agents of the Spanish assimilation that the oligarchypromotes.

On the other hand, they deny Galiza as a national framework of class struggle, and therefore they don´t applythe principle of self-organization of the Galician working class in its own communist party and in wider spaces, confirming the congenital limitations oftheir Spanish chauvinism, an ideology opposed to the objective interests of the working class and the working people as a whole.

Their lackof a solid ideological formation based on the study and reflection of the theory of Marx and Lenin, of the tragic evolution of the Bolshevik Revolution, and of its deformations and degenerations, makes them identify Stalinism -when facing the conciliatory Eurocommunist line inside Spanish "communism", famous for its well-known social-democratic and collaborationist practice- as the vaccine against peaceful coexistence, accepting the abandonment of  the revolutionary struggle which was stated in the 20th Congress of the CPSU, with all its disastrous consequences in the traditional communist parties. The orientation of the CPSU since the 1930s has never been example to follow! Just recall how in 1921 Lenin defined the USSR as a "bureaucratically degenerate workers´ state."

• Undoubtedly, it is necessary to resituate the class struggle at the core of Galician politics. It is necessary to unmask without respite the cancer of concepts such as "citizenship", “transversality” and the "interests of the people". The working class is the driving force, the only potentially revolutionary class.

• The totality of the reformist left, and even the so-called rupturist left, has internalized the categories and concepts of Capital, using the same terminology as the bourgeoisie, thus reproducing the dominant ideology in the popular movement, taming the working class, taking away its antagonistic potential, and so acting as a wall of contention for its demands and struggles, channeling them through the failed electoral path. The slightest expression of rebellion, the slightest exercise of self-defense, is immediately drowned and condemned for questioning the "democratic mechanisms". This is precisely the left that the right needs to perpetuatethe exploitation and domination of the social majority under a democratic façade.

• It is necesssary to discard the perverse tendencies towards "unitarism", that senile adulteration of the workers' and popular movement, so attractive and fascinating, but also inevitably condemned to repeat its historical failures.

• The Single Front formula remains fully in force. We must promote tactical units, without ruling out strategic agreements, between organizations and class parties.

Single Front against fascism, against capitalism and imperialism, for the national liberation of Galiza, dialectically combining the tactic of "hitting together, marching apart". Each proletarian organization must defend and promote its own political program, but when it´s time for action, work as a team.

• The validity of the theoretical action of Marx, Lenin and Che Guevara should throw all Laclaus, Jeremy Corbyns, Varoufakis, Bernies Sanders, Errejons and similar specimens, promoted by the "ideological" laboratories of imperialism, into the rubbish of History.

• We are fully aware of the enormous limitations that we carry and have, but without making a complete break we will not be able to contribute to the task that we have modestly and determinedly set.



Mugueimes, Val do Límia, July 2, 2019


Carlos Morais [Agora Galiza-Unidade Popular]