Unity & Struggle No 05

UNITY & STRUGGLE
no.5
August 1998
Workers of all countries, unite!
Unity & Struggle

Organ of the International Conference of
Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations
Unity & Struggle
Journal of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations.
Published in English, Spanish, Turkish and Portuguese
in the responsibility of the Coordinating Committee of the International Conference.
Any opinions expressed in this journal belong to the contributors.
This version was created in August 2009 by the “Movement for the Reorganisation of the KKE 1918-
55” with use of the texts found in the web page of TDKP (Revolutionary Communist Party of
Turkey).
UNITY & STRUGGLE AUGUST 1998
CONTENTS
CHILE
Introduction to the debate on unity of opposites and the work among the masses
Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action)
COLOMBIA
The EPL has a revolutionary mission to fulfil
Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The anti-imperialist struggle today
Communist Party of Labour of Dominican Republic
ECUADOR
Letter from the CC of the M-L Communist Party of Ecuador to the CC of the Communist Party of
Colombia (M-L)
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
FRANCE
The work of the Party within the working class
Workers’ Communist Party of France
MEXICO
The programme of social democracy in Mexico
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
SPAIN
On the struggle in the unions
Communist Organisation October of Spain
TURKEY
The trade union movement and the problems of trade union struggle
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)
Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists
Revolutionary Declaration from the Middle of the World

The First International Seminar: “The Problems of the Revolution in Latin America”s
5
6
CHILE
Introduction to the debate on unity of opposites and the work

among the masses
The struggle against the enemies of the working class and the people (who are innumerable)
and the subsequent triumph
It is necessary to achieve the greatest possible unity between the theory and political action among
the most organised and advanced sections of the people. This task is one of the fundamental
functions of the party as the guide and vanguard of the proletariat. However, this task has to be
multiplied a hundred fold in the heart of the party itself in a single-minded manner with the aim of
ensuring that the party plays its role as the most significant part of the revolutionary struggle. This
signifies not only confronting in a united way all our enemies, from the petit bourgeoisie to big
business to drug traffickers to Trotskyist adventurists up to and including the big monopolist
enterprises, the bourgeois state and imperialism, but also our internal enemies, traitors and agents
and also conciliatory ideas inside our organisations.
Our ideological and political unity enables us to take the measure of our enemies, from those whom
we must attack as a priority, to those who we can afford to ignore, and even those from whom we
may gain support in a particular period; this is if we really wish to make the revolution and conquer
political power. That is to say as Lenin says "to make war in order to destroy the bourgeoisie ... (and
imperialism), a war a hundred times more difficult, prolonged and complex than the most bloody of
the current wars between states, and to renounce beforehand any manoeuvre which may exploit the
contradictory interests which divide our enemies, to renounce agreements and compromises with
possible allies (even though these may be provisional, inconsistent, changeable, and conditional), is
not this something which is indescribably ridiculous?" This quote taken from Left Wing
Communism: An Infantile Disorder demonstrates that the activity of the party must orientate itself in
advance in accordance with objective reality, as much within the party itself as within the social and
ideological conditions surrounding us. Only in this way can we put into effect the universal proposal
of Marxism-Leninism, which consists in understanding our ideology as a guide to action and not as a
dogma.
In the following we will attempt as well as we can to put forward some ideas which may or may not
be new, as to how ideologically and scientifically and according to the argument previously
explained, we can develop our work in relation to the forces against us and also our work among the
masses which we aspire to, in accordance with the laws of the materialist dialectic.
In order to carry out in a more or less scientific way our revolutionary work in society -a society
which groups together an infinite number of elements including individuals and organisations- and
in order to understand our policies in relation to our development, our work of making alliances to
build unity and of struggling with the forces against us, we must place ourselves on the terrain of
overcoming contradictions, whether these be primary or secondary, this is because every
transformation from the most elementary to that of the entire society contains contradictions -
contradictions which signify unity and struggle with our enemies. This element deserves study and
application in a conscious manner. What has been said previously on the issue of contradictions and
how to take political advantage of them has been expressed clearly thus in the Communist
Manifesto: "The bourgeoisie produces before everything else its own grave-diggers, its destruction
and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
7
Opposites cannot exist one without the other, they appear together, one engenders the others, the
bourgeoisie engenders the proletariat. To the degree that the bourgeoisie develops, it broadens the
sector of industrial production and increases the number of the proletariat, their number and their
concentration and to the same degree their strength. At the same time the proletariat engenders the
bourgeoisie in as much as it is their labour which produces capital:
"If we suppose that under conditions otherwise equal, the composition of capital is maintained
unchanged, this is because in order to put into motion a determined quantity of means of production
or constant capital, this always requires the same amount of labour power. It is evident that the
demand for labour and the subsistence level of the workers will be created in proportion to capital,
and the more rapidly capital develops the more rapidly this will grow... The reproduction of labour
power which continually has to be incorporated as the means of giving value to capital cannot be
separated from capital. This also means that the relationship of the subjection of labour to capital
always remains and workers have only the option of selling their labour to one capitalist rather than
another. This constitutes the reality of capitalist reproduction. Therefore, accumulation of capital
must mean an increase in the proletariat." (K. Marx, Vol. I, The Capital)
The unity of opposites in the capitalist system is skilfully hidden when it comes to the division
between rich and poor and people of good or bad fortune. In fact, these form a unity as Marx
explained in the previous quote. Those who posses the means of production need to exploit those
who do not posses them; those who have no means of production see that in order to live they must
put themselves at the service of those who posses them. For that reason, it is impossible to overcome
the proletariat without first getting rid of the bourgeoisie.
Opposites clash, struggle without ceasing the one against the other and modify each other
reciprocally. What does the struggle of the bourgeoisie consist of? Its aim is the maximum
exploitation of the workers and prevention of their self organisation.
As regards to proletarian struggle this has reproduced itself since the beginning of the proletariat's
existence and wherever it exists, even though this struggle can take different economic and political
forms, faces different objective limitations, and may sometimes for a while be repressed. However, it
occurs everywhere, because the conditions of existence make it necessary for the transformation of
society. It is in this struggle that class consciousness is created.
The forces of struggle act one upon the other, modifying each other reciprocally, with the forms
adopted for the class struggle changing relation to the balance of forces. For example, the
bourgeoisie tries to prevent all proletarian workers' organisations, such as the Party, and especially
the revolutionary Party which is the summit of all organisations, and when this is impossible or even
counter-productive, when the level of struggle is such that it would be better to try to moderate the
conflict, the bourgeoisie then attempts to dominate the workers' organisations and divide them. In the
same way, ideological struggle changes with the progress of revolutionary ideas, and when it is no
longer possible to ignore them, the bourgeoisie propagates the excellence of the capitalist system and
also tries to falsify those ideas by infiltrating them like a Trojan horse, and thus giving birth to
revisionism.
From this we can understand that it is impossible to single out any one of the forces of struggle. If
we study one while forgetting another we cannot understand the manoeuvres of the bourgeoisie,
whether political or ideological, and we may as a result underestimate the workers movement, and
fail to understand it as a class, forgetting that it exists within capitalist rule and that it suffers
formidable pressure from the bourgeois class which dominates and exploits it. From this it follows
that the struggle of opposites is inseparable from the existence of classes, that no conciliation is
possible, and that the struggle will only end with the seizure of political power and with the
8
formation of a new state of things, in which these opposites will tend to disappear under the
dictatorship of the proletariat. We have to distinguish between primary and secondary contradictions
and we have to be capable of evaluating them in order to be able to prioritise our enemies so that
they can be eliminated or overcome one by one.
In order to study the foundations of this contradiction we have taken as an example the contradiction
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which is the fundamental and primary contradiction of
capitalist society; but this society is not made up only of this contradiction for within it there are
others, for instance, monopolist bourgeoisie against non-monopolist, and the bourgeoisie's various
political tendencies and philosophical currents, etc. With the development of imperialism "new"
contradictions are formed.
Of course, contradictions are derived from the same class division of society; contradictions between
imperialism and the colonies or neocolonies derived from neoliberalism, contradictions occurring
through financial chains between rich and poor countries, national and ethnic problems, etc... All
these contradictions play their historical role and have to be uncovered and approached in a scientific
manner, if we do not wish to simplify reality too much and to fall into vulgar ideas of essentialism or
idealism. However, undoubtedly, these cannot all be put on the same level since some contradictions
are primary and others not. On the other hand, at different times the contradictions we have
discussed can change position moving from being principle to being secondary or overcome by
others.
The various contradictions operate, as we have said, one upon the other. Secondary contradictions
depend for their origin on the main ones and they grow with the development of these; for example,
the struggle for greater democracy, for freedom of organisation, for concrete objectives, with
immediate and long-term programmes (as expressed in the Democratic Popular Assembly), do not
immediately signify socialism and proletarian socialism, but certainly they signify a transformation
in the correlation of forces, of the bourgeois state, of national and international capital, at a given
moment, and they effectively help the advent of socialism.
A truly revolutionary party can and in various conditions must make use of the existence of
secondary contradictions in order to form alliances with one tendency of the bourgeoisie against the
common enemy from the view of a limited objective, (e.g. struggle against fascism, defence of the
country, etc.) or more concretely in the heart of the "left" for aims related to making propaganda for
one's ideas.
Therefore, it is necessary to study also secondary contradictions in order not to be reductionist in

relation to the richness of reality, in order to maintain a political conduct which is flexible and able
to differentiate between different periods, and in order to link these contradictions to the main one.
We should not lose sight of what is essential and of the proposition central to our actions and all our
party struggle, that is, to resolve in our favour and in that of the class the contradiction between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat through the socialist revolution and the following development
towards communism.
Antonio Fierro
Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action)
9
COLOMBIA
The EPL has a revolutionary mission to fulfil

The value of the armed struggle
This is an important time to reaffirm the significance and the validity of the armed revolutionary
struggle. The XIVth Congress proposed that the various forms of revolutionary violence respond to
the reality in which our people live and struggle; to the sharpening of social contradictions; to the
cruel political and economic offensive of imperialism and of the bourgeoisie; to the characteristics of
state domination; to social and historical reasons, and in the conditions in which the struggle for
power is posed. These forms have been generated from political struggle and from the struggles of
the people. They are not alien or mere accessories to those. Nor are they the production of the
subjective will of the left, but rather they are a consequence of reality. While such objective and
subjective factors persist so the armed struggle and the guerrilla movement must continue their
existence, and this expression of revolutionary violence maintains its significance and validity.
We must emphasise the enormous intervention of imperialism in Colombia as being at the root of the
changes in the world situation since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within this framework we
must not underestimate the importance of the Andina strategy worked out by the Pentagon and the
Southern Command which has the DEA as its main executive given the importance which the US
attaches to it in the struggle against narcotics trade. In the present situation of the country what
stands out is the profound crisis of the state which exhibits the following structural problems:
- A view of the state which promotes social disintegration and national disunity;
- The weakening of the legitimacy of state institutions due to the flagging of their social support and
the failure of confidence generated by this;
- The extreme strengthening of the Executive, especially the President;
- The decline and lack of credibility of parliament, corroded by sleaze and scandals;
- The politicisation of the judiciary system which, on top of everything, has oriented itself towards
war, thus exaggerating the contradictions between the State and its citizens;
- The conversion of exceptional measures into normal ones and the extension of the State of
Emergency, that is to say the state of war, now in the name of internal unrest;
- The opposing of ruling casts by the making of changes, however minimal these may be, in favour
of majorities economically, politically and socially;
- Rampant and defiant militarism which puts its plans and its ambitions above national interests;
- The strengthening of militarism and repression as a permanent line of action on the part of the
State;
- The intensification of private and State violence which expresses itself in attacks on protests and
social struggles, and in crimes, threats, and pressures against fighters for the people.
Certainly the profound crisis and the corruption of the State lie behind the grave problems which
characterise the present situation. The State is ready to use force in order to guarantee super
exploitation in favour of a privileged elite, in order to maintain unjust social relations and a closed
political order, to protect the status quo at the cost of the blood and sweat of the Colombians who are
forced to submit to the yoke of neoliberalism.
The State invests many resources in anti-popular warfare and in generalised repression, and every
day it invests less in the people's needs as regards health, poverty, unemployment, hunger, and
helplessness. This situation, as is logical, provokes discontent, protests and popular struggles; this
reality is justification for confronting the violence of the state and of the dominant classes.
10
The conjunction of the factors described above shows us a closed democracy, alienated from the
needs of majority, that does not allow the participation of its citizens in the solution of the problems
which are the result of its own governance. Some political commentators say that the existence of
the insurgence does not allow any room for the exercise of democracy or of the left opposition, and
with this argument they justify the behaviour of the State. In the concrete conditions of Colombia,
faced with the shutting down of democratic solutions, Pedro Vasquez says that "the struggle is more
like a key than a padlock". It may not seem useful to insist on following this argument in defence of
the validity of revolutionary armed struggle, however, this is the reference point for many diverse
theories and theses tending to minimise, question or deny it.
The EPL must not lower its banners
It is necessary to reaffirm the statement of the XIVth Congress: "In the present situation of Colombia
it is not enough just to define in principle our adhesion to revolutionary violence and to the
establishment of the revolutionary way to the seizure of power." Revolutionary violence is present
today in the reality of our country expressing itself in the existence of guerrilla forces, in particular
of the Simon Bolivar Co-ordinated Guerrilla Organisation, in the various forms of mass
organisations to exercise armed struggle and in the spontaneous uprisings in various sectors and
areas of the country.
There exist in the country elements of popular warfare which are deepening at the same time as they
are maintaining their objectives of social confrontation.
We believe that conditions do not yet present themselves for insurrection in the short-term or for the
total generalisation of popular warfare. Nevertheless, the elements of revolutionary war in existence
should be made more powerful by us as part of the revolutionary accumulation of forces towards the
seizure of power.
The truth is that there do not exist new factors in the present situation of the country which justify
changes contradicting these clear definitions. On the contrary, there has been an accumulation of
new facts which support the necessity of insisting on them. For this reason, I consider it right to
ratify the position of no renunciation of the ideas which guide us, no laying down of our banners nor
going back on the agreements which we have made. Of course, this is an attitude which has practical
consequences and is not only an expression of feeling. It means that the Party and the EPL must
keep our red revolutionary flags hoisted.
In the present situation the war declared by the State has special significance, because this influences
every aspect of the reality of our country. In effect the State has launched a generalised offensive,
political and military, against the revolutionary forces, against the democratic forces, and against the
leaders of the people and of the social sectors who are protesting and struggling against the injustices
of big capital and of the State. As outstanding elements of the development of this total war, it is
worth pointing out:
- The intensification of psychological warfare and of black propaganda aimed at de-legitimising the
insurgence, for example, by describing them as narco guerrillas, the abandonment of revolutionary
ideals, the violation of human rights, the compulsory child labour, etc. In this we must take into
account the increased power given to the bourgeoisie through new means of communication.
- The tendency towards a greater militarisation of the life of the country and towards giving more
freedom of action to the Armed Forces. As examples we can point out the extreme increase of
resources for war and the seeking of more support from the US for the struggle against the
insurgents.
-The encouragement of para-militarism which is proposing aims of strengthening itself and
11
expanding to more strategic areas and which is looking for political recognition with the support of
political and social groups which will not undermine it.
Within this situation, the EPL has suffered very serious blows whose effects have not been
completely understood. It is possible that due to the serious situation confronting the organisation
and the attacks by the media, there are appearing cases of demoralisation, uncertainty, lack of
enthusiasm, the desire to retire or to give up everything and not to think about the past. In general,
we can say that such positions are linked to a narrow and unfocused view of the present situation of
the country and of the perspectives of the revolutionary movement. It is feasible that there is
ignorance of some situations as they develop or that there are incorrect evaluations of some facts; it
is probable that what is being lost is a view of the positive factors which are accumulating and which
can lead to changes in the political situation. Because of this it is useful and opportune to gauge
correctly, or at least to try to present the development undergone by the insurgency: It is officially
recognised -these are not stories of mine- that in the course of the 1990s the number of activists in
the CGSB has increased by mush more than 50 per cent; the territorial expansion indicates that in
recent years, where there used to be 170 municipalities where the insurgency had a presence, today it
is based in 600 municipalities, with significant political influence; it has achieved important military
and operational gains; it has also consolidated itself in important social and political sectors, as well
as having widened its international relations.
Although, it is true that the EPL has to confront some very serious difficulties, it has contributed to
that progress which is due to the uprising of which the EPL forms a part, and it is not isolated from
the positive tendencies which are developing, notwithstanding the negative factors which it would be
wrong to underestimate. We must bear in mind the situation around us, because the truth is that we
are not alone, not in Colombia nor in the world.
What has been said beforehand is bound to the belief that the uprising in Colombia will continue to
be a political factor in the transformation of the country's situation. It is completely false to suggest
that the uprising has been affected by decadence or that it is falling into decadence or that it lacks
revolutionary perspectives.
What is in decadence and lacks perspective is the Colombian state and political regime. If we
assume this basic position, it is certain that we can emerge from this serious situation affecting us at
present.
The EPL notwithstanding the complex situation that is confronting it has certain possibilities of
overcoming negative factors:
- It remains present in the actual situation of the country;

- It can count on members (no matter the number) who are ready to expend every energy in
overcoming the obstacles;
- It is taken into account in important political and social sectors;
- It can count on the leadership of the party and on correct policies to guide its revolutionary action.
- It is well positioned, with the orientation of the Party and with the support of other forces, to
transform the situation that affects it today.
In the past, faced with situations as serious or even more so than the present, what has allowed us to
continue making progress? Without doubt, it has been the qualities which belong to our
revolutionary organisation.
- The complete conviction that what we are doing is right;

- Confidence in the success of the cause which inspires our struggle and in the objectives which we
12
put forward;
- Achieving the support of the sectors of the people;
-The readiness of men and women to unite with the struggle and to persist in it;
- The moral principles that we follow;
- The prestige won by our organisation and the recognised authority it has in the political arena.
Fearless in confronting changes
It is evident that significant changes are presenting themselves in the country's situation. How could
it not be so? Problems arise when we interpret these changes, because it is here that differences arise.
With regard to the transformations and actions related to the uprising, we find people putting
forward judgements and prejudices, deductions, speculations and conclusions of the most varied
kinds, sometimes with the explicit intention of discrediting the Revolutionary Armed Struggle. For
example:
- That the collapse of the USSR caused the decadence of the armed movement in Colombia because
it left it without ideological and political foundations. Critics argue that it has lacked consistency
since the USSR has not been a theoretical and political support for the Colombia guerrillas.
- That the guerrillas lack political and objective bases which would allow them to put forward
serious alternatives. The truth is that the uprising, above all since the 1980s, is that which has offered
the most attempts at solutions, up to the point that in many cases they have been adopted by political
sectors or even by the state.
- That the CGSB has not explained its political projects nor has it said what it proposes to achieve
peace, when in fact the CGSB and every one of its organisations has made every effort to explore
ways that might lead to peace with social justice. Since the first years of the government of Belisario
Betancur up until the present this has been constant.
- That the armed movement does not have popular support but instead through violence forces
people to unite with or support it. On top of this it is said that without the voluntary backing of
important popular sectors the armed movement could not exist and even less could it develop.
- That the leaders of the armed movement are "dinosaurs" because they defend an obsolete theory
and out of date objectives which do not have any relevance to the present as if any attack could
destroy revolutionary theory and the longing to transform a reality which is laden with injustices
fought against by revolutionary leaders. The theory which we defend and which we apply is not
static but nor is it incorrect.
- That the guerrilla war is the cause of the country's problems and is an obstacle in economic
development. What is certain is that the uprising is not a cause but a result of society's grave
problems, of unbearable injustice, of social contradictions, of the crisis of the state and of the
violence which this exercises against the people.
- That the uprising has become degraded, that it is turned into "narco-guerrilla", into common
delinquency and terrorism; that it has left behind it its revolutionary demands and its good intentions,
but its main objective is its own enrichment. etc. Even though it is necessary to recognise errors and
recognised cases of bad behaviour, everything tells us that this has not changed the revolutionary
nature of the uprising, nor has it wiped out its moral principles or the higher level of altruism which
is integral to uprising.
13
-That the guerrilla movement finds itself in a dead end; that there is no way out for it and that for this
reason it has to re-incorporate itself in civil life or struggle for its aims through other means
permitted by society. The facts show, on the contrary, that the uprising continues to be an
irreplaceable factor to achieve profound changes and a point of reference for the transformations
which society requires.
- That the guerrillas has achieved advances in military terrain, but not on the political plane. What is
complicated is that it is not made clear what is meant by advances on the political plane. One must
understand by this that some people would prefer that the uprising should take the social democratic
way or the road of demobilisation, already experimented with and with the results that we know.
As we can see, all these criticisms are united in their aim of discrediting the uprising and
undermining its validity. Certainly there are differences among those who argue these positions,
differences of intention or of class consciousness. In any case it is necessary to deepen our
understanding of the real meaning contained in them so that we may give adequate answers.
We must also take note that there are some criticisms motivated by the aim of seeking changes in
positions, attitudes or behaviour in the armed organisations: and sometimes it is not easy to establish
clearly the differences between the one and the other. From this we see the necessity of making
analyses with care, with complete seriousness, without prejudices but without a blank mind...
It is obvious that enormous changes have happened in the world and in Colombia which it would not
be correct underestimate, such as the collapse of the USSR, new international relationships,
globalisation, the strengthening of the predominance of the US in Latin America, the processes of
pacification in Central America, the changes contained in the constitution of 1991, the steps towards
demobilisation and towards reintegration, the scandals over corruption, etc.
Also the increase in militarisation, the expansion of para-militarism, the extinction or liquidation of
political opposition, the attacks on all social protest, the consequences of the application of
neoliberalism. All these factors have had a significant effect on political action and on social
relations. And they demand changes in political orientation and action, with the imperative of
responding in a revolutionary way. In this we have serious deficiencies, because it can happen that
the sequence of developments overcomes the dynamic of theoretical explanations.
From all these situations political consequences are derived. They reawaken questions, they suggest
innovations or they demand recognition in political orientation. In the past, we have studied or
debated some questions which now acquire greater significance alongside others which are arising in
the present: The characteristics of the Marxist-Leninist party, the relationships between the party and
the different forms of popular struggle, the situation of the popular movement: that of ebbs and flows
(is the movement being set back or is it in the process of recovery?); the validity of the Armed
Struggle and the subordination of the armed organisation to the party, the various forms of practice
of revolutionary violence, the popular participation in the Armed Struggle, the development of the
Armed Struggle and its relationship with other forms of popular struggle; in which sectors should the
emphasis put on the building of the FAP? In what areas should guerrilla forces be established? The
political direction of actions, the characteristics of the building of a revolutionary army, the unity of
the guerrilla forces. And many other innumerable questions to be posed and to be answered.
As has been said earlier, these matters should not be posed as something new since there are already
in existence discussions and conclusions which at the very least can serve as reference points. What
is correct is to tackle sharply and with seriousness the issues posed as this will permit us to draw out
clear lines, as opposed to any improvisations or leaps into the unknown.
14
The changes must favour revolutionary aims
Without any doubt changes are necessary which depend on the depth of analysis and the
interpretation of present reality. Sometimes confusions can present themselves between necessary
adjustments and urgent corrections on the one hand, and on the other hand fundamental changes of
conception or in the line. This is a question which must have exact answers.
It is not correct nor justifiable to underestimate or to avoid the necessity of elucidating theoretical
question which are of great importance for the development of the revolutionary mission of the party
and of all its instruments. At this time it is absolutely necessary to clarify and define the most
outstanding aspects of our practical work. The need to emphasise practical work stems from the
promises we have made to the Colombian people. There are political positions, orientations and
decisions which it is necessary to translate into practical work, and it would not be right to invalidate
them by subjecting them to more questions, hypotheses or theoretical elaborations at this stage.
In theory and in practice the EPL has a very valuable accumulation which must not be
underestimated or even less thrown to one side. Whatever may be the circumstances and the
difficulties it can emerge and go forward in the fulfilment of its mission which corresponds with the
revolutionary force of the Colombian people.
The EPL is capable of winning
Apart form the reaffirmation that the EPL maintains an unquestionable consistency in the life of the
country and occupies its own place there, it is necessary to put forward the following steps with the
aim of reinforcing the organisation:
- To reassess our forces seeking primarily to establish our strength in numbers;

- To take forward a careful process of reorganisation;
- To organise the rebuilding of certain structures;
- To plan the work of consolidation by means of political courses and military instruction;
- To concretise the support of other organisations by means of agreements on the basis of common
needs;
- Logically the leadership of the party must lead and control this process, delegating particular
responsibilities;
- It is necessary to take advantage of all that we have accumulated politically and organisationally; to
lean on the prestige and authority gained through struggle; to base ourselves on organised force in
order to take new steps forward.
Today's recommendation for practical work is to carry out the tasks well and to do nothing by
halves!
Fighting together, we will win!
Francisco Caraballo
February 1997
15
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The anti-imperialist struggle today

In view of the present day problems of the revolutionary process in Latin America it is useful to lay
out the foundations and challenges of the anti-imperialist struggle in the historic conditions of today.
The question of the anti-imperialist struggle, as all propositions derived from previous political
experience and applied to the modes and reflective imperatives of today, is submitted to questioning
and must be re-argued in relation to the new realities that surround it.
The theoretical speculation of post-modernist philosophers and sociologists suggests that every
theoretical vision prior to its own will be incapable of making an evaluation of the reality and the
consequent orientation of actions which put forth an adequate transformation of the above.
According to this point of view, the previous theoretical scaffolding founded on reason and the
illustration in its most revolutionary orientation would be an anachronism.
According to this criterion we are living in a new post-industrial and post-modern era whose essence
will be "fundamentally different from the capitalist mode of production which has dominated during
the (last) two centuries," (Collinicos, A., 1993, Bogota, Against Post-Modernism, p. 25)
The philosophy which serves as the basis of post-modernism comes from the thesis of the French
"post-structuralist" theoreticians among whose authors Michel Foucault stands out. His views can be
summed up as postulating the fragmentary, heterogeneous and plural character of reality, denying to
human thought the capacity of objectively explaining that reality and understanding the human being
as an "incoherent mass of trans-individual impulses...," (op. cit., p. 22).
Sociology, on the one hand, argues the theory of post-industrial society according to which the
transformations that have occurred in the West in the last decades indicate that "the developed world
finds itself in a state of transition from an economy based on industrial production, towards an
economy in which systematic theoretical investigation becomes the main force of change, a
transformation of incalculable social, political and cultural consequences," (loc. cit.).
In the reference previously summed up about the theory of post-modernism it is clear that the point
of the departure on which we should concentrate our analysis and debate is on the following
question: is it true that the present evolution of society is fundamentally different from capitalism as
it has previously been known?
The concept "fundamentally different" refers to a qualitative notion, that is to say it assumes
substantial changes in the essence of the system; a difficult hypothesis to demonstrate if we rely on
the internal logic of the development of capitalism. In the so-called post-industrial and post-modern
era in which there have been technological and social innovations which have drastically spurred on
the form of production, there continues to prevail the objective of individual accumulation and
appropriation of the wealth produced, as well as the condition sine-qua-non of capitalist production:
the exploitation of the wage labour force (surplus-value) independent of the form which this takes in
the context of automisation and robotics.
The fact that the bases upon which the system is constructed continue in force is revealed when we
take into account the persistence of social calamities historically inherent in capitalism:
unemployment, lack of work, poverty, danger of war, etc. In the light of this situation the so-called
"new era" only makes sense in the fertile imagination of post-modernist discourse.
16
The postulates and objectives of the post-modernist philosophy are not new.
The denial of the fact that reality can be objectively known and interpreted as a whole, as well as the
denial of the "coherence and capacity of human beings," reiterates the basis of classical idealist
philosophy, argued in modern times by Friedrich Nietzsche, whose thought served fascist ideology.
An evaluation of the technological advances as an indication and result of a higher stage of

capitalism reveals the degree of diversionary manipulation to which the post-modern sociological
approach resorts. The one-sided character of such an approach becomes clear when one considers
that the predominant role of its investigation is outside of production and the market-place, losing
sight of the very close relation existing in that triad, even if at any time in the process of capitalist
accumulation, one gains predominance over the other; but definitely since the framework of the
relations of production continues to be the same, the essence of such advances or innovations in the
economic dynamic are by themselves insufficient to give rise to a qualitative change capable of
overcoming capitalism.
The basis of this approach serves to justify another theoretical tool of post-modernism; the
uselessness of class analysis, since the class struggle as a possibility of bringing about social change
has supposedly become historically obsolete.
Our point of view does not exclude the evaluation of the importance of the impacts produced by the
new forms of production in the social, political and especially the cultural sphere, in which new
challenges are posed to the classic theory of social change and the revolution.
The multiple forms which the leading social and political role of the masses assumes, as well as the
complexity of the social fabric and identities are only some of the most relevant theoretical
implications derived from the evolution of reality that affect our actions; in this sense the virtue of
the theories "in vogue" is the warning call which they provoke.
The fate of the nation-state in the post-industrial and post-modern world appears as one of the most
violent political challenges to the classical political theory in general and to the revolutionary theory
in particular.
In effect, in the heat of the post-modernist theses and concretely in the framework of the neo-liberal
theory, the large centres of world domination put forward political-economic theories and strategies
that question the relevance of the nation-state, which supposedly has been historically superseded as
part of the so-called "new era."
In that context the principle of national and state sovereignty would be a thing of the past, according
to the neo-liberal strategy whose most visible political objective is the reduction to the minimum of
the role of the state in our countries, by means of the famous programs of modernisation dictated by
the international financial organs.
Moreover the destruction of national states by neo-liberalism is expressed oncretely in the

dismantling of the national industrial and agricultural infrastructure, of the central bank and of the
national currency as well as the savings bank, the internal market and national culture.
The reform of the state so much in vogue expresses a process of readjustment of the superstructure
to the requirements of the neo-liberal plan imposed on the economic base of our societies. In this
sense one can explain the "new" concepts raised by imperialism concerning national sovereignty and
the super- state apparatuses which become supreme; this explains the talk of the centres of world
17
domination about international drug-trafficking, the environment, international migration and

extremist nationalisms.
The present world reality clearly demonstrates that imperialist domination assumes specific
characteristics not seen before, and this forces us to re- establish political theory as well as practice
to persevere in the anti-imperialist struggle with a view to national liberation.
Has the epoch changed?
The validity of the anti-imperialist struggle and social change often is questioned these days by the
argument that such a vision of social reality corresponds to an epoch which has already been
superseded by the evolution of capitalism itself.
Are we perhaps living in a different epoch than that of capitalist domination?
The new realities that exist in the world of capitalist economy, society and culture have to be
appraised and evaluated as to how they affect the characterisation of the system as well as the theory.
But the objective approach of such situations does not necessarily lead to the idea that the system
itself has been superseded, as the theoreticians of the so-called post-capitalist, post-industrial or post-
modern era claim.
The distinctive features which primarily brand the present epoch as capitalist and imperialist
continue in force and the recent and important advances of science and technology in the field of
production, circulation and consumption have only caused a renewal of the bases on which the
system rests raised to higher levels by its own reproduction.
The theories in vogue can not annul the reality of the laws inherent in capitalism as the framework in
which all the current technological processes take place and whose impact have given rise to the
most fanciful speculations about the supposed arrival of a new historic epoch.
"The theoreticians of post-industrialism... maintain that the advanced societies are leaving behind a
historic era which could be defined as industrial." This is causing a fundamental transformation, of
such a degree that the "fundamental principles" of the society are found increasingly in "theoretical
knowledge" as opposed to "capital-labour." (Lyon, D., 1994, p.173, Post-Modernity, Alliance
Publishers, Madrid).
To claim that the capital-labour relation has been displaced by some other factor such as
"information-processing" as the basis on which the system is built, is to lose sense of reality. Such a
claim can only be maintained by ignoring the process that gives rise to the extraordinary volume of
information available today, behind whose production is found precisely the capital-labour relation.
We warn that to accept as true and valid that hypothesis leads to setting up a tendency for the
working class to disappear or lose specific weight, which is another of the post-modernist thrusts. In
this respect we observe that the reality of the facts themselves gives the lie to that claim, if we
remember that the increasing weight of services in the world economy does not seem to be produced
at the expense of industry, but of agriculture. This is made clear by the increasing urbanisation of the
whole social life in all national contexts.
The claim of the "obsolescence of the paradigm of production" expressed in the ideas and concepts
as "post-capitalist" and post-industrialism" leads to the rejection of the theory of the analysis of
capitalism itself (especially Marxism) for the understanding of capitalist society in its present
evolution.
18
If we accept the fact that the production of services is gaining in contrast to the production of
manufactured goods, as demonstrating that this phenomenon necessarily modifies social relations,
then it becomes evident that the relation of capital and labour and the consequent reproduction of the
exploiting and exploited classes, owners and wage labourers, characterises the primary agents of
production.
For the aims of revolutionary political theory and action it is important to consider some of the
implications that in this sense results from the evolution of contemporary capitalist society.
In the first place, for the analysis of classes one has to re-consider the composition of the working
class since, in the conditions of increasing scientific-technological advances, the level of skill of the
workers is also progressively demanding. That situation together with other factors of the crisis has
been causing the incorporation into the ranks of the working class of a broad layer of professionals,
whose conditions of life and of work are gradually becoming closer to the social culture and practice
of the wage worker. This point can be confirmed by the massive incorporation of these sectors in the
trade union struggles.
What will be the future impact of this situation on the general conduct of the working classes and
how will it influence the processes of the accumulation of forces for social change? The question of
what will be the continuation of the evolution of these phenomena must be considered from the
perspective of free, unprejudiced thought.
Another aspect of the high strategic value which it is worthwhile to consider is that of the
implications of the globalisation of the economy for nations since the relation established in this
context between nation and market is claimed by the spokespersons of post-industrialism and post-
modernism as the basis to question the validity of the nation-state.
In effect the imperialist strategy has used the word "interdependence" to indicate the terms of
relations of countries and nations in the context of globalisation of the domination of the so-called
central economies over the rest of the world. In this context the imperialist forces advocate a
supposed mutual dependency among the economies of different countries, which in the logic of the
system can only operate through the continual transference of capital and other resources from the
oppressed nations to the industrialised oppressor nations.
Part of the strategy of imperialist domination, raised in the neoliberal plan, is the disintegration of
the national economies of our countries and by this method the further strengthening of the
multinationals and the world market at their service.
From here on arise the discussion and the plans aimed at annihilating the national states of the
countries subordinated to the large centres of the world economy.
In this situation and in the light of the predominant characteristics in the evolution of the current
economic processes, the question of the nation takes on new meaning for the forces of social change.
The real danger which is derived from the disintegration of the nation obliges the revolutionaries to
place emphasis on the national struggle as the guarantee of preserving conditions which make viable
the plan of social change, which in the framework of a nation liquidated in its historical- cultural
foundations, with an economy and social agents totally eradicated from its territory, will lose all
possibility of constructing its identity.
This approach is objective. The international character of the working class and its interests in the
conditions of imperialism does not ignore but rather presupposes national interests; this is so given
19
the law of unequal development of capitalism whose logic will always produce the ripening of the
conditions (of crisis) for change in a specific context and not necessarily in the totality of the system.
In this sense it is correct to put forward the national framework as a viable scenario for revolutionary
social change in the conditions of imperialism.
It seems to me that the evolution of the contradictions of society in its present evolution, will place
the national question in the centre of the struggle for social change. That is the reality despite the
diversionary theories about a supposed change of epoch.
Aquiles Castro
July 1997
20
ECUADOR
Letter from the CC of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party

of Ecuador
to the CC of the Communist Party of Colombia (M-L)
Comrades of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Colombia (M-L):
The unity of principles and aims which inspire both our parties, the long standing revolutionary
friendship which we have made through the victories and vicissitudes of the revolution in Colombia
and in Ecuador, the tradition of party relations based Marxism-Leninism and proletarian
internationalism, characterised by openness and sincerity, and by mutual respect, encourages us and
in fact obliges us to participate in the important debate which is taking place within the Communist
Party of Colombia (M-L).
The anti-communist offensive, the repressive activities of imperialism and of the Colombian
bourgeoisie by means of their armed forces, of the specialised repressive forces, of secret agents and
of paramilitaries; the divisive activity initiated by the enemies of our class through opportunists and
traitors, all this has inflicted series blows against the working class and the Colombian people,
against the popular revolutionary movement, and in particular against the revolutionary party of the
proletariat of Colombia, against the CP of Colombia (M-L) and against the glorious Popular Army of
Liberation (EPL). These have been strong attacks, and they have imp[lied political and military
battles won by reaction against revolution. However, we are dealing with temporary and partial
defeats, which are part of a process during which the forces of the proletariat and the Colombian
people have themselves also won important victories which although themselves having a partial
character are stages towards the conquest of the popular power.
The CP of Colombia (M-L) and the EPL come from a long and rich tradition of struggle. Having
taken Marxism-Leninism as their theoretical and political guide, they have understood how to
interpret Colombian society and to take the road of social revolution; they have made every effort to
link the forces of the proletariat to that of the people, to the popular masses; they have actively
involved themselves for thirty years in the revolutionary armed struggle taking place in Colombia;
they have known how to defend revolutionary proletarian beliefs and Marxism-Leninism from its
detractors, how to combat opportunism and revisionism both within and outside their ranks, and their
principle aim has been to preserve and defend the role and the nature of the Leninist party; they have
put into effect important contributions to the international revolutionary proletariat, to the fight of
the peoples against imperialism, and to proletarian internationalism.
We, the Marxist-Leninist communists of Ecuador are firmly convinced that our sister party of
Colombia will, once more, know how to defeat adversity, and the attacks of reaction and
imperialism, as well as how to strengthen themselves in the political and ideological struggle now
going on within their ranks. The debate started by the CC and which is taking place within the party
must lead to the affirmation of revolutionary principles and of Marxism-Leninism, it must bequeath
to the party revolutionary politics which are more correct and more appropriate, it must enrich itself
through accumulated theory and experience.
The questions being put forward, according to our point of view, should have to do with the
overriding problems of the Colombian revolution on an international scale. The results of this
discussion will have for this reason repercussions in the revolutionary movement of the working
class and of the people and in particular in the international communist Marxist-Leninist movement.
21
I- In our view, the ebbing of revolutionary forces which has occurred in recent years, is a problem
which must be analysed in its entirety, in its causes and its contradictions. As communists, we must
follow attentively the correlation of forces within our country, on our continent and in the world.
To make a correct social, economic and political analyses, it is necessary to base ourselves on the
progressive factors in the movement of society, to learn to measure the level of consciousness of the
popular masses, their state of mind, to be aware of the strategy and tactics of the class enemy with
the aim of ensuring that in every moment of revolutionary activity we are able to guide the forces of
the revolution, to affirm its social base, to consolidate and broaden it, in brief, to advance the process
of the building of the revolutionary forces.
We, the Marxist-Leninists of Ecuador, in spite of not struggling in Colombia, but with the
knowledge that we have of the social and political struggle taking place there, affirm that just as is
happening in our country this ebbing of revolutionary forces has touched bottom in Colombia and at
the present moment we are dealing with a recuperation of the popular revolutionary movement,
which is expressing itself in important mobilisations and strikes in the working class, particularly
among the public sector workers (for example the strike of February 1997), of the peasantry of
various regions (the fighting days of Putumayo, Huila, Santanderes, etc.), and of various sectors and
regions for their rights. This recovery has turned itself into a revolutionary military offensive on the
part of FARC and ELN which in recent times have shaken Colombia. For us the resolutions in the
document "A Necessary Correction" which we print below, are evidence of this statement.
"An important fact is derived from these events: the political movement of democrats, workers and
masses is setting the scene for debate and unification, is proposing a policy and a programme to
reclaim the voice of the revolutionary left and of the guerrilla movement in its discussions, to
intervene openly in national debates and to develop organisational and unifying forms which
however are still embryonic and limited in their capacity for mobilisation and struggle. This
highlights the fact that the guerrilla forces do not have a policy, or that they are finished, or that they
are afraid to confront the army. From this period derives a new stage in the conditions of the armed
conflict, for example, within the context of direct armed intervention from American imperialism,
with the strengthening of every section of the armed forces, and with the widening and legalised role
of paramilitarism. Or, also in certain conditions there may open before us a negotiation on different
bases from those which applied on previous occasions."
We are of the opinion that these lines demonstrate a situation not of ebbing, that they express how
the popular revolutionary movement of Colombia is developing, that they demand from the forces of
the revolutionary proletariat the need of positioning themselves in relation to this situation, of
readjusting their forces in order to involve themselves more actively in this process. The objective
and subjective conditions of the revolution are advancing, the communist forces have an obligation
to clarify the direction and to put themselves in front of this new stage of the Colombian revolution.
The attacks of reaction, the defeats of revolutionaries, must be overcome. The counter-revolution is
powerful but it is not invincible. The capitalist nature of Colombia, the deepening of the general
crisis pose the problem of revolution as an immediate question, and the proletariat and its party as
the protagonists in this.
II- The revolutionary forces in Colombia consist of the proletariat and other workers of the city and
of the country. This is undeniable.
With regard to the role of the working masses, of the movement of the working class and other
popular sectors of the city, the document of the CC to which we are referring is clear and forceful.
We subscribe completely to these statements.
22
With regard to the references to the peasantry and other workers in the Colombian countryside as
actors in the revolution it is necessary to pause a little for consideration. The Document states that
the massive depopulation from countryside has resulted in the last ten years in 85 per cent of the
population living in the cities , and only 50 per cent living in rural areas. We do not doubt these
statistics, but for us the problem goes beyond the number of inhabitants, it has to do with the
productive process and with the political and social attitudes of the classes.
In Colombia, to a high degree, this depopulation of the countryside goes along with the process of
capitalist development, and has accelerated with the globalisation of the economy; it is the result of
the repressive actions of the police, army, and paramilitaries; it is also the result of the diminishing
of the revolutionary war, and of the impact of the rural guerrilla forces which have almost 50 years
of vigilance behind them; this process of depopulation is also a response to the aspirations of the
peasant masses to have access to the benefits of urban life, to their search for work and for
opportunities; and to their desire to escape from violence.
The depopulation of the countryside has economic limits. The system cannot do without agrarian
production and the exploitation of mineral resources. The development of technology, the increasing
use of mechanised agriculture, the reorganisation of the large private properties cannot eliminate the
work of labour individuals, on the contrary they make it more important and more necessary. In no
country of the world have we seen the elimination of the rural economy and even less is this likely to
take place in countries such as Colombia where there is a large availability of land and of other
natural resources such as water and forest, flowers and animals, and biodiversity.
The Colombian peasantry has accumulated significant political knowledge. It has actively
participated in the life of the Republic, and has been a protagonist in civil wars, political movements,
setbacks and revolutions. During the last fifty years it has been deeply involved in large-scale social
and political mobilisations, for its own rights. (Witnesses to this are the great days of the 60's and
70's, and the presence of the Anuc., etc.). It has made up the social base, the bulk of the combatants,
and an important part of the leading cadres of the revolutionary guerrilla force which is active in
Colombia. In the present situation of economic migration to the cities, the massive displacements
caused by the reactionary violence of the armed forces and paramilitaries, and the impact of the
guerrilla war, important movements are taking place in various regions of the country, with their
own democratic demands, and some of these demonstrate a high level of militancy and of links with
the guerrilla movement. It is undeniable that the military offensive of the FARC and the ELN have
among their activists significant groups of peasants who are integrated with the guerrilla forces.
The foregoing facts, what is happening now and the tendencies which we can see developing allow
us to affirm that the countryside and peasants have a transcendental role to play in the revolution.
This has been understood by the CP of Colombia (ML), and as a result the Party has the benefit of
important organisational, political and military experiences in its work with the impoverished
country people of Colombia.
These phenomena demonstrate that in Colombia the proletariat needs to look for an alliance with
the poor and middle peasants, it must incorporate them actively in the revolutionary process, and it
must avoid allowing the peasantry to be manipulated by the bourgeoisie or won over by other
political sectors interested in the revolutionary struggle; this is particularly important if we take into
account the socialist direction of the revolution.
It is clear that we do not advocate an agrarian or peasant revolution in Colombia, however, we do

affirm the necessity of including the peasantry in the organisation of the social revolution.
23
III. On the necessity of using all forms of struggle: The social revolution of the proletariat requires
the utilisation of every forms of struggle. This axiom of Marxism-Leninism must be understood and
applied in relation to concrete conditions. Voluntarism in its application can lead us to subjective
interpretations, adventures or to reformist positions.
The revolutionary armed struggle is one form of struggle. According to the definition of Marxism,
war is the continuation of politics by other means.
For Marxist-Leninist communists the revolutionary armed struggle, independently of the forms
which it takes, is the only way to conquest power. All other forms of struggle, strikes and
mobilisations, elections, stoppages and demonstrations, are forms of struggle which enable us to
build our forces, however, by themselves they do not lead to power. On the contrary, they develop
within the confines of capitalist system and they serve naturally to subvert it, to undermine it and to
strike it in vulnerable places; they are also instruments of the revolutionary proletariat for the gain of
strength and of experience, to widen the social base of the revolution, but they do not allow us of
themselves to make an assault on power.
These problems, among others, indicate positions between revolutionary proletarians and reformists,
between communists and revisionists. This was one of the main pillars in the constitution of the
Marxist-Leninist parties. This continues to be the foundation stone which differentiates Marxist-
Leninists from revisionists and opportunists of every complexion.
The Colombian comrades, in the important debate which they are undertaking, touch on this problem
in relation to the validity and relevance of the rural guerrilla struggle, as a form of armed
revolutionary struggle.
One of the special features of the Colombian revolution is the existence of guerrilla war for a period
of 50 years. Throughout this period, and alongside the guerrilla struggle, we have seen the activities,
intermittently and in an uneven way, of many and varied groups: The revisionist party, petit
bourgeois revolutionary organisations, "politico-military organisations", Trotskyist groups,
anarchists, and the Marxist-Leninist party, all of these have been and are present, active, occupying
various grounds of struggle, increasing their forces, gaining experience, winning victories, and
suffering defeats. The Colombian revolutionary guerrilla movement has not been defeated either
politically or militarily, and it remains a reality which nobody can deny. Certainly, the guerrilla
movement has not conquered power in spite of its long development; this is a problem to be
resolved.
The rural guerrilla movement has undergone ebbs and flows; it has had moments of upsurge, and of
development, and it has also suffered significant defeats. In the present moment, the guerrilla
movement threatens the government, and is one of the factors involved in the sharpening of the
general crisis affecting Colombia. Imperialism and the dominant classes have attempted by every
means to wipe out the revolutionary guerrilla movement. For many years, Colombia has existed in a
more or less permanent state of emergency and of an internal unrest; at various times, the order has
been given to make total war against subversion; the guerrilla movement has been infiltrated and the
government has achieved its partial subversion; the government has orchestrated processes of
pacification, of betrayal of guerrilla fighters, and of their co-option into social and political life.
None of these measures. nor all of them together, have achieved the objective of eliminating the
guerrilla forces or moving them from the social and political life of Colombia. At the moment it is
well known by public opinion in Colombia and elsewhere that there is taking place an important
military offensive on the part of the guerrilla forces. It is obvious that the guerrilla struggle has not
led to the seizure of power in Colombia. This is something which nobody can deny. However, this
does not mean that this is a form of revolutionary armed struggle which has lost its validity in the
24
process of preparing for the final assault on power. In our opinion, the problem before us is how to
utilise the guerrilla movement in the process of the accumulation of forces, how to combine the
various forms of struggle, how to involve the guerrilla forces in the social and political movement
developing in Colombia, and, more concretely, how to use the guerrilla forces and their struggle in
the preparation for popular armed insurrection.
We assume the correctness of the concerns and the analyses of the comrades on the limitations,
difficulties and mistakes of the guerrilla forces and guerrilla struggle. We think as you do that they
have committed very serious political errors, that some guerrilla sectors have degenerated into
banditry, and even towards paramilitarism, that others have assumed the role of the "liberators" of
the masses, that they have used methods of retention and of taxation in an indiscriminate manner
affecting various social layers, including the popular masses; finally, a whole series of political and
military mistakes, even deviations. We believe that this practice has limited the growth of the
guerrilla movement, and above all, its connection with the popular movement of city and
countryside. It is evident, even outside Colombia, that the guerrilla movement which has concrete
political projects and proposals, is disconnected to the major popular movements which, with their
own demands and policies, are developing within the cities, because the popular masses do not have
any political reference point with the guerrilla struggle. These are the problems and these are limits
of the guerrilla forces. For ourselves, we think it is necessary to emphasise perspectives and
tendencies; we must analyse limits and errors in order to overcome and correct them.
Up to a point, it is logical and dialectical that things should be thus. Nobody should believe that the
guerrilla movement is going to convert itself into the political vanguard of the workers and popular
movement. This has not occurred in any country of the world or on any occasion. The guerrilla
forces and the guerrilla army are a form of organisation and of action of the revolutionary armed
struggle which respond to a military and political conception of an organisation or party.
For revolutionary proletarians, the guerrilla movement is a form of military organisation and the
guerrilla struggle is a form of struggle which aims to wear out the bourgeois army, to demoralise it,
to inflict blows on it; which allows the building of political and military forces, which in conjunction
with higher and more generalised forms of the revolutionary armed struggle and of the political
action of the masses can bring down the bourgeois government. By itself the guerrilla forces are
unable to generate an insurrection movement of the masses. In a moment we will clarify this
problem when we focus on the debate around thesis and practice. Meanwhile to claim that the rural
guerrilla forces, including those organised and directed by the party of the proletariat, can convert
itself into the main instrument for the conquest of power and because it has not done so, that this
undermines the validity of the revolutionary struggle, this does not correspond to serious analysis.
It is not up to us and we do not have sufficient information to analyse the causes and events which
led to the setbacks and difficulties, which at the moment, are affecting the EPL. However, we feel
obliged to make known clearly our point of view on this. Has the leadership of the party done
everything in its power to give politics and Marxist-Leninist convictions to those combatants and
leaders? Have we educated communist workers on these positions? How much responsibility do we
ourselves hold for the ideological and moral breakdown of certain combatants and leaders? Were we
always on time and right in our characterisation of the political military situation? How much did we
have illusions in the perspective of the EPL? Finally, this concerns on our part questions which we
must ask and which we believe require a response which can only come from the CP of Colombia
(M-L) and the EPL.
It is up to communists to resolve our problems, face our difficulties, and overcome our errors. This
task is not going to be undertaken by the bourgeoisie nor by the petit bourgeois revolutionaries.
More specifically, it is up to the Colombian communists to take on the responsibility of confronting
25
and resolving the problems of the Colombian revolution. It is up to the communists of other
countries, and the Marxist-Leninists of Ecuador, also to direct ourselves towards these problems, that
is why we feel obliged to express our opinion and make suggestions which we consider valid. The
Colombian Marxist-Leninists are free to accept or reject these points of view, but in any case they
have a duty to examine them. We permitted ourselves in a conversation with the comrades of the
national leadership of the CP of Colombia (M-L) to express these opinions which we now repeat,
about what to do and how to do it in relation to the EPL.
At this time we said that we recognise the heroic tradition of struggle of the EPL, that we were
certain that it held an important position in the revolutionary struggle taking place in Colombia, that
it openly expressed the politics of the proletariat, and that because of this it has conquered an
important position among the guerrilla forces. We emphasised that none of the blows, the setbacks,
and problems that have taken place have destroyed the revolutionary nature of the EPL; that
certainly they have signified great difficulties and losses, but they have not in any way destroyed the
EPL. Let us remember, within the limitations of our knowledge, that in the past the EPL has
overcome perhaps even greater difficulties and has raised itself again, like the phoenix, to continue
the struggle and that, we are sure, it will again do the same on this occasion. We insist that the EPL
was, apart from being the armed wing of the CPC (M-L), one of the shock brigades of the
International Communist Movement Marxist-Leninist.
We demonstrated also the need to pay attention to its difficulties to examine them with the comrades
of first rank with the aim of empowering them politically and militarily. We emphasised that it was
not right or suitable to change the name. It seemed us very right to make every effort to bring the
revolutionary armed struggle to the popular masses who live, work and struggle in the cities, and we
believed that the rural guerrilla forces and more concretely the EPL could play an outstanding role in
these aims; that the existence and development of other expressions of the popular armed forces and
the EPL were not incompatible, but that on the contrary they complemented each other.
We agreed with the comrades in the necessity of taking great steps forward, of correcting the
mistakes, of opening new roads, of leaving behind blueprints, so that they are more in touch with the
actual problems of the revolution. The CP of Colombia (M-L) can be effective within the EPL and
can reach it directly with corrective measures. We are convinced that the sister party, in a supportive
role, and always within M-L, will know how to open up a new way and to go forward, and that it
will find in the Ecuadorian communists the alliance of class brothers.
Returning to the question of forms of struggle, we wish to insist on the necessity that communists
should be open to all known forms, and above all, sensitive to the expressions and forms used or
developed by the popular masses in the course of their struggle. What is important is to keep in mind
the problem of the conquest of power, since the various forms of struggle may or may not lead to it.
By themselves the various forms of struggle, including the highest forms, cannot produce the final
objective of the seizure of power if there is not a political vanguard which combines and directs
them. In the ideological and political confrontation with the Krushchevite revisionists we come to an
important point, as to how the political movement of the masses can lead, raising its level to
revolutionary armed struggle. We, as Marxist-Leninist communists, affirm the importance of the
factor of the revolutionary theory, of political consciousness, and of how this cannot arise
spontaneously from the masses, even though these may be intensely and massively mobilised; since
the role of the party is indispensable. According to our point of view these arguments have not lost
their validity.
The organisation of popular insurrection does not have phases, stages, stages which have to followed
in a systematic manner. The objective and subjective conditions can develop in some cases,
independently of our will or our work, but in this case insurrection does not follow a revolutionary
26
proletarian course, even if it happens always victorious. In our countries, in Colombia, Ecuador and
in many others, Marxist-Leninist communists have responsibilities to fulfil and have the possibility
and probability of sowing the right road to revolutionary struggle. Popular insurrection demands the
existence of its own military force, of a force which leads it, sustains and protects it. To organise
insurrection, we as revolutionary proletarians must make every effort to bring political movement to
the working masses, we must educate the people about the decision and the need for the seizure of
power, we must arm the masses with the desire to arm themselves, we must empower in foresight
and in action the revolutionary violence of the masses, we must bring out the activity of the party, of
its cadres and leaders, we must expect to have our own military forces.
The organisation of the revolution demands from communists a permanent revolutionarisation. We

cannot give ourselves the luxury of sitting back of what is already established. Marxism-Leninism is
a guide to action, and we claim to be dialecticians, to be aware of the interrelationship of political,
social and economic phenomena, to be bold in our proposals, to open up new roads, to assume fully
that the revolution signifies changes and that these changes must also be produced in the
revolutionaries themselves, in their thoughts and in their actions. The new situations which are
taking place in our country require from us, in every moment, positions and activities which take
them into account. As communists we must do this, differentiating ourselves from those who are
defeated by pessimism; we affirm the validity of Marxism-Leninism and on this basis stands our
political and theoretical work.
These points of view make up the position of us, the Ecuadorian communists, in the important
debate taking place in the rank and file of the CP of Colombia (M-L). Certainly, all this does not
take into account the many-sided nature of the discussion, and without doubt, we lack complete
knowledge of the problems, and for this reason we do not consider these points to be definitive; we
are ready to continue discussing these and other problems on every occasion and in the conditions
that the revolutionary process permits.
For now, we will affirm again, as always, our position as class brothers, as comrades who wish to
work for revolution, within our own country and on international scale. We reaffirm our feeling of
revolutionary friendship with the CPC(ML), with the EPL, with the working class and the
Colombian people. We are convinced that the unity of our two parties and peoples will be
strengthened and that one day we will celebrate together the revolutionary proletarian victory.
CC of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador

Ecuador, April 1997
27
FRANCE
The work of the party within the working class

The tasks of the communist party within the working class are essential. In order to deal with them
what is required is to determine the main currents that today's class struggle raises in our country. At
the same time, we should not leave aside the fact that they are linked to the international events and
inversely. Doing so, we will thus be in best position to fix the frame of the main efforts that will lead
our communist party to be ideological and political headquarters of the working class. In other
words, that our party be able to work for the growing " awareness towards the irreductible opposition
of their (the labourers, ndlr) interests to the whole political and social order in existence, meaning the
social democrat consciousness"(1). The class struggle on which this "irreductible opposition" to the
capitalist imperialist system rises. Along the class struggle, and according to its importance and its
features, some workers stand out, who reach a certain level of consciousness of the fundamental
reactionary and oppressive nature of the capitalist imperialist system. We usually point them out as
"the most advanced members of the working class". But since 1995, we call them "the sections
ahead of the workers' and peoples' movement". Their number is more or less important. It depends
on the development of the class struggle itself, but also on the level of the political and organising
abilities that the party gains along its experience (history).
Elements of the history of the labour movement before, during and after November and
December 1995
1981: Social democracy comes to power and manages capital's business in direct alliance (with the
help and complicity of the revisionists) with the French revisionist party (French Communist Party -
PCF) until 1984. This same year, the PCF ministers leave the government. Then social-democracy
leads capital's politics alone (with the support of the French Communist Party inside the Parliament).
1986-1990 and 1993-1995 (the two 'cohabitation') were two periods during which social democracy
had to deal with politics in the same way as the right wing. Before and after 1981, and with the
support of its allied section inside the working class, the PCF, social-democracy endeavoured to
maintain the ideological influence of reformism in the working masses and to lead them along its
trade-unionist and political frame. The first real protests against the domination of French social-
democracy finally took place in 1986. It happened when the SNCF rail workers wont on a long
standing strike. A series of protest movements inside important companies will stamp the years
following 1986. They happened also in whole sectors such as SNECMA, aeronautical construction;
RATP, metro, Air France; Peugeot; Alsthom, electro-mechanical construction; hospitals, etc. These
movements were mainly of an economic character. They have a trade-unionist origin (2). They have
not led and will surely not lead to a wide spread protest against government policy. They will
relatively remain isolated. Nevertheless, they ended up in stirring the sympathies of the other strata
of workers as both the former and the latter mentioned above call on one another, particularly when
it comes to demanding wage increases.
The opposition movement against the Gulf war will stand as the point of no return. Though limited
to some sections of the working class, this opposition pushed these sections, weeks long, out to the
street against war politics of French imperialism. Their slogan was : French troops, out of the Gulf:
The movement against the Gulf war, being mainly of a political nature, will lead the most conscious
labourers to a fundamental breaking off with Mitterrand and social-democracy. (These two proved to
be entirely submissive to the interests of French imperialism which drove them to imperialist war. - à
revoir)
Then, during the November-December 1995 social movement, the class antagonisms of the French
capitalist society are brought back wide-open to the fore front. This movement corresponds in many
28
ways to Lenin's definition of class struggle. "The struggle waged by the workers turn into a class
struggle only when all the vanguard representatives of the working class as a whole in the country
develop the consciousness of belonging to the sole and same working class and start acting not only
against such and such boss but also against the entire class of capitalists and against the government
that backs it up. Only when each worker gets conscious of being a member of the working class as a
whole, when he considers that fighting daily for immediate claims against such bosses or such
official, accounts for fighting against the whole bourgeoisie and all the government. Only then, his
action becomes class struggle" (3). The 1995 social movement put forward an important section of
advanced workers ("vanguard representatives of the working class in the country"), who stood at the
head of the country-wide strikes and street demonstrations that mobilised millions of men and
women week after week against government policies at the service of capital (4).
Before this important social movement, such workers, mostly employed in the public State sectors,
have been at the forefront of lengthy battles much for wage increases as opposed to the erosion of
their working conditions. For years, part of them have been pointed out as "rich" and "privileged" on
the pretence that their jobs are guaranteed. On the other hand, the weight and the ability of the
reformist unionist leaderships to keep the workers of these sectors in their union frame were strong.
In spite of this massive strikes took the workers of these sectors in their union frame were strong. In
spite of this massive strikes took place apart from any order issued out of union headquarters. This
was already happening before December 1995. In other words, then, the workers at the head of these
movements were already gaining authority and some independent range of action with respect to
unions leadership.
During the months of November and December 1995, and though they had quasi-totally called
together for the strikes, the unions worried most about restricting the protests to the "particular
pension systems' and the State status in favour of the SNCF rail workers. That they wished to see
other sections enter the protest movement was but in support of this line thought.
It was significant to note that, while demonstrations were raging in December, the CGT was holding
its 45th Congress in its head offices at Montreuil, a suburban city next to Paris. Although millions of
people were marching in every city, the union leaders kept the delegates locked in to look into the
legitimacy of the renunciation of the reference to class struggle in the statutes of the unions!
During the preparatory events of the congress, numerous union activists rose their voices in defence
of the validity and the actuality of class struggle trade unionism. Through our unionist activists and
its organ, our party took part in this battle. And, instead of spending their precious time speaking on
class struggle at the congress, the great majority of the activists who take side for class struggle
chose to strike and demonstrate in the streets shoulder to shoulder with their comrades.
The movement widened mainly because these militants and other active strikers knew that the
previous strike experiences had not succeeded in pushing the State-boss and the private bosses
leaderships to retreat because of the lack of active solidarity.
This time, however, solidarity was able to stand out on the objective basis of common interests since
the "Juppe Plan" was, in a way or another, taking it out on all the workers. This solidarity was
proved through the slogan: Withdraw the "Juppe Plan"! As to the "All together" call, it was, beyond
the different situations, the uniting spontaneous expression of regained class consciousness. Through
their success in fixing the slogan "Withdraw the Juppe Plan!" to the movement, the most advanced
sections of the workers put, actually, the movement along a line in opposition to of the different
reformist organisations, be they trade unions or political organisations. The slogan itself was, at that
given time, the political expression of the resolute opposition of millions of workers to the policies
29
that the dominating class and its allies had decided for the preservation of their profits. It was this
advanced fringe which led those millions of demonstrators and bore this political slogan.
All these weeks of struggle against the government during which the working class played an
ascendant role, a large number of workers considered themselves as a whole society protest against
the capitalist system. And the current of solidarity developed by the workers and labourers of other
countries towards the movement reinforced the awakening of this consciousness.
The way the movement speeded up to reach its potency proves that its origins are way far in time. It
strengthens and amplifies the abilities of large sections of the working class and, in general, of the
peoples, to win their autonomy with respect to trade-union and political organisations lead by the
reformists and the revisionists. The advanced sections of workers felt reinforced in taking up actions
and initiatives during this movement. They developed their faith in millions of others. An important
breach opened up in the struggle against capital during the days of November and December. We
also witness the emergence of the break up with the politics practised for decades at the service of
the monopolies. Hence, (on verra apres) ... We leave this matter aside for the moment.
Acting with the advanced members of the working class
During all these weeks, our party, its members and sympathisers helped the movement to reach its
aims as far as possible. Hand in hand with the advanced sections of the working class, our party
fought to stress ahead the slogan "Withdraw the Juppe Plan!". Our newspaper and different leaflets
that we handed out to the strikers and demonstrators, raised up the question as to what alternative to
the capitalist system is to be taken up. Whether our members could battle, they fought to gain the
political leadership of the demonstrations. They created solid links with and won the trust of the
workers who happened to lead the movement.
Following this rich experience, we have understood that building forward our party as a communist
party requires that we work with these advanced members of the working class. To do so, the party
must be able to figure out who they are. Some of them, we fought with during the months of
November and December 1995, others we are fighting with today. Some others also, we will identify
through their activities in the social movement and finally those whom we will know in the course of
our work. Such work of “reconnaissance” is carried in close relation with our work of mobilisation
on the basis of the party's line. The most advanced forces, namely the ones organised inside and
around the party, have to be called upon in order that new working class elements can be even more
widely mobilised and revealed.
The political leadership
Working with the most advanced workers means first that we are able to help them carry their role of
leaders in the social movement. To do so, it is required that every mean be given to them such that
they will succeed in impelling a political orientation, in fighting efficiently and leading the masses in
the course of class struggle.
Our party knows why it is fighting and where it is aiming to. It has reached a certain level of
capability to analyse a given political situation. It has drawn off political and action lines to still
drive forward the breaking points with the capitalist system. Our party must make these advanced
elements wholly conscious of these points of rupture, such that they will, in turn, take them over, and
lead the masses. Working with these advanced workers should, in return, enable our party elaborate
an even finer tactical line and get new means to undertake it in a larger scale. Indeed, these advanced
workers are ready to get mobilised and, already, many of them do clearly so on the basis of political
lines taking on the most striking features of the politics undertaken today by the bourgeoisie against
30
the working class and the peoples. Such is the case with the protest movement in support of the
working "paper-less" immigrants that the Pasqua-Debre acts have dispossessed of their official
papers. This movement has, for the first time for a long time, mobilised large sections of the trade-
union movement. Hand in hand with important youth sections, the movement against the process of
fascisation, in which the phenomenon Le Pen is one of the attributes, against Maastrichtian Europe,
considered as Europe of the monopolies, etc. proves as well the above assertions. Calling up the
social movement round with the working class along one or more of these political lines hinders
seriously and in concrete terms the reactionary politics developed by imperialism. That is where
these axes of mobilisation are breaking points with the system. Impelling class antagonisms up from
these political lines is a way of building the revolutionary political alternative. Working with the
advanced elements such that an even greater number of workers, men and women of the people, and
youngsters take up these lines will enable us to fill the gap that the reformists and the revisionists
have created between economic and social battles and the revolutionary political prospect.
Through "acting with the advanced elements of the working class" it is assumed that they, also, be
implied in the analysis we make of the situation, that we discuss it with them and check its
correctness, and, if needed, that we give it a finer and a richer content with them such that we may
together develop the resulting leading lines. It also means that we grow richer through the links they
have gained with the masses, through their experiences and the practical knowledge they have of the
labour movement.
The importance of the ideological work
Our party is so the more armed to act along these prospects that much before the November-
December movement stroke, it had just completed an important theoretical study on socialism and
imperialism, study of which our 4th Congress had realised a synthesis. Such an overall mobilisation
of our party on the theoretical front enabled us to draw a better standing definition of its strategic
aims, socialism (5), and to reach a more accurate understanding of present days working class (of the
working class today) (6). Bearing in mind the means of building the party amidst the working class,
we must be able to outline its boundaries and answer as scientifically as possible to the highly actual
question that is: Why do the transport, and even more widely, the communication sector workers
belong to the working class?
This question is of such an authority that these sectors, in which a high rate of workers concentration
is required, are in the line of the sight of the capitalist restructuring in every country. They are
actually and continuously subject to social movement shakes. Along with the implications they lead
to due to the modifications of teh status of the labourers (resulting, on the whole, from the fact that
State capital companies are being sold to private capital), these restructuring operations and the
pertaining consequences on the back of the popular users are becoming an essential stake not only
for union struggle but also for political struggle. The way this struggle is being waged, the way the
demands and their contents are foreheld, the way the defence of the workers and popular users’
interests spring up, all of these constitute a field of everyday confrontation with the reformists in so
far as the capitalist state is at the heart of the rising debate. On the other side, these sectors are
strategically handy for all the economic activity; and whatever disturbance they witness lead to
heavy consequences in the life of the country, and indeed at the international level, considering that
the tendency underlying these restructuring operations is meant toward the constitution of integrated
world-wide and particularly European networks. Whereas the struggles waged inside these sectors
may very rapidly acquire a political quality, they can also acquire an international feature that could
favour the elevation of class consciousness, as well as in its international frame.
31
The trade union task
Our party attributes much importance to trade union work and more precisely to developing its line
of class struggle unionism. If the overall principles of class struggle are the same everywhere, setting
them in action depends on the real situation of the trade union and the political situation in each
country. Home, the union movement, regardless of union organisations, reaches but around 10 per
cent of the workers and less than 10 per cent of the working class itself. Surely, the influence of
reformist union organisations is much larger than 10 per cent. However, they lack in control abilities
such as, for example, the DGB in Germany has. The front battles between the reformist conception
and class struggle conception takes place inside the labour movement itself, in the field of the
struggle; it is not limited to the sole union movement. Only the positions gained in the field, in the
midst of class confrontations, enable the class union current that we impulse to reach its expression
in union apparatus. On the other hand, winning over some appointments is not a goal en sol.
The economic crisis (that makes that "the crumbs" the reformists and revisionists accept from the
hands of imperialism go thinner, henceforth less numerous the sinecures), but also the ideological
and political crisis that are shaking the ranks of the reformists and the revisionists, enlighten their
proper troops and provokes profound divisions. Also, we do not lose sight of the fact that, if the
reformist and revisionist leaders who control the apparatus have no more systematic opposition that
activists known for their revolutionary positions be in charge of high rank responsibilities inside
their union organisations, they do so because they need them to enliven the apparatus under
sclerosys. Lastly, we equally know that the reformist and revisionist leaders hope to contain the
struggle waged by class struggle unionists inside the apparatus themselves such as to avoid that it
does not "overflow" and be brought about among the masses.
Many of the honest activists wasted their energy in these endless inner battles to progressively end
up being cut off the masses. In other words, the positions we are gaining in the midst of these
apparatus are above all aimed at making easier the tasks for developing the class union line, which
intended for the workers as a whole, be they organised or not on the union level. We want to win
them over along the class based trade unionism and, on this basis, to organise them inside the
existing unions, inside the union sections that we lead and influence. We do not first define our
party's union line with respect to what the union apparatus, the reformists and the revisionists do or
do not. The party's union line depends primarily on what the workers involved in the class union
current, think about what is just regard to their interests and to the possibility to move forward on the
way to revolution. Seen from this angle, the practice proves that our organ plays an unquestionable
role in the union movement for further building and popularising the political and ideological
positions of the union current that stands on the class struggle line.
"All together against capital"
For the current period the union line of class struggle is summarised in the slogan "All together
against capital". National as well as international solidarity constitutes its driving force. Our party
works hand in hand with the most advanced elements of the working class to make it come true and,
accordingly, to deepen the break-away form the imperialist capitalist system. As a matter of fact, one
of its instruments today is precisely to encourage competition among the workers. The international
meetings of union activists are thus powerful tools, much at the level of their proper happening as
that of the preparatory work and their extensions. They have, in one way or another, enabled all of
those who had attended them to confront their experiences, and to acquire a richer approach to union
and political work through the existing diversity in the situations of each country. Also, they have
led the participants to take collective decisions and hence, to take them up in their daily activities.
These meetings have become "theirs", they are initiatives the success of which depends, above all,
on their commitment and their implication. One of the credits that the party has been able to win
32
among them is the fight it is waging such that these meetings be always "their" business, a
"business" concerning a growing number of union activists and workers. For our party, this is a
tremendous field of learning to lead politically and so, through the practical activity and the work of
convincing.
Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF)
October 1997
1) In "Que faire?", book 5, Editions of progress, 1965, p.382

2) See our article "About the ebb and flow of the people's and workers' movement" published in
Unity & Struggle, No 1, 1995.
3) Lenin, book 22, p.221, Editions of Progress, 1965.
4) See our article "Some lessons form a strong and vigorous social movement" published in Unity &
Struggle No 3, September 1996.
5) See our paper "A contribution to assess socialism in the USSR, a study of the economic basis and
of the superstructure", March 1996.
6) See our paper "A study of technique in the capitalist system", June 1997.
33
MEXICO
The Program of Social Democracy in Mexico

The case of the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD)
The elections of July 6 of the present year ended with a regrouping of the political forces in Mexico,
in which social democracy surmounted a difficult situation due to its defeat in 1994; today it has
built itself up into the third national political force.
The PRD won the governorship of the Federal District and will govern with its eyes set on the
presidential election which will be held in the year 2000.
The present analysis utilized the Program of the PRD published in 1993 by the Institute of Studies of
the Democratic Revolution, Secretariat of Studies and the Programme of the PRD, a draft which was
finally adopted. Its editors are “prestigious member” of the PRD, at the head of which were: Porfirio
Muñoz Ledo, Mariclaire Acosta, Rosa Albina Garavito, Iván García Solís, Pablo Gómez, Cristina
Laurell, Gilberto López y Rivas, Jesús Martín del Campo, Ifigenia Martínez, Arnolo Martínez
Verdugo, Carlos Monsiváis, Gerardo Unzueta, Ricardo Valeta, José Woldenberg and Nuria
Fernández.
The Democratization of the State and of Society
For social democracy the essence of the problem is in the superstructure, in the institutions, and
particularly in how one should work within the institutions. It judges society by its class instinct: it
struggles to save the system in the manner of Sismondi, Stuart Mill, it fears the concentration and
centralization of capital in its neo-liberal form, since it is aware that this is leading to the collapse of
the regime of private property.
And what does social democracy offer us? Nothing less than the restructuring of the system under
the guidelines of the efficiency of public administration, the “socialization of political power”, in
conjunction with the principles of old liberalism, and a very well-polished nationalism of the petty-
bourgeoisie at the service of the monopolies.
Everything reduces itself to the fact that a clique of politicians has seized Power and is making “bad
use of it”. These are the evils [that it sees]: a vertical hierarchy in the exercise of power, the
centralization and concentration of power in the hands of an elite, corporatism, the existence of a
State party and corruption. From here it seeks the solution in the Reform of the State in which “the
essential question is the division and distribution of public power conforming to constitutional
norms, the decisive strengthening of political autonomy and the irrevocable guarantee of human
rights: a plan for a nation defined and defended by its citizens and a public order which promotes the
exercise of all freedoms”. (Program of the PRD).
And the “new” State which will arise from this reform, cloaked by the social democrats as a
“Democratic Revolution,” must be “capable, effective and responsible” to ensure “the future of the
country under the unbribable mandate of just laws respected by all.” (op. cit., p. 6).
This is the catechism of bourgeois liberalism adopted by social democracy. Let us proceed to a
detailed analysis.
34
1. Sovereignty
The social democrats cling to the constitutional precept of sovereignty which states: “Article 39.
National sovereignty resides essentially and primarily in the people. Every public power springs
from the people and is instituted for their benefit. The people have at all times the inalienable right to
alter or modify the form of their government.”
Fine, but if the people do not possess effective instruments to enforce this precept, what is stated in
the Constitution becomes just so many words, since furthermore the “democratic game” established
by the above Constitution makes it impossible for the people to fully enforce its concept of
sovereignty, since we are dealing with a Constitution that binds us in a strict legalism and leaves us
at the mercy of the enemy.
This is the reason why even neo-liberalism does not protest against article 39 of the Constitution,
since that article remains in the abstract, without instruments or means to enforce it.
Along with the neo-liberals, the social democrats, although they deny it, prevent popular sovereignty
from being the “foundation of constitutionality” as they themselves say; because they also maintain
that sovereignty is exercised by means of the “Federal powers and those of the states and
municipalities, through the local governments,” that is to say, through the same organs that prevent
it. And every change in the apparatus is made to depend on the organs established by the
Constitution, which is in contradiction with the above-mentioned concept of sovereignty, since first
it is accepted that the people may change their form of government whenever and however they
please, but afterwards it places the condition that this change must take place by through the
established organs.
It is this vulgar republicanism of unrestricted fondness for laws that destroys any possibility of
popular sovereignty. The social democrats have fallen into the absurdity that, according to them, we
will arrive at sovereignty by means of laws which restrict every act of sovereignty.
What is the origin of these errors? Social democracy maintains the class view of the bourgeoisie that
the Constitution represents the people “in general” and that the problem is that it is not respected
consistently. All this is profoundly erroneous; the Political Constitution of the United States of
Mexico is the legal basis of the existing social relations of production, of private property and all its
consequences; it represents the interests of the bourgeoisie. The state is testimony to the fact that it
watches over the class struggle (subjugating the people). Every constitution represents an established
order, it supports it and guarantees it. To pretend that this same Constitution can actually defend
popular sovereignty is nonsense, the product either of the imagination or of hidden interests.
How is it possible for the people to exercise supreme authority when the Constitution itself concedes
all privileges to the exploiting class, when it guarantees an authoritarian power in the President of
the Republic? What authority can a people have when they do not have economic power? What
supreme authority can our people have to determine the development of our country in all spheres if
those who decide what to do with the economy, its industries, the banks, the land, transport, are their
owners, the same ones who never heed the interests of the people but rather the dictates of
commercial production, of capital, paying attention to the source of profits which, as is well-known,
is in opposition to what the people demand? Under these conditions, the people cannot exercise the
most minimal supreme authority.
The Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico suffers from the same evil as all bourgeois
constitutions, defending with dry formulas the rights of the in general, and reducing them to the
realm of the impossible in the concrete. This truth has been made evident with special clarity by the
35
genius of Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte when he said: “The inevitable
general staff of the liberties of 1848, personal liberty, liberty of the press, of speech, of association,
of assembly, of education and religion, etc., received a constitutional uniform, which made them
invulnerable. For each of these liberties is proclaimed as the absolute right of the French citoyen
(citizen), but always with the marginal note that it is unlimited so far as it is not limited by the “equal
rights of others and the public safety” or by “laws” which are intended to mediate just this harmony
of the individual liberties with one another and with the public safety... The Constitution, therefore,
constantly refers to future organic laws, which are to put into effect those marginal notes and
regulate the enjoyment of these unrestricted liberties in such a manner that they will conflict neither
with one another nor with the public safety. And later, these organic laws were brought into being by
the friends of order [whose descendants are the neo-liberals; see what similarity there is to the
present time, with bourgeois politics in pursuit of these reforms], and all those liberties regulated in
such a manner that the bourgeoisie finds itself unhampered in its enjoyment of them by the equal
rights of the other classes. Where it forbids these liberties entirely to “others” or permits enjoyment
of them under conditions that are just so many police traps, this always happens solely in the interest
of “public safety,” that is, the safety of the bourgeoisie, as the Constitution prescribes. (Exactly! The
Constitution itself grants the bourgeoisie the right to violate its own Constitution by placing
restrictions on itself. This point deserves to be emphasized, since it is already known that the social
democrats guard themselves from the “violation” of the Constitution by the neoliberals, proclaiming
that the Constitution's unrestricted fulfillment is the means of salvation from the calamities which are
afflicting the regime, making a great noise about the deviation from the constitutional road -author’s
note) Consequently, both sides appeal with complete justice to the Constitution: the friends of order,
who abrogated all these liberties, as well as the democrats, who demanded all of them. For each
paragraph of the Constitution contains its own antithesis, its own Upper and Lower House, namely,
liberty in the general text, abrogation of liberty in the marginal note.”
Is this an imperfection in the Constitution? Definitely not. Its contradictions correspond to other
contradictions in the social relations of production, they are the reflection of class antagonisms and
differences. In this sense, the Constitution is precise, and its contradictions or variability in its
interpretation correspond to the need for adaptability of bourgeois politics to specific conditions that
arise, to the need to legitimize their methods of domination.
Let us continue. According to the social democrats, what are the conditions for the full exercise of
popular sovereignty?
Free and impartial elections
In the Program of the PRD it is maintained that “The first condition for any political transformation
is the guarantee of free, universal and effective suffrage by means of genuine elections, in the
framework of clear legal authority, credible lists of voters and independent and impartial electoral
authorities who deserve the trust of the citizens and make possible the restoration of republican
legality.” (p. 8).
In the resolutions of their Third Congress “The electoral struggle, the participation in federal and
local elections, constitutes the chief front of struggle by which the PRD can actually advance
towards the conquest of political power and thus confirm its social presence.”
And a little further in the same document, counting on the agreed-upon transition to “the
establishment in the country of an electoral system that is really competitive, in which the following
two prerequisites must be fulfilled: autonomy of the electoral organs and impartiality in the electoral
campaign.”
36
This is an impossibility for the bourgeois interests and for the very characteristics of the capitalist
system in Mexico. For even putting this aside impartiality transforms itself into its opposite if one
takes into account the fact that in Mexico very different parties compete, that some will inevitably
have greater privileges than others. This is in reality an advantage to the PRD and its two principal
rivals, the PRI and the PAN, which will be favored in economic and propaganda resources, etc. In
reality, the so-called impartiality does not have bases for its existence, it is a matter in itself of
monopolizing the elections by three parties; moreover the bourgeoisie will inevitably support one or
another party, based on the particularities of the moment and the effectiveness of one or another of
the alternatives offered, disposing furthermore of its economic power, its coercive instruments, that
is to say the State and its institutions.
Now, despite everything, let us suppose that the elections could be held so democratically, so fairly,
with equality of conditions leading to a supposed impartiality, as our unlucky PRDists say. And let
us also suppose that the PRD would win the presidential elections, for example (this is not
impossible), and the consequences that would result from putting into effect the Program of the PRD
would not change the situation for the working masses.
Without going any farther, let us say that the PRD agrees to take part in the bourgeois electoral
game, that is, it agrees not to try to do anything against the bourgeois interests, which is the first
requirement for taking part in the elections; the PRD declares that it will unconditionally defend the
bourgeois constitution, bourgeois power, bourgeois private property, especially the large property,
about which they constantly call on the people to distrust the neo-liberals, and to pay attention to
their economic proposals. Consequently, if we analyze these two points, we will see that the PRD is
against the people.
Maintaining their thesis that free elections are the means of salvation, the PRDists assure us that
“The exercise of popular sovereignty demands the suppression of the system of the State party,
which dominates the electoral processes, and demands the establishment of a multi-party
government which will restore to the citizens their decision-making power and which will permit
them to gain access, by means of the vote, to all levels of political representation... The extreme
presidential power and the symbiosis between the government and the party have been shown, for
decades, to be the two fundamental and complimentary axes on which Mexican authoritarianism
rests.” (Program of the Democratic Revolution, p. 12)
The question of the single party is the object of criticism by the social democrats, who see it as an
anti-natural phenomenon in comparison to the pluralist” proposition. They are not the only ones who
reject the single party without considering which class it represents; the Zapatistas and many other
groups of the left also attack this. Although the attack has its basis in the present situation in which
one single political party dominates the State, we can not make an abstraction of its class content.
The clearest in their proposal to “dissolve” the “State party” are the social democrats, who demand
that a multi-party government or “State system” be established, in which various political parties are
incorporated. This proposal represents the multitude of big bourgeois tendencies in the monopoly
capitalism of the State and their desire to form a government, that is to say that these tendencies or
groupings would be able to establish themselves in an “independent” form, preserving the group in
the form of coalitions, fusing with all or some of the existing groupings, in virtue of their force, their
perspectives, their possibilities and capabilities, as opposed to the other tendency to maintain a single
hegemony within the bourgeoisie itself, personified as a single party. Therefore, to simply demand
their incorporation into the state apparatus without taking into account the above-mentioned
elements, heeding the good will of the opponents and the infallibility of the reforms, simply
transforms itself into a chimera and a genuine support to the oligarchs and the present fascist
tendencies.
37
Leninism teaches us that parties always represent classes, that in the bourgeois State there can exist
not only one but various parties which represent different sections of the bourgeoisie. But for the
social democrats the truth of this thesis means little; what interests them is their effectiveness in
winning followers, using the sentiments of the people to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, which
can accept the coalition of the parties in power that will better safeguard their interests.
In these points on pluralism is implicit the proposal of electoral reform, which circumscribes the
legalism that Cárdenas and his followers proclaim: “the circle of the politically privileged among the
propertied class itself was to be widened and the exclusive domination of the financial aristocracy
overthrown.” (K. Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte) No more, no less. Further
explanations are unnecessary.
The social democrats of the PRD have decided to stand up against presidential power. Will they be
successful? We shall see, for we have seen how firm is their alternative of sovereignty and pluralism.
2. The Reform of the State and the “new” constitutionalism
Consider the following passage from the Program of the PRD: “The reform of the State that our
country needs demands the reevaluation of the public function, the strengthening of social
participation, the deconcentration of authority and the establishment of clear boundaries between
state and private interests, which would eliminate the patrimonial character of public power, dissolve
the monopolies and free the productive energies of the nation.”
They speak to us of strengthening social participation, but with what objective if one continues to
permit the means of production to be private property? Social participation without the means and
fruits of production is a phrase lacking in meaning for the masses, but it is very necessary for the
exploiters in raising the tempo of production and in the reduction of bureaucracy, utilizing the
masses to administer the enterprises (by enterprises we mean both work-places as well as public
administration); the masses require social participation to repress their masters, to exercise their
power, which means simply to strike the bourgeoisie, a thing which is punished by the Constitution.
Remember the sacred principle: “Do not affect third parties.”
The deconcentration of authority is nothing more than the idyllic democratization of bourgeois
authority that is constantly subjected to bureaucratization and parasitism, which are its
characteristics.
To eliminate the patrimonial character of the bourgeois State is to try to deny that this same State
defends one class in particular. In this sense the bourgeois State is the patrimony of the bourgeois
class, and as such it will always be the defender of its heritage, which is the role of protector of the
class which has established it for its exclusive use.
To dissolve the monopolies, as paradoxical as it may seem, is to condemn the country to ruin; to free
the “productive energies of the nation” requires instead dissolving the social relations which obstruct
them. Although the anti-monopoly principle is sanctioned by the Constitution, this is impossible to
maintain in modern bourgeois society given the high concentration of production and the need to
maintain high tempos of productivity, which are incompatible with small and medium-sized
enterprises. The profound development of the capitalist system demands the necessary existence of
large monopolies for the better exploitation of labor power.
Further... “Let us reject the authoritarian, centralized State with tentacles; we wish that power be
exercised by the greatest number of Mexicans and that it be distributed fairly. We seek to strengthen
above all the power of the citizens. We do not wish the State to drown individual and collective
38
initiative; nor that it substitute itself for the producers of wealth (that is, not to socialize the means of
production -author’s note), except for the obligations that the law determines in strategic and priority
areas. We propose that the democratic power should increase its governing power to regulate
economic activity in conformity with the national interest and should dispose of the necessary
resources to expand its infrastructure and guarantee social development.” (Program of the PRD).
For the social democrats, everything reduces itself to the idea that the evils come from corruption,
authoritarianism, a vertical hierarchy in public institutions and presidential power.
Balance of powers
According to the PRDists, “what is essential in the struggle is to achieve the division and distribution
of power according to constitutional norms, the decisive strengthening of political autonomy and the
irrevocable guarantee of human rights.” (Program of the PRD).
The question of the division of powers “according to constitutional norms” is the center of the policy
of social democracy, which is up to its neck in bourgeois republicanism. In the heart of the mass
movement this represents the most abject reformism and opportunism. It is not pure verbiage, nor is
its objective to eliminate presidential power. Its objective is to safeguard it, for which, according to
its conception, it is necessary to “limit it,” “restrict it,” to hide its worn-out parts from the anger of
the masses, to conjure away the revolution and to redesign a more efficient, “democratic” state
apparatus in the service of the monopolies.
After declaring its repudiation of presidential power, it ends up by accepting it. Social democracy
has unleashed a deafening campaign against presidential power, but the campaign is a bluff. The
social democrats imagine that presidential power is a deviation from the bourgeois republican road,
an aberration that is not suitable to the parliamentary system, a correctable error, they see or think
they see presidential power as a thing in itself, not related to the dynamic of capitalist development.
To what is its propaganda on this point reduced? To elaborating formulas to temper the activity of
the President of the Republic, formulas which do not fundamentally affect it and thus lead to a
refined presidential power, that is to say a “European style” presidential power, which in reality has
nothing to do with the American continent. Here it is necessary to point out that besides the desire to
moderate presidential power at all costs, there exists the second aim of strengthening their positions
in parliament by this act.
The social democratic formulas of combatting presidential power consist in “revising”, “opposing”,
“documenting”, “demanding”, “watching over”, “carrying out motions of censure”, “soliciting
removals”, “soliciting the appearance of the President and his cronies before Congress”, etc. They
reduce all fight against presidential power to this, and it cannot be otherwise since social democracy
does not proceed against the central point which engenders the presidential power sanctioned in the
constitution. This center is in the capitalist system; in the need to lead the regime of private property
in the only manner in which it can be led, by the election of a supreme chief who concentrates in
himself the fundamental decisions to maintain the system; in the anarchic character of the system
even in the “most advanced democracies” and the need to “lead” that anarchy, taking as an example
and guide the capitalist enterprise itself and its forms of authoritarian leadership; in the type and
level of development reached (in capitalist terms, in the particularities of the historic character, the
level of concentration and centralization of capital, “cultural” development, and in the forms that
cover up bureaucracy).
But the social democratic pride seeks to dominate society with its infallible laws and reforms,
although the truth is that, without playing down the role of laws, the base of society dominates the
39
social democratic jurist. This is affirmed by the science of political economy: “Truly, one must be
destitute of all historical knowledge not to know that it is the sovereigns who in all ages have been
subject to economic conditions, but they have never dictated laws to them. Legislation, whether
political or civil, never does more than proclaim, express in words, the will of economic relations.”
(K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy)
The Constitution does no more than sanction in the best manner possible this fact, distinction or
characteristic, which should be extended to all bourgeois constitutions. According to Karl Marx in
his work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, a work of essential importance to
understanding bourgeois law, the problem of presidential power is found not outside, but within the
constitution. We cite a quote from this work which, although it is rather long, is very useful in
clarifying the problem:
“...This Constitution, made inviolable in so ingenious a manner, was nevertheless, like Achilles,
vulnerable in one point, not in the heel, but in the head, or rather in the two heads where it ended up
- the Legislative Assembly, on the one hand, the President, on the other. Glance through the
Constitution and you will find that only the paragraphs in which the relationship of the President to
the Legislative Assembly is defined are absolute, positive, non-contradictory, and cannot be
distorted. For here it was a question of the bourgeois republicans safeguarding themselves. The
articles” are so worded that the National Assembly can remove the President constitutionally,
whereas the President can only remove the National Assembly unconstitutionally, by setting aside
the Constitution itself. Here, therefore, it provokes its forcible destruction. It not only sanctifies the
division of powers, like the Charter of 1830, it widens it into an intolerable contradiction. The game
of the constitutional powers” On one side are 750 representatives of the people, elected by universal
suffrage and eligible for re-election; they form an uncontrollable, indissoluble, indivisible National
Assembly, a National Assembly that enjoys legislative omnipotence, decides in the last instance on
war, peace and commercial treaties, that alone possesses the right of amnesty and, by its
permanence, perpetually holds the front of the stage. On the other side is the President, with all the
attributes of royal power, with authority to appoint and dismiss his ministers independently of the
National Assembly, with all the resources of executive power in his hands, bestowing all posts and
deciding thereby on the livelihood of at least 1.5 million people in France, for that is how many
depend on the 500,000 officials and officers of every rank. He has the whole of the armed forces
behind him. He enjoys the privilege of pardoning individual criminals, of suspending National
Guards, of discharging, with the concurrence of the Council of State, general, cantonal and
municipal councils elected by the citizens themselves. Initiative and direction are reserved to him in
all treaties with foreign countries.
While the Assembly constantly performs on the boards and is exposed to daily public criticism, he
leads a secluded life in the Elysian Fields, and that with Article 45 of the Constitution before his
eyes and in his heart, crying to him daily: Frere, il faut mourir! (Brother, death is near!) Your power
ceases! Then your glory is at an end, there won't be a repeat performance and if you have debts, look
to it in the meantime!” Thus, whereas the Constitution assigns actual power to the President, it seeks
to secure moral power for the National Assembly. Apart from the fact that it is impossible to create a
moral power by paragraphs of law, the Constitution here abrogates itself once more by having the
President elected by all Frenchmen through direct suffrage. While the votes of France are split up
among the 750 members of the National Assembly, they are here, on the contrary, concentrated on a
single individual. While each separate representative of the people represents only this or that party,
this or that town, he is the nation's choice and the act of his election is the trump that the sovereign
people plays once every four years. The elected National Assembly stands in a metaphysical
relation, but the elected President in a personal relation, to the nation. The National Assembly,
indeed, exhibits in its individual representatives the manifold aspects of the national spirit, but in the
40
President this national spirit finds its incarnation. In contrast with the Assembly, he possesses a sort
of divine right; “he is President by the grace of the people.”
To confirm this analysis it is sufficient to glance at the privileges that our Constitution grants to the
President of the Republic. The President of Mexico promulgates laws which must pass by the
legislature “for their approval”; he freely names and removes members of his cabinet and other
federal employees; he names the chiefs of the armed forces; he disposes of the totality of the armed
forces; he appoints the Attorney General of the Republic; he conducts foreign policy and signs
international treaties, “submitting them” to the Senate for approval, with the provision that the
Senate is obliged to approve them; he grants pardons; he oversees secret accounts; he is elected by
the people, etc. (see the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico, article 89). Aren't
these powers sufficient to crush the remaining branches of authority and especially the only one
which confronts it in a more “aggressive” manner? As can be seen, presidential power is very well
sanctioned in the Constitution, and is not the product of contempt for the Constitution.
What has been expressed above shows us that the President, in exercising these powers, possesses an
immense force which grants him other powers if hew wishes to fulfill his task, to resist which the
legislative Power remains impotent.
Whatever obstacles parliament tries to impose on the President, even if these are sanctioned by the
Constitution, they can not do away with the presidential power (they can only diminish it
temporarily, and for this reforms of the Constitution are not necessary, what is written is sufficient).
The proof is in the fact that whatever obstacles he finds in his path, he nullifies them. All these social
democratic measures are insufficient; the President can and is empowered to break these rules. This
is not to say that when extremely strong contradictions arise between the bourgeoisie and the
President, the bourgeoisie does not pull strings so that, in the only legal manner, mobilizing the
legislative chambers, it can remove the President and/or his cronies from office; it can do this, but
the presidential power remains unharmed.
Marx continues: “This executive power with its enormous bureaucratic and military organization,
with its vast and ingenious state machinery, with a host of officials numbering half a million, besides
an army of another half million, this appalling parasitic body, which enmeshes the body of French
society and chokes all its pores, sprang up in the days of the absolute monarchy, with the decay of
the feudal system, which it helped to accelerate. The lordly privileges of the landowners and towns
became transformed into so many attributes of the state power, the feudal dignitaries into paid
officials and the motley pattern of conflicting mediaeval plenary powers into the regulated plan of a
state authority whose work is divided and centralized as in a factory... Finally, in its struggle against
the revolution, the parliamentary republic found itself compelled to strengthen, with repressive
measures, the resources and centralization of governmental power. All (bourgeois) revolutions
perfected this machine instead of smashing it. The parties that contended in turn for domination
regarded the possession of this huge state edifice as the principal spoils of the victor.” (The
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte).
From what has been said above it can clearly be seen that to do away with the presidential power one
must eliminate the position of President and presidential elections, do away with the division of
powers, fuse the powers into a single one. The bourgeoisie makes this impossible precisely by being
a parasitic class, for which the existence of the President is indispensable (note that the main social
democratic proposal for a “more prudent” presidential power based on a “rotation (of parties) in
power” would safeguard this valuable treasure). In order to fight the epidemics of “democracy” to
which parliament is not exempt, which in periods of upsurge of the revolutionary movement can be
invaded by the genuine representatives of the working class and the people in general. Here the role
of presidential power is based on neutralizing these rash attempts of the underdogs. On the other
41
hand the presidential power is indispensable to them in defense of their interests, for the definition of
actions before the possible debates in parliament and given this diversity of representations of the
“national spirit,” and to unify the bourgeoisie into a “homogenous” whole in defense of its interests
and in the struggle against the revolution.
In regard to parliament, in essence it is the backbone of bourgeois democracy, but at the same time it
is the stage on which bourgeois contradictions are played out.
Only the people, the workers and peasants are in a position to create a state apparatus free from the
bourgeois division of powers; of a higher character, in the form of councils which would gather
together all the powers and would be directly linked to the masses, that is, soviets or councils.
Centralism
In the same way that the social democrats protest against the presidential power while afterwards
they fall into its arms, there is the “struggle” against centralism, which also makes use of the
Constitution:
“Strict respect for the Constitution would be enough for every federal entity to form their own
governments according to the mandate of popular sovereignty.” (Program of the PRD).
Here it can be seen that social democracy is not against centralism, it is against it in the form
maintained by the neo-liberals. But if one digs a little into our Constitution, one will find that behind
its federalist and anti-centralist facade, centralism is sanctioned. Where? In the powers granted to the
President, the legislature and the judiciary at the central level, to which States and municipalities
must accede together with the whole society, in the definition of a general “and harmonious
development of the national economy.” The attack should have been aimed at bureaucracy, but this
also would not resolve the problem if power remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie and while the
question of the social relations of production is “resolved” in favor of the bourgeoisie.
On the other hand, to be against centralism is, whether one wants it or not, to be in favor of disarray
and consequently of anarchy.
Thus it seems that centralism in its purest neo-liberal style has taken the social democrats to the edge
of anarchy, but no, rather they take advantage of this influence in the heart of the masses and of the
ruin caused by the PRI and Government's type of centralism to link them to their policy of “respect
for the laws,” replacing the worn-out centralism with a “more prudent” one.
Finally, the social democrats say that they want the economic development of the country (in
capitalist terms); with this they have placed a noose around their neck, since for economic
development (still capitalist) it will be necessary to centralize their actions, to define their policies on
a central level. The experience of all capitalist countries shows that they must pass through the
“hated” centralism.
Now it is clearer that the fight is over superficialities and not basics.
A State of law
“The construction of a new political system which based on a profound reform of the state that
establishes the constitutional principles of a democratic State of law. In this new political order,
there must be guaranteed the full respect for human dignity, pluralism, rotation in power, the
autonomous organization of society and the limitation of presidential authority, the strengthening of
42
the regions and municipalities, the full and constitutional recognition of the rights of the indigenous
peoples to regional and cultural autonomy and to traditional forms of government, as well as honesty
and responsibility in public service, the democratization of the means of communication and an
electoral legislation which guarantees clean and democratic elections.” (Resolution of the III national
Congress of the PRD).
This is the ideal State, the ideal bourgeois democracy, pure, efficient and without corruption in the
service of the monopolies, whose work “for the good of the people” will consist in carrying out plans
and social programs without touching the fundamental problems.
This kind of State of law seeks to cover up the relations between social classes and the State, its very
class nature. Therefore it is not by chance that at this time both neo-liberals as well as social
democrats defend the State of law, seeing in it an efficient arm against the revolution, although both
have notions that are somewhat different in this sense. The concept of the State of law is supposedly
one of a free, sovereign, modern State and other such lofty ideals. But let us not forget that the actual
law that rules us is a bourgeois law, the right to oppress, pillage, plunder and exploit the masses.
Thus the dream of a State for all evaporates and there remains the class State.
The most “modern” conception of social democracy of a State “for all” succumbs, as do other such
things, to the implacable logic of Lenin on the class nature of the State. Since this teacher of the
world proletariat developed the Marxist theory of the State, barrels of ink, tons of paper and the
efforts of the “learned” social democratic theoreticians have been useless in tearing down this theory.
Here is how Lenin exposed bourgeois obscurantism on the question of the State:
“This question has been so confused and complicated because it affects ... the interests of the ruling
classes more than any other. The doctrine of the state serves as a justification of social privilege, a
justification of the existence of exploitation, a justification of the existence of capitalism... in the
theory of the state... you will always discern the mutual struggle of different classes... all were equal
before the law. The law protects everybody equally; it protects the property of those who have it
from attack by the masses who possess no property” (Lenin, The State).
This is the explanation advanced by that mournful cry of Muñoz Ledo: “If we are not careful, the
end of this century will be one of xenophobia, of social struggles.” (Daily newspaper “La Jornada,”
February 3, 1995). Therefore they demand the reform of the State and the constitution of their
famous State of law.
3. Society and democracy
They tell us that “Democratization is a cultural phenomenon.”
Very well, but every cultural phenomenon requires specific conditions for its existence and
effectiveness, requires that firm bases exist. According to them “Demand a new concept of authority,
the greater the social demand the higher the quality of participation. Demand the regeneration of
social relations, beginning with the family and school; maturity in language and civic conduct,
tolerance and respect for the rights of others, authenticity of leadership and ability to conciliate;
assumption of responsibilities by persons, communities, enterprises and social institutions. This is
the only possible road to modernity and the very basis of development.” (Program of the PRD).
Water could not be clearer. The respect for the rights of others says everything.
43
Vain constitutional illusions, but a genuine treason against the interests of the people is how social
democratic politics can be summed up. For in agreement with Lenin, “in fact the more democratic it
(the bourgeois republic) is the cruder and more cynical is the rule of capitalism.” (The State).
Their utopian “participatory” “civil society” is revealed here as a consistent bourgeois policy of
defense of determined class privileges. This becomes clearer the more mud is thrown on the theory
of class struggle and the more the avaricious interests of the bourgeoisie are covered up with
phraseology about pure democracy.
Stalin reminds us that: “... The theory of ‘pure’ democracy is the theory of the upper stratum of the
working class, which has been broken in and is being fed by the imperialist robbers. It was brought
into being for the purpose of concealing the ulcers of capitalism, of embellishing imperialism and
lending it moral strength in the struggle against the exploited masses. Under capitalism there are no
real ‘liberties’ for the exploited, nor can there be, if for no other reason than that the premises,
printing plants, paper supplies, etc., indispensable for the enjoyment of ‘liberties’ are the privilege of
the exploiters. Under capitalism the exploited masses do not, nor can they ever, really participate in
governing the country, if for no other reason than that, even under the most democratic regime,
under conditions of capitalism, governments are not set up by the people but by the Rothschilds and
Stinneses, the Rockefellers and Morgans. Democracy under capitalism is capitalist democracy, the
democracy of the exploiting minority, based on the restriction of the rights of the exploited majority
and directed against this majority.” (J. Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism)
4. Democratic transition
The democratic transition is nothing but the possible change from the method of open violence of
bourgeois domination to the method of hidden violence of that same class with respect to the
exploited masses. In this sense, we are assimilating the Spanish experience: “the constitution is a key
piece, not of an authentic process of democratization, but of a process of continuism in a situation
where ‘something must change’ so that everything can remain the same and where a democratic and
constitutional mask is worn.” (Elena Odena, Writings on the transition).
The social democrats have defined themselves; they are a bourgeois current, whose ideals are the
defense of the bourgeois world by legal, constitutional methods; their principal means of “struggle”
are the elections, and their method of putting into effect their proposals is reformism.
Thus they have affirmed “The PRD proposes to the nation an agreed-upon peaceful and
constitutional transition towards democracy”” (Resolution of the III national Congress of the PRD).
In this arena, the social democrats feel themselves at home, they consider themselves omnipotent not
because reason is on their side, but because the laws “are on their side.” There is no other party that
is more conceited than the social democrats, and at the same time, there is no party more committed
to its reformist and peaceful line than the social democrats.
“To a reformist,” says Stalin, “reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something
incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the
conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitably transformed into an instrument for strengthening
that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution.” (J. Stalin, op. cit.).
It is the class essence of reformist politics to sabotage the revolution, to postpone it, hearkening to
the defense of order, putting the masses to sleep with the illusion that “something has to change.”
44
The more devoted they are to this task, heedless of the dialectics of capitalist development, the more
obsolete this tactic becomes, and the more they find themselves at the mercy of their ultra-right
rivals. Thus one of the consequences of reformist politics is precisely the accession of fascism to
power, because this politics weakens and destroys the revolutionary organization of the masses, it
suffocates their revolutionary spirit.
It is necessary to remember the eternal role of bourgeois reforms, the eternal fate of the reformers:
“It is totally impossible to reconstitute society on the basis of what is merely an embellished shadow
of it. In proportion as this shadow takes on substance again, we perceive that this substance, far from
being the transfiguration dreamt of, is the actual body of existing society." (K. Marx, The Poverty of
Philosophy)
The social democratic position is reduced to this, designing a “new society” that we already have in
essence, but going no farther. Whoever wishes to go farther has to root out the source of the evils,
the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.
Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)
45
SPAIN

"... The development of the proletariat has not been brought about and has not been able to be
brought in no country but by means of the unions and by their joint action with the party of the
working class. There have to be taken any sort of pains and overcome obstacles in order to carry out
a tenacious, persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation just within those institutions, clubs
and unions, no matter how reactionary these are, where there exist proletariat or semi-proletarian
masses..." (Lenin)
The Organisational Commission for the Third International Meeting of Unionists held in Madrid,
rendered some documentation regarding the effects over the Spanish working class of the policy
applied by the European bourgeoisie as a whole.
These results: unemployment, job uncertainty, flexibility of the labour market, cuttings on social
benefits, privatisation on a large scale, and so on can be generalised, we believe so, to every country
in the EU that is to say, though there are differences on the rhythm and intensity, the policies of the
capital tend to be deeply regressive everywhere.
The Spanish capitalist economy, owing to various factors that are not relevant for this study, is a
weak economy and extremely dependent on foreign investment and, therefore, subject to the changes
of the economical cycles which have given rise to many contradictions unresolved. For this reason,
the aggression to the interests of the workers from the bourgeoisie takes such an intensity in Spain as
nowhere else in the capitalist Europe.
The unemployment, stagnant for years at the rate of 20% (22% at present), doubles and triples, it
depends on sectors, the average of that of EU's; job uncertainty is over 37% and it is growing (in the
first four months in this year, 92% of contracts signed have been temporary jobs: and it has been the
best rate since 1994!)
Besides the successive labour reforms have made the situation with social benefits even worse:
pensions have been cut, only 40% of the unemployed get any kind of social benefit and these have
been also cut.
Hence, the contradiction between the aggressiveness of the capitalist policies and their disastrous
consequences for the standard of living of the popular classes and the low level of political response,
can be explained mainly by the role played by the unions and their political leadership, the social
democrats or opportunist, who as always happens in times of capitalist crisis, they have withdrawn
their "social" disguise in order move openly to the side of the bourgeoisie.
But this happens because the stand of the communists with regards of politics and unions are very
weak; because we have been and are incapable of changing the present situation. Therefore the point
is how to improve out work, by other words, although we do not diminish the significance of any
broad front nor any other form organisational form. The point is to study how to work in the workers
movement in a more efficient way.
The question that we ask ourselves, and also many honest union affiliates who defend class
positions, is whether the role that is being played by central unions, as a transmission belt for the
rightist sectors of opportunism and for the social democracy , is disabling them as useful instruments
for the organisation and struggle of the proletariat, as a first stage necessary for the organisation of
all toilers
46
We understand that they are not anymore. No wonder the workers movement is very broad and
allows certain autonomy of action. It is true that there are other forms that we should take advantage
of. But essentially is in the unions where the mass of workers is mostly concentrated, where we
should focus our work, because it is there where, besides, battle, crucial for our class is being waged
among the various sectors of the social democracy and of opportunism; a battle that we should be
able to profit from in order to reinforce the consequent class unity. In our country (and we do not
think it is an exemption), despite being discredited, there has not been a single mass poetical activity,
also at a national level, including the five general strikes held between 1985 and 1994, that was not
led by the two main unions (CC.OO and UGT)
There have existed and still exist attempts, even coming from class, lest positions to build structures
capable of making up a new unionism. But the truth is that none of them has succeeded. There has
always attempts confined geographically or only to one economic sector, or even, as in most of the
cases, to one single company, or a section of a given company. The growing degree of autonomy of
the workers movement with respect to the unions should also become subject. This issue has been
raised in late struggle. This is no doubt that the experience in other countries, for instance, South
Korea and specially France (November - December 1995 mobilisations) point out to this. But we
understand that even in these cases where the autonomous forms of organisation and action of the
workers movement acquired a more general and militant character, this autonomy did not
determined the appearance of new lasting organisational forms.
At a lower level, in Spain too, the pressure from the workers made the union leadership, then clearly
committed to take sides with the plans of the bourgeoisie, call for a general strike in 1994.
Nevertheless, this spontaneous expression from the Spanish workers did not, however, question its
control by the opportunists, for there was no serious class alternative with a strong base, sop as to
dispute important sections in the workers movement. We had to wait for the break out of political
tensions within CC.OO in order to be able to regard an incipient class trend in this union.
That is to say, the proletariat can occasionally begin the struggle in a spontaneous way, apart from
and even against unions, which are objectively on the side of the enemy of the working class.
But this does not change a fundamental status, for the action itself is not at stake but the leadership,
the unity and the organisation of workers actions. For this reason, the opportunists do not see the
kind of struggle aforementioned as a threat to their control of unions and they can lead again and
drive it eventually towards an institutional aim, acceptable for the bourgeoisie, though at the
beginning the actions of masses might have gone beyond union limit.
Why does this happen? Why the working mass has not turned their backs to the unions yet despite
the fact that these unions are discredited? Because workers need strong organisations.
Life and struggle have taught workers that in order to fight the bourgeoisie, they need to unite their
forces, set up organisations that go further up rather than their being just assigned to their work
scope, capable of giving sense to their class demands.
This need is growing at present as the structural changes being implemented in the production
systems by the bourgeoisie are causing divisions among workers, forcing them to sell their force of
work under growing competitiveness. And this also increases the dispersion (in Spain, for example,
in 1996, 94.7 per cent if enterprises had less than 20 workers while only 0.3 per cent of them had
more than 200) and segmentation (unemployed, temporary, permanent, etc.) of the proletariat to a
large extent.
47
When more and more mechanisms intend to break up the immediate interests of the class, so
workers find themselves more and more scattered in small-size production units, these may be part
of multinationals or big-size companies, though they appear with their own entity and independent
from each other as far as immediate union activity is concerned.
At this moment, well, when the conscious elements and forces bearing class awareness are weak, it
seems to us a simple matter of maturity to understand that forces must not be broken up.
Another fact is that unions are controlled by the most right wing sections of social democracy and
opportunism, which proves the interest of the bourgeoisie to convert unions into motor belts for their
policy within the working class, for the bourgeoisie is fully aware of this being paramount at the first
stages in the workers organisations.
As we agree that the present frame which the struggle develops in asks for a bigger and more serious
organisation so that the divisions of forces be avoided. We can conclude that we must double our
effort to work within the unions.
Lenin wrote about this matter: "In more developed countries than Russia, it has been noticed certain
reactionary spirit in unions... Western Mensheviks have trenched themselves fore firmly in the
unions... There is no question about this... The struggle against the Gompers, Jouhaux, Henderson,
Merrhimen, Legien and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our
Mensheviks. It is necessary to fight relentlessly and go on with it in a compulsory way, as we have
done, until we are able to pillory the incorrigible bosses of the opportunism and social chauvinism
and throw them out of the unions..." ("Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder", Collected Works,
p.377)
However, is it possible to bring about class currents within institutionalised unions, reactionary and
tightly controlled by the opportunism and the social democracy?
Despite the very positive experiences of comrades from Turkey, Ecuador, Dominican Republic and
others in disputing important sections in the union leadership, it may seem, form the point of view of
Western Europe, somewhat secondary, even unnecessary, for her the institutional control exerted by
the bourgeoisie over the unions has attained its maximum development, making our work within the
unions extremely difficult, apart from the fact that unions have discredited themselves in workers'
eyes.
Yet a new factor arises that must be taken into account as it may facilitate the political action: In
Western Europe, the social democracy has had an ample range of manoeuvring since the end of the
Second World War. During these years the bourgeoisie has allowed social democrats to play their
being "socialists", safeguarding some social progress in bourgeois states in return for the essence of
the capitalist system being out of question. It seemed to may that the capital had accomplished such
a degree of development that they were able to do away with contradictions and capitalism
overcome itself. The exploitation of the proletariat, mitigated, appeared as an inevitable requirement
on the road to the ideal capitalist society. Hence the revolution was unnecessary.
Today, the development of new way of production, the increment of the capitalist competition to a
world-wide scale, the economic globalisation and the absence of a revolutionary threat (not in the
near future at least) together with a crisis that drags on for years have compelled (and allowed) the
European bourgeoisie to remove their "social" mask and demand the proletariats to surrender their
social gains. Today, the massive unemployment of structural kind is a growing reality in Western
Europe.
48
Yesterday, the social democracy boasted about the welfare state being their work, a product of their
political intelligence; it was not a concession from the capital. It is the social democracy itself that
heads in many cases, and justifies in all, the measures which prepare its own distraction.
This political experience has to have consequences on the immediate struggle within the unions. In
this present situation, the social democracy and the right wing opportunism are obliged to burn down
their political gains, even taking sides with social cuts policy, and they do so by means of unions,
because in this way they can achieve some social legitimacy. The contradictions that this situation
generates have caused very serious tensions within the very structures of the unions and the social
democrat or reformist forces in Spain (and again we think we are not before an isolated case, though
it may be more acute). There are many rank and file who are watching the way events occur,
whether class currents emerge.
Undoubtedly, the political struggle in the mass unions takes place within the boundaries set by the
social democrats, for they have to defend the bourgeois social state. No wonder whatsoever taking
into consideration that the most active rank and file have been influences by social democrat ideas
for years, far form the influence of communists.
Yet it is also true that these tensions enable us to go forward towards the class unity. The battle
waged in CC.OO by the so-called critic sector is an example: It has been the first time in many years
that workers and leaders of various ideological trends or currents agree to a common programme to
defend class unionism. The presence of the "United Left" deputy and CPE's leader, Angeles
Maestro, at the Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists is quite meaningful, so as to indicate
that the debate in the class unity is on the agenda, not only for Marxist-Leninists but also for a great
number of conscious fighters.
There are today many more unionists willing to struggle for the defence of the class unionism. And
we must feel this and lead the combat for this unity.
We must keep this thought in mind, firstly communists, and we must also transfer it to the class
unionists in future meetings.
49
SPAIN

"... The development of the proletariat has not been brought about and has not been able to be
brought in no country but by means of the unions and by their joint action with the party of the
working class. There have to be taken any sort of pains and overcome obstacles in order to carry out
a tenacious, persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation just within those institutions, clubs
and unions, no matter how reactionary these are, where there exist proletariat or semi-proletarian
masses..." (Lenin)
The Organisational Commission for the Third International Meeting of Unionists held in Madrid,
rendered some documentation regarding the effects over the Spanish working class of the policy
applied by the European bourgeoisie as a whole.
These results: unemployment, job uncertainty, flexibility of the labour market, cuttings on social
benefits, privatisation on a large scale, and so on can be generalised, we believe so, to every country
in the EU that is to say, though there are differences on the rhythm and intensity, the policies of the
capital tend to be deeply regressive everywhere.
The Spanish capitalist economy, owing to various factors that are not relevant for this study, is a
weak economy and extremely dependent on foreign investment and, therefore, subject to the changes
of the economical cycles which have given rise to many contradictions unresolved. For this reason,
the aggression to the interests of the workers from the bourgeoisie takes such an intensity in Spain as
nowhere else in the capitalist Europe.
The unemployment, stagnant for years at the rate of 20% (22% at present), doubles and triples, it
depends on sectors, the average of that of EU's; job uncertainty is over 37% and it is growing (in the
first four months in this year, 92% of contracts signed have been temporary jobs: and it has been the
best rate since 1994!)
Besides the successive labour reforms have made the situation with social benefits even worse:
pensions have been cut, only 40% of the unemployed get any kind of social benefit and these have
been also cut.
Hence, the contradiction between the aggressiveness of the capitalist policies and their disastrous
consequences for the standard of living of the popular classes and the low level of political response,
can be explained mainly by the role played by the unions and their political leadership, the social
democrats or opportunist, who as always happens in times of capitalist crisis, they have withdrawn
their "social" disguise in order move openly to the side of the bourgeoisie.
But this happens because the stand of the communists with regards of politics and unions are very
weak; because we have been and are incapable of changing the present situation. Therefore the point
is how to improve out work, by other words, although we do not diminish the significance of any
broad front nor any other form organisational form. The point is to study how to work in the workers
movement in a more efficient way.
The question that we ask ourselves, and also many honest union affiliates who defend class
positions, is whether the role that is being played by central unions, as a transmission belt for the
rightist sectors of opportunism and for the social democracy , is disabling them as useful instruments
50
for the organisation and struggle of the proletariat, as a first stage necessary for the organisation of
all toilers
We understand that they are not anymore. No wonder the workers movement is very broad and
allows certain autonomy of action. It is true that there are other forms that we should take advantage
of. But essentially is in the unions where the mass of workers is mostly concentrated, where we
should focus our work, because it is there where, besides, battle, crucial for our class is being waged
among the various sectors of the social democracy and of opportunism; a battle that we should be
able to profit from in order to reinforce the consequent class unity. In our country (and we do not
think it is an exemption), despite being discredited, there has not been a single mass poetical activity,
also at a national level, including the five general strikes held between 1985 and 1994, that was not
led by the two main unions (CC.OO and UGT)
There have existed and still exist attempts, even coming from class, lest positions to build structures
capable of making up a new unionism. But the truth is that none of them has succeeded. There has
always attempts confined geographically or only to one economic sector, or even, as in most of the
cases, to one single company, or a section of a given company. The growing degree of autonomy of
the workers movement with respect to the unions should also become subject. This issue has been
raised in late struggle. This is no doubt that the experience in other countries, for instance, South
Korea and specially France (November - December 1995 mobilisations) point out to this. But we
understand that even in these cases where the autonomous forms of organisation and action of the
workers movement acquired a more general and militant character, this autonomy did not
determined the appearance of new lasting organisational forms.
At a lower level, in Spain too, the pressure from the workers made the union leadership, then clearly
committed to take sides with the plans of the bourgeoisie, call for a general strike in 1994.
Nevertheless, this spontaneous expression from the Spanish workers did not, however, question its
control by the opportunists, for there was no serious class alternative with a strong base, sop as to
dispute important sections in the workers movement. We had to wait for the break out of political
tensions within CC.OO in order to be able to regard an incipient class trend in this union.
That is to say, the proletariat can occasionally begin the struggle in a spontaneous way, apart from
and even against unions, which are objectively on the side of the enemy of the working class.
But this does not change a fundamental status, for the action itself is not at stake but the leadership,
the unity and the organisation of workers actions. For this reason, the opportunists do not see the
kind of struggle aforementioned as a threat to their control of unions and they can lead again and
drive it eventually towards an institutional aim, acceptable for the bourgeoisie, though at the
beginning the actions of masses might have gone beyond union limit.
Why does this happen? Why the working mass has not turned their backs to the unions yet despite
the fact that these unions are discredited? Because workers need strong organisations.
Life and struggle have taught workers that in order to fight the bourgeoisie, they need to unite their
forces, set up organisations that go further up rather than their being just assigned to their work
scope, capable of giving sense to their class demands.
This need is growing at present as the structural changes being implemented in the production
systems by the bourgeoisie are causing divisions among workers, forcing them to sell their force of
work under growing competitiveness. And this also increases the dispersion (in Spain, for example,
in 1996, 94.7 per cent if enterprises had less than 20 workers while only 0.3 per cent of them had
51
more than 200) and segmentation (unemployed, temporary, permanent, etc.) of the proletariat to a
large extent.
When more and more mechanisms intend to break up the immediate interests of the class, so
workers find themselves more and more scattered in small-size production units, these may be part
of multinationals or big-size companies, though they appear with their own entity and independent
from each other as far as immediate union activity is concerned.
At this moment, well, when the conscious elements and forces bearing class awareness are weak, it
seems to us a simple matter of maturity to understand that forces must not be broken up.
Another fact is that unions are controlled by the most right wing sections of social democracy and
opportunism, which proves the interest of the bourgeoisie to convert unions into motor belts for their
policy within the working class, for the bourgeoisie is fully aware of this being paramount at the first
stages in the workers organisations.
As we agree that the present frame which the struggle develops in asks for a bigger and more serious
organisation so that the divisions of forces be avoided. We can conclude that we must double our
effort to work within the unions.
Lenin wrote about this matter: "In more developed countries than Russia, it has been noticed certain
reactionary spirit in unions... Western Mensheviks have trenched themselves fore firmly in the
unions... There is no question about this... The struggle against the Gompers, Jouhaux, Henderson,
Merrhimen, Legien and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our
Mensheviks. It is necessary to fight relentlessly and go on with it in a compulsory way, as we have
done, until we are able to pillory the incorrigible bosses of the opportunism and social chauvinism
and throw them out of the unions..." ("Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder", Collected Works,
p.377)
However, is it possible to bring about class currents within institutionalised unions, reactionary and
tightly controlled by the opportunism and the social democracy?
Despite the very positive experiences of comrades from Turkey, Ecuador, Dominican Republic and
others in disputing important sections in the union leadership, it may seem, form the point of view of
Western Europe, somewhat secondary, even unnecessary, for her the institutional control exerted by
the bourgeoisie over the unions has attained its maximum development, making our work within the
unions extremely difficult, apart from the fact that unions have discredited themselves in workers'
eyes.
Yet a new factor arises that must be taken into account as it may facilitate the political action: In
Western Europe, the social democracy has had an ample range of manoeuvring since the end of the
Second World War. During these years the bourgeoisie has allowed social democrats to play their
being "socialists", safeguarding some social progress in bourgeois states in return for the essence of
the capitalist system being out of question. It seemed to may that the capital had accomplished such
a degree of development that they were able to do away with contradictions and capitalism
overcome itself. The exploitation of the proletariat, mitigated, appeared as an inevitable requirement
on the road to the ideal capitalist society. Hence the revolution was unnecessary.
Today, the development of new way of production, the increment of the capitalist competition to a
world-wide scale, the economic globalisation and the absence of a revolutionary threat (not in the
near future at least) together with a crisis that drags on for years have compelled (and allowed) the
European bourgeoisie to remove their "social" mask and demand the proletariats to surrender their
52
social gains. Today, the massive unemployment of structural kind is a growing reality in Western
Europe.
Yesterday, the social democracy boasted about the welfare state being their work, a product of their
political intelligence; it was not a concession from the capital. It is the social democracy itself that
heads in many cases, and justifies in all, the measures which prepare its own distraction.
This political experience has to have consequences on the immediate struggle within the unions. In
this present situation, the social democracy and the right wing opportunism are obliged to burn down
their political gains, even taking sides with social cuts policy, and they do so by means of unions,
because in this way they can achieve some social legitimacy. The contradictions that this situation
generates have caused very serious tensions within the very structures of the unions and the social
democrat or reformist forces in Spain (and again we think we are not before an isolated case, though
it may be more acute). There are many rank and file who are watching the way events occur,
whether class currents emerge.
Undoubtedly, the political struggle in the mass unions takes place within the boundaries set by the
social democrats, for they have to defend the bourgeois social state. No wonder whatsoever taking
into consideration that the most active rank and file have been influences by social democrat ideas
for years, far form the influence of communists.
Yet it is also true that these tensions enable us to go forward towards the class unity. The battle
waged in CC.OO by the so-called critic sector is an example: It has been the first time in many years
that workers and leaders of various ideological trends or currents agree to a common programme to
defend class unionism. The presence of the "United Left" deputy and CPE's leader, Angeles
Maestro, at the Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists is quite meaningful, so as to indicate
that the debate in the class unity is on the agenda, not only for Marxist-Leninists but also for a great
number of conscious fighters.
There are today many more unionists willing to struggle for the defence of the class unionism. And
we must feel this and lead the combat for this unity.
We must keep this thought in mind, firstly communists, and we must also transfer it to the class
unionists in future meetings.
53
TURKEY
THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT AND THE PROBLEMS OF TRADE UNION

STRUGGLE
Our conference in the Dominican Republic has put particular emphasis on the importance of the
developments in the working class movement in many countries against the attacks of the
bourgeoisie, and has pointed out the particularities of the period we live in. In relation to this, it has
put on its agenda the definition of the new conditions and concrete tasks of the work within the
working class and of trade union struggle.
In accordance with the developments in national and international conditions significant changes
take place in " class and power" relations. These changes inevitably require the renewal of the
demands of daily struggle and of alliances. Obviously, each current determines its place in the future
of class struggle with its stance. The stance and the path that will be followed in the new period of
the struggle constitute the objective basis of the struggle between the revolutionary class line and the
reformist and petty bourgeois "left" currents or tendencies. They are outside the working class, and
are fed by the repression of the bourgeoisie who are also renewing their forces, alliances and
platforms. An example of this is the present situation of fluctuation and the liquidationist tendencies
occurred in the International Communist Movement in the 1990s.
During the time passed, the International Communist Movement has become more aware of the
platform it represents and taken further steps in fulfilling the responsibilities required. This
development has been demonstrated by the debates on its agenda.
I. The changes in class and power relations and the need for a new platform
During the Second World War and its aftermath, the confidence and prestige won by the
revolutionary class parties in the eyes of the workers' movement and labouring masses both in the
USSR and in developed countries, mainly in Europe, has played a double role.
First, a role which depends on a euphoric tendency and which incites this tendency, and second, a
reverse role with the hegemony of modern revisionism, which followed a submissive and
collaborationist path in the face of the imperialist offensive. Whilst for genuine communists this
confidence and prestige was a factor increasing their responsibilities towards revolution and the
cause of socialism, the ringleaders of revisionism that became dominant in the parties used it as a
shield which weakened the vigilance of the working class. They did this in a period when the
imperialist system intensified its attacks against the threat of socialism, unifying and centralising all
their forces and possibilities, when under the pressure of this, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the
USSR, having become alienated from the working class, was transformed into a bureaucratic
monopolist bourgeois dictatorship, and when the communist parties in developed countries fell to the
level of reformist and parliamentarianist " opposition element"of the imperialist bourgeois platform.
As a result of these developments, the working class movement in the most developed countries of
the world, following the most advanced historical victories, has entered the longest period of
stagnation, retreat and disorganisation which has caused deep destruction in its consciousness and
action.
This, in the meantime, amounted to the heaviest blow in terms of the independent political and trade
union action of the working class. It also amounted to the longest interruption of international unity
in forces and action. This very situation itself has been one of the determining reasons for the
54
ideological destruction that led to deep and long-standing consequences.
The destruction caused by modern revisionism was not limited to the USSR and advanced countries.
It also gravely harmed the national liberation movements and anti-imperialist struggles that appeared
in many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. These movements were encouraged by the
historical successes and victories of socialism and of the proletarian movement. Confidence in
socialism and the working class has been weakened in these countries. This development also played
an important role in the spread of petty bourgeois currents which based themselves on anti-
imperialist tendencies in underdeveloped countries. The Maoist interpretation of the Chinese
Revolution and the Castroist interpretation of the Cuban Revolution were the inspiration for an
important part of petty bourgeois currents. In the 70s, this was also among the excuses for the
distancing of these currents from the proletarian movement and socialism following the very first
defeats suffered in various countries, thus playing a role which weakened the influence of the
working class within the general popular movement in underdeveloped countries. Despite this, in
underdeveloped countries the working class struggle, which had advanced aspects from time to time,
constituted an important basis for the development of Marxist-Leninist currents. However, it could
not reach the level of being an independent power at international level. This was due both to the
hegemony of revisionism which also influenced the workers' movement in these countries and to the
lack of support of socialism and the proletariat of advanced countries.
The working class movement, in this way, lagged behind the positions it had gained historically. It
was broken away from its revolutionary traditions in terms of ideology and of forms of struggle,
organisation and work. It thus entered in the sphere of influence of revisionism and reformism. This
development was undergone simultaneously with the process when the majority of a strata that
organised as a trade union bureaucracy or, where in power, as state and party bureaucracy, thus
becomeing bourgeoisified, then went on to become more powerful and dominant in the movement.
This has created non-working class traditions, norms and habits, the extent of which we understand
much better today.
II. The characteristics of the period we live in
Just before the collapse of bureaucratic monopolist state capitalism in the Soviet Union, the attack on
Iraq which was incited and led by US imperialism exposed the inter-imperialist contradictions.
These contradictions came about as a result of the changes in the balance of power in the post-war
period. They appeared as having significantly different stances without the imperialist powers
having to openly come face to face. The exposure of these differences was in a sense imposed by the
US. The collapse of the bureaucratic monopolist capitalist system, which was turned into a "
magnificent" ending presented as " the collapse of socialism" with an unprecedented propaganda and
demagogic campaign across the world, was followed by a process of rapid disintegration, rivalry and
conflict which appeared in the main institutions regulating the relations in the imperialist system.
As appears clearly today, the imperialist countries are going through a process of renewal and
repositioning in all regions of the world and all sectors of the economy. This process is accompanied
by the intensification of capital at an unprecedented level. The slogans " globalisation" and "
liberalisation" , being tools of this fight, have been imposed especially by the US on all
underdeveloped and dependent countries. Also, the process of destruction of the basis of their
economies has been speeded up. In the main strategic regions, internal conflicts based on national
and religious differences have been provoked, and the economic, political and military imposition
and extortion have become more apparent and are being implemented without recognising any rules.
On the other side of the coin is the process of open implementation in all countries of the attacks on
the historical gains of the working class, mainly the destruction of the " welfare state" and the
55
crippling of trade unions, and the reorganisation of the bourgeois state in accordance with new
conditions, in other words the renewal of the main inter-class relations.
Obviously, it is the task and the reason for existence of the Marxist-Leninist parties, which constitute
the only current that has the most sound ideological positions in the face of the reactionary wave, to
renew and improve the revolutionary collective experience. This experience, which had been buried
by revisionism for about 50 years, was created by the history of the working class movement. The
Marxist-Leninist parties are the legitimate representatives and defenders of this class and they must
enable this experience to become one of the most important bases for the new period of the struggle.
III. The struggle against imperialist hegemony and aggression, and the struggle for revolution
and socialism
In the present conditions where there are developments which will lead to the confrontation of the
two main classes of modern society, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This confrontation will
inevitably come about -even though in retreats and leaps- in all fronts and in more advanced forms.
In these conditions, the bourgeoisie, despite all their advantages in appearance, has entered a process
of losing the possibilities provided in the last 50 years of uniting their forces and winning over the
intermediate classes. The imperialist bourgeoisie and collaborating ruling classes are bound to enter
into savage conflicts and rivalry both as individual countries and as monopolist groups, and to
conduct unbridled attacks on the working class and labouring masses and the oppressed peoples.
Today, this process is obviously being experienced by each country.
- From the economic aspect, among the attacks are privatisation, sub-contracting, casualisation,
quality control, increasing unemployment and redundancies, decrease in real wages, cuts in social
rights, attempts to make unions non-functional, etc. All non-monopolistic classes, mainly the
productive peasantry, are faced with fierce attacks designed to force them to submit to monopolistic
interests, eradicating credits, marketing opportunities and subsidies. Public employees are also faced
with cuts in their wages. While especially in the underdeveloped countries which are subject to
imperialism's attacks for new plunder and colonisation the working class has continued to develop
under conditions of heavy repression and exploitation, more and more people from the peasantry and
petty bourgeois strata have joined the army of unemployed. Migration to big towns has increased.
New working class regions have emerged, deprived of proper and permanent jobs and income and
under the threat of degeneration. As a result of imperialist plunder in many countries in Asia, Africa
and Latin America, social structure itself has been faced with the threat of complete disintegration
and destruction.
- From the political aspect, what has become clear in the main advanced capitalist countries is the
introduction of reactionary laws, the encouragement and consolidation of fascist parties, the
expansion of the authority of the police, the advancement of a common " national" political basis
between all bourgeois political parties, and the securing of the political interests of the monopolist
bourgeoisie by the state. These attacks are being conducted with different excuses and in different
forms but they have the same essence. In backward countries the trend has been the exacerbation of
the imperialist slavery chains; and as an element of the provoked internal chaos, of regional conflicts
and of inter-imperialist rivalry and conflicts, there has been the sharpening of the contradictions
between different cliques of the collaborating ruling classes, the increase of threats and blackmail, an
increasing fascist terror as a daily implementation, and the increasing influence of specially trained
fascist terror organisations, police chiefs and generals in all the establishments of the state.
- From the military aspect, among the general characteristics of the attacks are the modernisation of
the army in the imperialist countries, mainly the US, Germany, France, Britain, Japan and Russia,
the training of special military units for the purpose of external interventions, the increasing attempts
56
to create possibilities for military positions and mobilisation in strategically important regions like
the Middle East and the Balkans, the imposition of new slavery military agreements on backward
countries, the gradual loss of power and influence of international law, the increasing tendency
towards using methods like threats, blackmail, tyranny, etc.
All these attacks are carried out with all instruments, mainly TV, accompanied by systematic
propaganda and an unbridled campaign. These developments pose a threat to the future not only of
the working class but also of humanity as a whole, thus increasing the anxiety of more and more
people.
These attacks have come on the agenda as an element of the process the imperialist system has
entered in. They are being implemented simultaneously in all countries in this or that way. The main
consequence of these attacks is the fact that they inevitably have mobilised their counter forces too.
The struggles that have appeared recently in some typical countries representing some certain
categories will enable us to make concrete evaluations and draw concrete conclusions about the
particularities characterising the present situation of the working class movement.
A. Advanced capitalist countries
The strikes, demonstrations and general strikes against privatisation and economic and social attacks
were followed by solidarity strikes against redundancies. These were initiated in France and spread
to the same sectors in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia. This was followed by a 100 thousand
strong demonstration in Brussels. Following the pressure that forced all trade unions to act together
on May Day, the working class has also forced the Juppe government to resign. The political result
of this was snap elections that enabled the " left" parties to win a majority, so big it that was
surprising even to them. The working class was not satisfied and thus conducted mass
demonstrations immediately after the elections, warning the new " left" government. The events of
the last few years have demonstrated the determination of the French working class struggling
against the attacks of the capitalist bourgeoisie and leaving behind not only trade union centres but
also the " left" parties.
In Germany, where the bourgeois influence on the trade union movement through the social
democrats has been the greatest, the working class followed the path of their French class brothers,
forcing also the DGB leadership to struggle against the savings package imposing cuts in social
rights and public spending. Since the beginning of 1997, tens of thousands of workers in sectors like
construction, mining and metallurgy have been organising demonstrations against redundancies,
sometimes of a constant character, and even risking confrontations with police. In some certain
sectors, what has become apparent is the tendency towards struggle, dragging the union centres
behind or insisting on their demands despite the obstacles of the unions.
In the USA where the trade union movement is repressed through the most crude methods, the tens
of thousands of strong sectoral strikes especially of the automotive industry against redundancies is a
clear indication of the tendency of the working class towards struggle against capitalist attacks in a
more determined way.
What these developments, which are taking place also in the Western European countries such as
Italy, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, demonstrate is this:
Firstly, with their attacks on the working class the bourgeoisie is undermining the labour aristocracy
and trade union bureaucracy which constitute their basis within the working class, and inevitably
making it easier for the workers to orientate towards more advanced struggles.
57
Secondly, in the course of the struggle and to the extent of the expansion and advancement of the
demands and forms of struggle, the working class is rapidly freeing itself of the sphere of influence
of revisionism and reformism and recalling more and more their own historical collective
experience. What this means is that the renewal in the trade union movement has become interlinked
with the tendency towards socialism and this, in the daily practical struggle of the working class, has
played a role facilitating the rapid dispersal of illusion and confusion. (This illusion and confusion
was created through the theories which modern revisionism has been trying to spread for more than
40 years, and which aim to eternalise the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, suggesting that the working
class has lost their historical role and that social progress can be fulfilled without the dictatorship of
the proletariat).
B. Former Soviet Union and other "socialist" countries of Eastern Bloc
The Russian working class is carrying traces of the destruction caused by the modern revisionist
treachery, as much as the experience of the socialist revolution and socialist construction. With their
hundreds of thousands of strong demonstrations and the biggest general strike of recent times with
the attendance of 20 million workers, they have given the first serious sign of the fact that they will
orientate towards more advanced struggles. This also means an important blow to the illusion and
confusion caused by revisionism and a concrete indication of the importance of the trade union
movement in this old country of socialism at international level.
Also, the armed rebellion of the Albanian people and the general strike and demonstrations in
Bulgaria and Poland targeting their governments have typical characteristics in terms of the rapid
direction towards political targets, of actions that came out with daily immediate demands.
In these countries, the revisionist parties and cliques, which have lost the political power, are today
trying to reposition themselves within the working class and trade union movement as an "
opposition" . There is no doubt that they constitute the most serious obstacle at present for the
advance of the struggle.
C. Underdeveloped countries
The workers' movement in countries like South Korea, Turkey and Ecuador, where the working class
experience of struggle is relatively weaker, have followed a trend encouraging other labouring
classes. They have sometimes dragged the union bureaucracy behind them and the orientation
towards independent action at sectoral levels and local platforms has become more evident. The
disintegration in the trade union bureaucracy that has turned into a collapse has put on the agenda the
reorganisation of the existing trade union movement. Also, tens of thousands of workers in small and
especially medium size workplaces have turned towards struggle with the aim of trade union
organisation. In countries such as Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, despite all sorts of reactionary
attacks, trade union movement has developed its characteristic of being the most important dynamic
of the struggle. Alongside the developments of the proletarian movement and the dynamism in
underdeveloped countries, the advancing struggle of the peasantry and of other labouring classes,
sometimes taking the form of rebellion, in countries like Mexico, Brazil and India, demonstrate that
they have the character of expanding unprecedentedly the international basis of the proletarian and
labouring peoples' movement, and of consolidating the working class content of the struggle against
imperialism.
These developments demonstrate the fact that against the attacks of the imperialist bourgeoisie that
affect all countries and regions of the world and that appear as an open plunder and destruction for
an unbridled exploitation and an unlimited hegemony, the working classes have taken their first
58
serious steps towards a struggle that will inevitably orientate towards revolution and socialism. This
still holds true despite the fact that the working class have not yet got free of their reins and
overcome their fundamental weaknesses, especially in terms of consciousness and organisation.
Overcoming these weaknesses is the fundamental task and the reason for existence of the
revolutionary class parties. The first consequence of this is the disintegration of trade union
bureaucracy which has been the base for the bourgeoisie and the ruling classes for over 40 years.
Secondly, trade unions have regained their great importance in the eyes of the masses as centres of
organisation, resistance and struggle.
IV. The approaches to and prejudices against trade union movement that should be overcome
When the workers' movement took steps towards serious struggles in the main advanced countries, it
destroyed many prejudices against the trade union movement that occurred in different forms and
with different reasons in various countries.
Firstly, ideas that the reactionary and revisionist unions strengthened by the bourgeoisie can neither
be destroyed nor seized have been left today behind the development of the movement. The union
bureaucracy, the material bases of which have been shaken, is faced with two alternatives: either to
be in favour of the attacks or to join the struggle from the front and give way to it. This is proved by
examples from various countries.
Secondly, the workers who joined the struggle in spite of union leadership have made invalid the
ideas that advanced struggles cannot be organised through the existing unions. They did this by
creating organisations that guarantee their demands and the leadership of their actions based on these
demands. Among the practical examples of this are the pressure of the " action committees" in
France, the " union platforms" in Turkey and the " workers' representatives" in Germany. The open
attack which was put on the agenda through the CGT and which was designed to destroy the
functions of unions as the basic organisations of the working class was made invalid by the clear
stance of the French working class.
Thirdly, petty bourgeois sectarian understandings have been condemned by the practical movement
itself. Those who have these kinds of understandings have weakened their ties with the masses of
workers -who constitute an important potential in the grassroots of reactionary unions- and with their
daily struggle; and they were gradually overcome by hopelessness. Today, there are many examples
demonstrating the fact that the stance serving the progress and consolidation of the daily struggle of
the working class receives the support of broad sections. The determining factor for the struggling
working class masses is sincerity in joining the daily struggle and the practical position taken.
Revisionist understandings like "first consciousness and organisation, then comes struggle" , and
petty bourgeois understandings leaving political struggle to the vanguard and economic struggle to
the unions, have already failed completely in the face of the present developments.
Revolutionary parties of the proletariat must get rid of the habits and norms created in a certain
period in the past. They are faced with the task of developing a perspective which will take into
account the prospects of the movement, its broadening basis and the needs and responsibilities
created by this fact. They must also rapidly renew their work and activities.
Marxist-Leninist theory and a programme led by this theory are the precondition of being a
revolutionary class party. However, especially in the present conditions of the struggle these are
certainly not enough for the parties that must be at the centre of the movement. Today, Marxist-
Leninist parties are also faced with a test in terms of their daily struggle line and their tactics which
should advance the struggle and meet its ever-widening requirements. This is also an indication of
loyalty to theoretical principles and the aims of the programme. For this reason:
59
a- Independently of the correctness of what has been said, a leadership and form of activity, which is
conditioned by a certain period and limited to the circles of supporters, cannot lead the movement.
This is because the Marxist-Leninist parties are not the parties of a certain section of the proletariat,
but of the working class as a whole. In the present conditions when more and more people are
joining the struggle, the working class parties must put the centre of their activities the actions of
millions and the requirements and responsibilities of these actions. In other words, the essence of our
activities must serve not only our supporters but also to convince the masses with their own
experience and to the development of their struggle.
b- In the same way as in all the fields of party activities, in trade union struggle the leadership of the
movement in such periods cannot be left only to the responsibility of the concerned party members
and supporters. The most talented party cadres must shoulder the responsibility of reorganising and
improving trade union struggle in the most important places in a way that would secure the
fulfilment of union policies and tactics.
The struggle in the field of trade unions must be linked to the aim of a renewal which takes into
consideration the forms and development processes that are special to the conditions of each
country.
c- Today, the revolutionary class parties have to be not only organisations that take politics and
activity to the working class but also be parties that work for the organisation of the struggling
sections of the working class as a party, for their political development, and for them to take the
leadership of the practical movement in their own hands. This is the practical meaning of organising
within and in the forefront of the movement. Only by fulfilling this can we overcome the destruction
caused by a certain period and have the possibility of refreshing the confidence of the working class
in Marxism-Leninism and socialism. The present developments are also ripening the conditions to
achieve this.
The essence of the tactics of Marxist-Leninist parties can be defined as, in general terms, to
accumulate force and to get prepared for more advanced struggles. Reolutionary class parties can
win new and more advanced positions in the struggle only when they rapidly fulfil the content of
practical work and the organisational transformation corresponding to this work in a way that would
meet the requirements of the new period.
V. The question regarding the demands of daily struggle
The fact that the attacks of the bourgeoisie have a general character have caused the struggle to
appear with similar demands, even though in different forms and at different times from one country
to another. Especially in Europe, the fact that these attacks are conducted through common decision
making mechanisms like the EU has strengthened the basis of the struggle in the continent, at least
by creating the possibility of influencing one another.
Among the demands that have been the subject of daily struggle in the main advanced countries in
the last few years are:
- Demands against privatisation, redundancies and the threat of unemployment
- Demands against the cuts in wages, savings measures and restriction of social rights
- Demands against the attacks on the right to social insurance
- Demands against the attacks on working-days and holidays
- Finally, demands against the attacks to make the unions completely non-functional in the name of
subcontracting, casualisation, quality control , wage increases in line with the rate of inflation , etc.
These attacks have been conducted in order to block the struggle, to divide the forces of the working
60
class and to incite competition and conflict among the workers. Despite the fact that these attacks
have not yet been repulsed, daily struggles, especially in Europe, have slowed down the bourgeoisie.
On the other side, the successes of the ruling classes will not be able to calm down the struggle.
These attacks can only lead to the broadening of the basis of the struggle with new demands.
When the general class character of these attacks are taken into account, the fact that the struggle has
gained a political character that has rapidly become confrontational with the ruling classes and
bourgeois governments -even though it appears alongside economic or partially political demands-
gives greater responsibilities to revolutionary working class parties. This is because the formulation
of political demands and their unification with other demands of daily struggle are of particular
importance within the activities of revolutionary working class parties.
One of the most significant characteristics of trade union bureaucracy which is alienated from the
working class is the fact that it calms down the demands of the working class and keeps them at the
most backward level, and imposes its formulation of daily demands and forms of struggle upon the
working class. A typical example of this is the slogan " unity for jobs" of the DGB that was put
forward against redundancies and destruction of workplaces. This slogan does not clarify " against
whom and with whom" this unity will be. It is transformed into an instrument for calming down and
putting off with trumped up excuses, exploiting the demands of the working class. Revolutionary
working class parties, on the other hand, treat the demands and slogans of daily struggle as one of
the most important conditions for uniting the broadest sections of the working class and
strengthening their struggle.
In terms of this;
- In advanced countries the demands of struggle against reactionary laws designed to restrict the
already gained democratic rights and freedoms, demands against the intensification of oppression,
exploitation, threat and blackmail conducted against underdeveloped countries as a result of the
inter-imperialist rivalry, demands against the encouragement of fascist currents and the provocation
of xenophobia and nationalist prejudices have become particularly important.
-In underdeveloped countries, the conditions of dictatorship and the fact that the attacks are being
imposed by imperialism and the collaborationist ruling classes make it necessary to tie the demands
of daily struggle to anti-imperialist and democratic demands and to the demands against fascist terror
and dictatorship.
It is obvious that both the handling of these demands and their formulation, and the improvement of
the struggles that come out of these demands have to be some of the fundamental points of the
struggle between revolutionary working class parties and the bourgeois reformist and revisionist
currents who are trying to reposition themselves within the working class.
VI. The question of forms of organisation
One of the most significant destructive factors of bourgeois revisionist trade union bureaucracy for
over 40 years has been the bureaucratic and imposing line that is pursued in the forms of
organisation and struggle. This line which is restricted to bourgeois parliamentarism leads to the
destruction of the tradition of organisation and struggle and to lack of confidence.
Firstly, trade union democracy -pompous in form but without content- has been transformed into an
instrument for the enforcement of trade union bureaucracy.
Secondly, initiative in the factories and workplaces, which are the " source of life" of the
organisation and struggle skill of the working class, has been blunted. The line that has been
followed is designed to make the administrative organs of the unions, especially their centres, "
61
citadels that cannot be destroyed" . These organs and centres have enormous revenues and a social
position that has special acceptance in the bourgeois state mechanisms.
Thirdly, what has become dominant in terms of the forms of struggle is a line which serves the
oppression of the working class, being an element of parliamentarian jostling for position and
election campaigns with pompous parades (formal demonstrations) without content that are planned
according to anniversaries and calendar, and where the shows of the union bureaucracy are staged.
The struggles of the last few years have cracked the " citadels" of union bureaucracy and enabled the
working class to orientate rapidly towards their own historical collective experience and towards the
tradition of revolutionary struggle which is a product of this experience. Thus, it is among our most
important tasks to develop the forms of organisation and struggle such as street demonstrations,
strikes and general strikes which come out of this tradition, and which get their legitimacy and
power from factories and workplaces.
The essence of the tactic of revolutionary class parties in these terms lies in developing union
organisation, trade union democracy and the line of struggle in the factories and workplaces, in
developing active participation in the daily life and struggle of the working class, and developing
their initiative, their skills, self-confidence and courage. The revolutionary tradition of the working
class movement teaches us that the factories and workplaces should become " citadels" . In the
meantime, daily agitation within the broadest sections of the working class is of great importance in
such periods. This orientation only can strengthen the prospects of representing and developing a
certain trade union stance, even through our existing positions in trade union movement, and of
winning new positions. This is the basic condition for uniting with the fresh forces of the working
class and for renewing and consolidating our organisational bases.
VII. The question of alliances and administration
The question of alliances and administration has been one of the topics that was made confused in
the past, and still is one of the key problems of the trade union movement. Existing developments
give us concrete data and examples with which we can concretise our tactics.
Firstly, under the present conditions we can summarise the essence of our tactic-alliance policy in
trade union struggle as making alliances according to each concrete situation on the basis of a certain
platform. This platform should secure and encourage the development trend of the working class,
contribute to taking more advanced steps, and serve the unity of the broadest sections of the working
class. If we bear in mind the example of France where the advanced sections of the working class
have lost confidence not only in trade union bureaucracy but also in so-called " left" political parties,
it becomes clear that winning over the working class trust through our stance in the struggle is now
more important than ever.
Secondly, despite its different characteristics in each country, and no matter which current or party it
is part of, trade union bureaucracy is undergoing a deepening division, and its bases are shaking and
even collapsing. What has to be one of the basic aspects of our policy of alliances is to make
alliances deepening these divisions and unifying the working class on a more advanced line, and to
make ineffective the manoeuvres between trade union cliques which try to renew their platforms by
using the opportunities created by the existing situation.
Thirdly, what is going to determine the basis of the alliances with the " left" groups and currents will
obviously not be our ideological-theoretical evaluations about them or what they claim to be, but
concrete struggle platforms that meet the requirements and interests of the practical movement, and
their roles in practical struggle and their positions in each concrete situation.
62
The revolutionary tradition of the working class is plain and concrete about the union
administrations that have been " seized" by the union bureaucracy. The main criterion is the stance in
the struggle and the ability to sincerely represent the interests, initiative and experience of the
working class. For the revolutionary working class parties the fundamental question is not " the
seizure of trade union administrations" but " to deserve" getting elected as a result of their stance in
the struggle and of the line they represent. What is also fundamental is to participate in the formation
of union administrations in order to unite with the advanced sections of the working class and to
become prepared for more advanced struggles. In other words, the question is not the imposition of
the administration on the working class but, on the contrary, to deserve the trust of the working class.
VIII. The question of international unity of the trade union movement which is dragged into
national boundaries
The undermining of the international unity of the working class and burying it has been one of the
factors that has led to the limitation of the trade union movement to national boundaries in every
country, to the weakening of revolutionary working class consciousness and of their self-confidence,
and to the degeneration of moral values.
The period that the imperialist system entered into a few years ago, the general character of the
attacks conducted as a result of this period, and the similarity of the conditions and demands, have
sparked struggles in many countries, already repulsing many illusions and confusions, encouraging
each other in all countries, refreshing the consciousness of being an international class, and
strengthening the conditions for international solidarity. Concrete examples of solidarity have been
seen especially in Europe as a continent.
Obviously, due both to its bases in each individual country and the level of international
consciousness, organisation and struggle, the working class movement, despite all positive
developments, has not reached a stage that would rapidly enable unity on a trade union level.
Under the present conditions, among the main tasks of the day are the renewal of the trade union
movement in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the ruling classes, especially in the advanced
countries, and the development and consolidation of the consciousness in every country of belonging
to an international class.
Secondly, what has also become important in recent times is the undermining of the efforts of the
social democrat, " socialist" , trotskyist and old revisionist currents to take to their own side the
advanced sections of the working class in the face of the developments in the proletarian movement,
through so-called international platforms. The Marxist-Leninist parties have to defend their positions
wherever appropriate and required, and conduct a systematic fight against these non-working class
currents in the international initiatives where advanced workers are taking part in this or that way.
Thirdly, among the most important tasks is to intensify and renew our forces and energy to develop
and practise daily tactics and policies which would take into consideration the general characteristics
of the developments at international level, which would help the reorganisation of the trade union
movement, and which would meet the requirements of particular conditions in our individual
countries, linked to a set concrete tactical line.
To conclude, the fundamental condition for the international unity of the trade union movement is to
win positions and successes in the trade union activities of the working class against the bourgeoisie
and the ruling classes in our respective countries. Today, the prospect of achieving this is greater
than ever.
The main aim of the ideological struggle and of consciousness-raising activities within the trade
63
union movement is this: To master the collective experience and consciousness of working class
history, which is being undermined and distorted through illusions and confusions (these illusions
and confusions have already been repulsed to a certain extent by the developments in the struggle),
to enable it to direct the movement, to hasten the orientation towards Marxism-Leninism and
socialism, and to help it by raising the consciousness of its present actions.
Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)
64
Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists

Madrid, 20-22 June 1997
History of the Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists
On 20, 21 and 22 June in Madrid, the Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists took place.
These meetings which started in 1995 in Frankfurt, Germany, aim to open up the real possibility of
an exchange of analysis, information and experiences between trade unionists all over the world who
are struggling for the deepening and development of class based trade unionism.
That is why these experiences coming from within the heart of the trade union movement, from the
unrest of organised workers acquire an enormous importance. At the level of capital we cannot give
answers on the basis of isolation and lack of connection. On the contrary, it is necessary to extend
and co-ordinate the experience taken from the struggle of workers at the international level.
This is what the third Meeting concerned itself with, and it included in its participants trade unionists
from France, Turkey, Germany, Ecuador, Belgium and Spain. We must particularly mention the
participation of the general secretary of the Transport Workers Federation of the union TUMTIS
(Turkey, Sabri Topcu), of the Ecuadorian comrades from the Electrical Federation of the UGTE, and
of the trade union leader and deputy to the Ecuadorian Congress, Ernesto Estupiñan. Alongside
these there were affiliates and members of following unions: CC.OO (Spain), CGT (France), DGB
(Germany), etc.
Through the intervention of Angeles Maestro, deputy to the Congress for Left Unity, the opening of
the meeting was undertaken by comrade Valentin Ruiz, General Secretary of the CC.OO of post
office workers of Madrid, in the name of the organising commission of the third Meeting.
From this point there began an intense debate in the form of three commissions which dealt with,
respectively: the Maastricht Treaty and its consequences (in particular the privatisation of the public
sector and the destruction of social gains), the labour market (delocalisation, segmentation and
fragmentation of the labour market and the results of these), and class based trade unionism.
They followed a full and open debate among those present on the situation of each country with
respect to the themes proposed for discussion and the role of class conscious trade unionists.
However, more than this the third Meeting served to enable its participants to get to know each
other, to exchange points of view on the trade union struggle, and to establish ties which would
enable them to overcome the separation imposed by frontiers on a struggle which is basically the
same everywhere.
The conclusions here are a very brief summary of a fruitful debate which, in spite of the limitations
of time and language, dealt with very varied themes and allowed the participants to take the measure
of the present moment of the struggle in each country, the reality of the work of the class and our
immediate perspectives.
Without doubt, the unequal level of political, economic and social development, the specifics in the
forms of the exploitation by capital, indicate national differences in the work of trade unionists in
each country. But above this as was brought out again in the third meeting, we as workers have the
same enemy: Capital, against which our struggle is directed, and we have the same interests which
cross national borders.
65
In the workshops there was discussion about how the massive wave of strikes, in places as far apart
as France, South Korea and Latin America, show a revival of class based trade unionism,
confronting capital, which must be generalised. There was also discussion about the forms of labour,
the points of unity between the demands of workers of different countries, the role to be played by
meetings, etc. The slogan approved in the second meeting in Paris in 1996 "All together against
capital" and which in this third meeting it was agreed to generalised from, sums up also the spirit of
these three days of intense debate: The comradeship and brotherhood among workers, the
determination to unite voluntarily in defence of a class and political orientation toward the trade
union struggle. From this every effort was made to debate jointly on our common problems, to seek
points of agreement, to inform others and to learn about the work going on, to overcome in
conclusion our differences in order to advance together. And it is in this sense that in a special
manner the third meeting has been a success.
It has also taken another step forward on the road started in Frankfurt which will continue next year
with the fourth International Meeting of Trade Unionists which our comrades have agreed to
organise in France. Thus guaranteed continuity many participants have already begun to prepare
their participation, with even more energy, for the conference of next year.
At the end of the meeting our voices were united in singing the hymn of struggle of the workers. To
hear the International, sung in different tongues was a final symbol of our joint determination.
Conclusions of the commission on the labour market:
Participants from Spain, France, Germany and Turkey. Professional sectors represented were: Trade,
health, public administration, teaching, building work, hotel work, and metallurgy (of cars, of
copper, of machines and of cables).
Discussion began with the general presentation, and the situation of the labour market in every
country was set out for debate. It was agreed that there exist great similarities, even though with
various levels of development, in various defined processes:
- A significant increase in unemployment,

- A gradual casualisation of labour: Increased flexibility of the labour market, and use of temporary
contracts...
- An increase in the pressure on the workers, making them more ready to accept a worsening of their
conditions of work because of the necessity of obtaining employment.
- On the other hand, continuing increase in the profits of companies.
- The alliance of the bosses with governments of whatever complexion and the support of trade
union leaderships for this alliance (the signing in Spain of the recent Labour Reform).
- Workers are paying cost of the consequences of the Maastricht Treaty. In every country a struggle
is beginning against these consequences.
Against casualisation it is necessary to develop solidarity among workers (whether permanent or

casual).
Equal pay for equal work: For the same work the same rights. An example was given of the
subcontractors whose conditions of work are worse; the special situation of women workers who
suffer to a greater degree the problems of part-time work... We think that the improvement of the
conditions of labour does not generate unemployment but rather the opposite. It is necessary for us
to find working class demands which unify the interests of the class and allow it to struggle against
the artificial divisions created by capital.
66
Against flexibility of the labour market and of working time.
For reduction in the hours of work without loss of wages and without a speeding up of production.
We demand job creation to overcome unemployment and casual labour. This implies:
- Rejection of overtime
- Lowering of the pensionable age
- Guaranteeing work for the young at the end of their education
- Security of employment
- Rejection of piece-work (wages related to production).
Against delocalisation of production . We think this generates chauvinism, nationalism and racism. It
is part of the capitalist strategy of developing competition among workers. It is not only an economic
problem (the search for new markets and for the cheapest labour...). It is also political problem
which the system uses in order to divide the workers and to disorganise their struggle. We must
develop class solidarity among different groups of workers.
As a comrade in the workshop pointed out: "The working class must organise itself on a world scale
as does the capitalist class". We may sum this up in the slogan "All together against capital".
Conclusions of the Worksop on the Maastricht Treaty, Privatisation and the

attack on social welfare:
In this workshop an analysis was made of the means of application and the consequences of the
policies imposed by the Maastricht Treaty.
It is clear that this policy is unfolding essentially in the same way independently of country or
government, whether they be conservative or social democratic. There has been no variation in the
application of these policies through the changes of government which have occurred in Spain,
England, or more recently in France. That is because it is a part of the change of tactics of
capitalism, which shows itself in a resurgence of neoliberalism, whose sole objective is the increase
of private profit at the cost of the rights of workers.
We have seen that there does not exist everywhere a clear understanding or mobilisation against
Maastricht, however there has been a development of the struggles of workers against the
consequences of its application.
There are important advances in the movement shown in different manifestations: Advances in the
capacity for initiative of the mass movement, an aim towards unity among all the victims of this
process, a search for new forms of struggle and the radicalisation of some of these (the occupation of
businesses, the kidnapping of bosses...); some of these struggles have pushed the trade union leaders
to the margins or to direct confrontation with the workers; in France and Germany in particular the
social movement has gained autonomy in the definition of its aims and in the direction of the
struggle.
It is clear that the official unions support the Maastricht Treaty. in Spain the trade union leadership
are signing social pacts against the workers; because of this the struggle inside the CC.OO is
sharpening.
In the Second International Meeting of Trade Unionists in Argenteui, France, we analysed our work
and we adopted the slogan "All together against capital". This slogan has proved itself to be right
67
and has been used in important international mobilisations, as in Lyon, Brussels, and in
demonstrations in every country. The analysis we have undertaken has enabled us to see its positive
results to understand concrete experiences and the difficulties we have met with.
Exchanges have been made between factories belonging to the same company (Wolkswagen in
Germany, Belgium and Turkey, or in the making of cables in Stuttgart and France) which has
allowed us to put an end to attempts at division and blackmail between workers of different
countries.
The sending of messages to the struggle, as for example to the health workers in France,
demonstrated solidarity and contributed to the debate and to the raising of the consciousness of the
workers in struggle.
Participation in the international meetings of Trade Unionists has allowed us to develop in our daily
work, our international awareness, thanks to the making of concrete international contacts. It is
necessary to allow the widest possible participation of trade unionists in the messages of support sent
through the movement.
The mobilisations in this year have raised the level of consciousness and have improved the position
of trade unionists within the trade union movement and among the masses.
Recognising our experiences and analysing the needs arising from them, we propose the following
points:
1. To continue the development of solidarity with concrete struggles

2. To spread across different branches of each sector, the experiences of struggle in every country
3. To develop more fully and in a permanent form the contacts made between trade unionist in every
country
4. To take efficient measures to organise the wide-spread understanding of the various struggles and
experiences at the international level
5. To reaffirm our solidarity with the struggle of the Liverpool dockers, by means of messages,
financial support and helping them to meet workers of other countries.
Conclusions of the workshop on class based trade unionism:

There are differences in the objective situation in the various countries and in the level of
development and co-ordination of the various manifestations of class based trade unionism. But
above all this there shows itself a common desire to develop class struggle and a common will to
build international solidarity.
- What is necessary is the renewal of trade unionism among the workers and the importance, in this
sense of work for the unity of the class inside the unions which organise the mass of workers.
On the other hand, the mobilisations of November-December 1995 in France show evidence of the
increase in autonomy of the working class, which tells us that the workers movement is wider than
the trade union movement.
- In the particular case of Spain the battle developing inside the CC.OO has thrown into relief the
relationship between the struggle for the development of alternative class unions and the political
struggle on the left.
- It is necessary to increase the effort to develop trade unionism if it is possible on the international
level.
68
- There is also posed the necessity of perfecting the means of methods of information and exchange
of experiences, aimed at co-ordinating our common work.
- It was agreed to make an effort to generalise the slogan "All together against capital" because this
sums up the united political and class character of our struggle.
- The publication was proposed of a document summing up the discussion in the workshop and the
situation in each country, as briefly as possible.
- Finally, it was agreed that in the workshop there had been very wide exchange of opinions among
rank and file trade unionists, cadres and trade union leaders, and that this has contributed to facilitate
getting to know each other and open discussion.
This discussion on a democratic basis and on an equal footing among comrades with different trade
union responsibilities, is a special characteristic of class based trade unionists which enriches our
meetings.
Texts taken from Octubre, organ of the October Communist Organisation of Spain, No:37, July
1997.
69
Revolutionary declaration from the Middle of the World
The First International Seminar:

"Problems of the Revolution in Latin America"
As we approach the third millennium, in Latin America we see the convergence and exacerbation of
the great contradictions of today's world.
I. Latin America is taking the brunt of the great general crisis of the capitalist system.
Finance capital, the big monopolies, imperialism, principally North American imperialism are
sinking their claws into Latin American peoples and nations, robbing them of their natural resources,
exploiting the workers, oppressing the masses, and sowing despair and misery. They are the cause
and the beneficiaries of the crisis, they are responsible for the generalised unemployment, hunger
and poverty.
The imposition of the policies of neoliberalism through the dictates of the IMF, the World Bank and
World Trade Organisation, through the decisions of the OAS, through the orders of the Pentagon and
of the State Department of the USA, have aggravated even further the situation of the masses and the
dependency of the Latin American countries.
Neoliberalism is a policy of finance capital which attempts to resolve in its own favour the general
crisis of the capitalist system. Its application in Latin America and in every country, instead of
resolving the crisis, has contributed to its intensification, increasing the super exploitation of the
workers and the people, and strengthening the chains of dependence. For the popular masses
neoliberalism is synonymous with unemployment, misery, the denial of trade union and political
rights, the privatisation of education, of health, of transport and other public services; and with the
imposition of authoritarian and repressive regimes. For the Latin American countries neoliberalism
means de-industrialisation, the massive destruction of the productive forces, the de-nationalisation of
the economy, the imposition of the free market by the international monopolies and customs and
trade restrictions on production in the markets of the imperialist countries.
Neoliberalism, introduced by the monopolies, as a magic recipe to resolve the crisis, as a measure to
overcome the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, is turning against its own agents, against the
monopolies and pulling them even deeper into the claws of the crisis. The great expansion and
concentration of capital launched by the big transnationals contains a high component of speculative
capital which upsets the system, which expands the monetary bubble, which punishes the workers
and the people, but which at the same time threatens those same monopolies with the possibility of a
new explosion.
The great monopolist expansion and concentration, the collapse of "real socialism", and of social
imperialism, which rivalled North American imperialism; the appearance of neoliberalism and the
technical scientific revolution have come together in a single capitalist market, and in the
globalisation of today's world. Globalisation, its validity and its theory, have made evident more than
ever the internationalisation of capital, its claws and its policies. At the same time the monopolies
announce the disappearance of national sovereignty of the dependent countries, while those
countries run to the imperialist states and to regional coalitions in order to defend their interests.
These changes also make evident, with greater force than before, the international character of the
working class, and the need for unity and co-ordination in the struggle of the workers and people.
70
II. The imposition of neoliberalism, in the various Latin American countries, has followed various
mechanisms and paths and nowhere has it had a level road. The proletariat and other sections of
workers, youth and students have resisted, have supported those fighting and have suffered
temporary defeats. Capital cannot destroy labour power which is the prime factor in accumulation,
for the extraction of surplus value. Nowhere has capital been able to terminate the militant and
revolutionary character of the proletariat and other sections of workers, or to destroy the rebellious
spirit of the youth. Everywhere the masses are rising and fighting, to begin with, in the resistance,
but they are going forward and sooner rather than later they will move in a generalised way to the
counter offensive.
The contradiction between the social character of production and private ownership of the wealth
created, between labour and capital, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is shaking the Latin
American continent, expressing itself vigorously in every country, and showing again the historical
role of the working class and its nature as the leading class in the process of social emancipation.
Neither the vicious dictatorships, nor the fallacies of the social democratic regimes, nor
neoliberalism, nor the consequences of scientific technical revolution, nor the anti-communist
offensive have robbed the proletariat of its nature. On the contrary, they have reaffirmed its class
character which is at the centre of our epoch, as the creator of wealth and having the qualities of the
progressive and revolutionary class.
These claims are not just a repeated dogma, rather they are demonstrated in facts: In the resistance of
the workers and people against the policies of monetarism in the great street battles which have
taken place in almost every Latin American capital and city, in the general strikes, in the public
sector stoppages of work, in the uprisings of the native peoples and peasants, in the struggles of
youth and students, in the persistence of the armed revolutionary struggle, and in the defeat of the
neoliberal government of Bucaran by the popular Ecuadorian masses.
III. Neoliberalism, as we have shown, at the same time that it strengthens the chains of wage slavery
and widens the bridge which is between rich and poor, between exploiters and exploited, and
between capital and labour, reaffirms the dependency of Latin American countries.
The great imperialist powers, especially North American imperialism, hold thousands of threads by
which they sustain their economic domination and as a consequence the imposition of their
expansionist policies on the peoples and countries of Latin America. The North American
monopolies have established the backyard of their imperialism in Latin America.
Globalisation, information and communication systems reinforce this dependence, and they signify a
process of re-colonisation supported strongly by the big monopolies. The Latin American and
Caribbean peoples and nations are not passive in relation to this; they are resisting and struggling
against the impositions from outside and against the burden of the external debt; they oppose the
robbing of their natural resources and the economic adjustments and impositions of the international
bodies attacking their cultural inheritance.
In Latin America we see expressed another of the great contradictions of our times, one which
opposes the oppressed peoples and nations against imperialist domination.
Awareness of and rejection of foreign domination is growing, ties of unity between the Latin
American people are developing, forums and debates around the unification of the forces for
liberation are multiplying, popular actions are uniting and gaining strength around the issues of
democracy and defence of national sovereignty and against exploitation and oppression by the
indigenous bourgeoisies.
71
IV. The big Latin American bourgeoisies and the land owning oligarchies have demonstrated, even
more clearly than before, their treacherous character, their nature as members and lackeys of
imperialist domination. It is through them that the domination by the monopolies is made possible.
They are directly responsible for the imposition of neoliberalism. They are accomplices in the
imperialist robbery, they are protagonists in the so-called modernisation and in the privatisation of
strategic areas of the economy and of public services, in the attack on social benefits, and in the
restriction or elimination of social security.
The Latin American oligarchies form part of the international monopolist groups, they constitute
cartels at the national level and in consequence have differences and contradictions with other
sections of the bourgeoisie. This cannot be denied, it is expressed in the political and economic
struggle taking place between themselves. Nevertheless, in general they are united in the turn to
neoliberalism and to globalisation. All of them try to become a part of the globalised world. Their
ideas are based on modernisation and the alienation of national sovereignty. They argue among
themselves under the imperialist umbrella. It has been a long time since they lost their national and
progressive character and transformed themselves into a support for foreign domination.
This situation reaffirms the Marxist-Leninist conception that the bourgeoisie is incapable in leading
the struggle against imperialist domination, for the defence of sovereignty and national
independence.
The great responsibility for the struggle for national independence and against imperialism belongs
to the working class and the people. The struggle of the peoples of Latin America for social
progress, for liberty and democracy, for full national independence, is the struggle for social and
national liberation and for anti-imperialist and democratic revolution in an uninterrupted march
towards socialism.
If any sector of the big bourgeoisie, in certain conditions, assumes nationalist positions, this is really
about attempting to blackmail the monopolies, with the aim of re-negotiating dependence, or it is to
do with positions manipulated by other imperialist powers in their inter-monopolist disputes; they
are manifestations which aim to manipulate the masses with patriotic demands in order to use these
for their own benefit.
We as revolutionaries do not play games with these positions. We are certain that the people with the
working class at its head will lead the struggle for national liberation. We must not lose sight,
however, of the need to take into account the inter-bourgeois contradictions, we must work to
develop a correct political line of agreements and compromises in order to take advantage of these
contradictions in the process of accumulating revolutionary forces.
V. It is the big North American monopolies which maintain hegemony in the domination of the
countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Nevertheless, the inheritance of the Canadian and
European monopolies, of the German, English, French, Russian, and the advances of Japanese
finance capital, have made of Latin America, above all in the last few years, an area of dispute for
hegemony, for markets, and for zones of influence.
This signifies that in our continent there is expressed very sharply, in spite of globalisation, or rather
because of it, the inter-imperialist and inter-monopolist contradiction which characterises the epoch
of imperialism and of sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism.
VI. The ebb of revolutionary struggle, the reverses of the proletariat, the revolution and socialism
which have taken place in recent times do not signify the definite defeat of socialism and
communism.
72
When the Wall and "real socialism" collapsed, this did not mean the collapse of socialism and
revolution, but rather the collapse of revisionism and social democracy. The reformists and the
opportunists fell down the cliff.
But certainly, these events have sown confusion, lack of direction and even demoralisation in the
struggle of the proletariat and the people. Not a few of the leftists and revolutionaries lowered their
flags. The attacks against the communist Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organisations and parties
had an effect and contributed to their dispersion, in some cases to their disappearances, and
weakened them. At present in every country at different levels the revolutionary forces and the
communist Marxist-Leninist formations are regrouping, they are licking their wounds, they are
beginning again their fight for revolution and socialism.
Socialism, in spite of imperialism and of reaction and over and above the opportunists and
revisionists, still lives. It is the direction for the working class, it is the only true alternative to
capitalism.
This means that the contradiction between capitalism and socialism, between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie in the present and for future is still valid, and is one of the great contradictions of our
time. This reaffirms for us that we live in the epoch of imperialism and of proletarian revolution.
This situation poses the necessity that we as revolutionaries work to unite the great torrents of the
international revolution: the proletariat of the capitalist countries and the anti-imperialist movement
of the workers and peoples of the dependent countries.
VII. The fundamental contradictions of the epoch of imperialism reaffirm the thesis that the true
change is revolution, and that only socialism can put an end to capitalist domination and
exploitation. The setback suffered by the proletariat tells us only that the fight is hard, tough, that it
is necessary to correct mistakes, to overcome difficulties, to develop revolutionary thought, Marxist-
Leninist theory, that it demands the regroupment of our forces and the readiness to fight with more
determination.
The history of social revolution, the great victories of the proletariat achieved in this century, the
great leaps forward in society on the part of workers for humanity, even including the great defeats
of the working class and of socialism, signify only that the struggle continues.
VIII. Cuba straightens up victorious, resisting the imperialistic blockade; the workers and the people
are defending the achievements of revolution, they fortify themselves in defence of national
independence, joining the forces against the imperialistic offensive.
For the workers and peoples of the world, and especially for the Latin American masses, for the
patriots and revolutionaries, for the communists, the defence of Cuba is a right and an
internationalist duty, and we dedicate a part of our pre-occupations and activities to this
responsibility.
IX. The armed revolutionary fight is valid in Latin America, in spite of the collapses and declines of
different processes, despite the betrayal and surrender by certain groups.
In all countries, the workers and especially the youth are willing to assume new levels in political
confrontation; in the streets, the oppressive forces receive a militant response which opens the
perspectives for insurgent processes.
X. The imperialistic domination reinforces itself on the basis of new technilogical resources of
communication, by cultural interference, by submission of the national and peoples' cultures of the
73
Latin American countries. The ideology of imperialism and of the big bourgeoisie is erected as
dominant in all spheres. We, the revolutionaries, must make efforts for the working masses and the
youth, the Indian nationalities and peoples defending the progressive character of their cultures. We
are obliged to develop a new, democratic, progressive and revolutionary culture we can oppose to
the reactionary and decadent culture of imperialism, to postmodernism, we are obliged to develop a
culture which, with its ideas, gives impulses to organising the masses and to their fight for social and
national revolution.
XI. We, the parties and organisations of the revolutionary left who invited to this First Seminar
"Problems of Revolution in Latin America", repeat our determination to continue the fight against
capital and imperialism, in defence of the sovereignty and for the social emancipation of the working
masses.
We are sure that the resumption of the social and revolutionary fight which is running through all
Latin American countries will increase, will turn into a progress of the fight of the masses, into a
new revolutionary torrent. We prepare our forces for contributing in such direction with more
dedication.
The fact that the social movements are beginning to take effects, the revival of the Indian peoples
and nations, their integration within the social and national fight, its advances, its partial victories, its
difficulties have their strongest and most consequent force in the social movement of the workers, in
the proletariat.
The working class continues being situated in the centre of the epoch of imperialism, it is the class
which is best fitted out for the fight, for fulfilling its historical role of leadership in social revolution.
"Without revolutionary theory, there is no revolutionary movement." The facts have fully confirmed
the above thesis of Lenin. The working masses, the youth, the peoples have the needs and reasons
for the fight and they realize it with bravery. In order that such fights have a secure line, that they
flock together in social revolution, that they fulfill their role of bringing about the downfall of
imperialism, they need to be led by the revolutionary party of the proletariat.
We, the revolutionary parties of the proletariat, made mistakes, were often wrong, suffered declines
in some cases, but we have not been destroyed. We are based on the principles of marxism-leninism,
on the knowledge of the economic and social reality where we are working, we are correcting our
mistakes and resuming the revolutionary fight. Present and future of revolution in Latin America and
of its socialist development will be secured to the extent to which the working masses and the
revolutionary parties of the proletariat, the communist parties will strengthen and fight consequently.
The revolutionary party of proletariat is not separated from other revolutionary organisations. On the
contrary, with its members it contributes to the great unity of the people's forces, of the leftists' and
revolutionary organisations which are active in Latin America; it is a part of the anti-imperialistic
forces, of the fighters for social and national liberation.
For us, there is no discussion about vigour or not of revolution. We know that revolution is an asked
question, that it is the task of the present generations, and we avail ourselves of our determination to
organise it.
For us, "revolution does not come into being, it is organised." The task of organising it is not easy,
we are faced with problems, with old and new questions. In order to discuss such problems, to find
answers and to co-ordinate activities, we invited to this Seminar. The organising of revolution
74
requires the readiness of the working class and the peoples, of the proletarian revolutionaries to think
revolution, to plan it and to realize it.
The results of these first debates stimulate us, they strengthen our capabilities of frank and open
discussion, they open us new perspectives, they face us with new questions.
We propose the continuing survival of this instance, of this tribune of the revolutionary left. We call
for a repeat and invite all organisations of the continent which are obliged to the matter of
revolution, to the anti-imperialistic fight, to participate in it.
75

Unity &amp; Struggle No 05

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Unity &amp; Struggle No 05

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UNITY & STRUGGLE

Unity & Struggle

Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists

Revolutionary Declaration from the Middle of the World

Introduction to the debate on unity of opposites and the work

Therefore, it is necessary to study also secondary contradictions in order not to be reductionist in

The EPL has a revolutionary mission to fulfil

The EPL must not lower its banners

- It remains present in the actual situation of the country;

- The complete conviction that what we are doing is right;

Fearless in confronting changes

The changes must favour revolutionary aims

The EPL is capable of winning

- To reassess our forces seeking primarily to establish our strength in numbers;

Fighting together, we will win!

The anti-imperialist struggle today

An evaluation of the technological advances as an indication and result of a higher stage of

Moreover the destruction of national states by neo-liberalism is expressed oncretely in the

domination about international drug-trafficking, the environment, international migration and

Has the epoch changed?

Are we perhaps living in a different epoch than that of capitalist domination?

Letter from the CC of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party

It is clear that we do not advocate an agrarian or peasant revolution in Colombia, however, we do

The organisation of the revolution demands from communists a permanent revolutionarisation. We

CC of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador

The work of the party within the working class

Acting with the advanced members of the working class

The political leadership

The importance of the ideological work

The trade union task

"All together against capital"

Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF)

1) In "Que faire?", book 5, Editions of progress, 1965, p.382

The Program of Social Democracy in Mexico

The Democratization of the State and of Society

Free and impartial elections

2. The Reform of the State and the “new” constitutionalism

3. Society and democracy

They tell us that “Democratization is a cultural phenomenon.”

Communist Party of Mexico (M-L)

On the struggle in the unions

Communist Organisation October of Spain

On the struggle in the unions

Communist Organisation October of Spain

THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT AND THE PROBLEMS OF TRADE UNION

ideological destruction that led to deep and long-standing consequences.

II. The characteristics of the period we live in

A. Advanced capitalist countries

B. Former Soviet Union and other "socialist" countries of Eastern Bloc

V. The question regarding the demands of daily struggle

VI. The question of forms of organisation

VII. The question of alliances and administration

Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP)

Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists

History of the Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists

Conclusions of the commission on the labour market:

- A significant increase in unemployment,

Against casualisation it is necessary to develop solidarity among workers (whether permanent or

Against flexibility of the labour market and of working time.

Conclusions of the Worksop on the Maastricht Treaty, Privatisation and the

1. To continue the development of solidarity with concrete struggles

Conclusions of the workshop on class based trade unionism:

Revolutionary declaration from the Middle of the World

The First International Seminar:

Unity & Struggle No 05

Unity & Struggle No 05