www.icsbrussels.org , ics[at]icsbrussels.org

Revolutionary Communist Party (PCR), Spain

The proletarian Revolutionary Party and the present tasks of the communists

September 11th has been an excuse for the most reactionary sectors of north-american capitalism, represented by Bush Administration, to start a political and military offensive so as to finish incorporating under its domain those geostrategic places of the world which were not controlled in its whole. So, a new chapter of the history of this yankee period of "unipolar (one side) hegemony" has been opened. However, this "new chapter" is not at all a surprise, as it was not necessary to be too clever to guess we would arrive at this point when this particular period started. This "new world order" or "globalization" of the imperialist phase of capitalism after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the post-war era of world equilibrium between great the powers was broken and the United States remained its unique winner and the only military power. But this huge militarism is new to nobody, as imperialism has provoked two World Wars with millions and millions of deaths.

We are not, therefore, under a question of the present situation, but under a problem with a great historical meaning. It is not today’s militarism, not either today’s wars, but the innate militarism and warmongering of the present economic system. Lenin taught us that imperialism is a mature capitalism, and that only destroying capitalism we can talk seriously about finishing with wars: the Proletarian Revolution can only finish with the imperialist war. Let’s talk about stopping war, yes; so, let’s talk about the Proletarian Revolution and the tasks we need.

The first task: the balance of the revolution

In the summer of 1917, with the Russian Revolution uprising, and the imperialist war at its top, Lenin hidden in an isolated place near the frontier of Finland, did the general balance of the International Proletarian class struggle, and its political experience, with the aim of defining the theoretical basis to assault the tasks of the next socialist revolution that was near to start in Russia.

Far away with the direct contact of the day to day happenings in Petrograd, due to needs of personal security because of the political repression of the bourgeois government after the happenings in July, Lenin took benefit of this situation to take certain distance about the daily happenings related with the revolution and think about the necessary ideological starting point that the proletarian vanguard should take if it wanted to rule with success the huge emancipatory enterprise that the working class should assume. As everybody knows the fruits of these thoughts was his book The State and the Revolution, a genius synthesis bases on Marx and Engels’s fundaments and thesis about the ideological and political development achieved by proletarians in their experience along the XIX century on one hand, and on the other hand, something really important that should inspire all communists from the beginnings of XXI century: a reconsideration of the proletarian politics and its principles, that are raised to a highly qualitative level comparing to the place the international social-democracy had situated them.

In The State and the Revolution, Lenin resumes the ideological achievements of the proletarian class, being Marx and Lenin their privilege writers, these are the most important incidents of the history of proletarian struggle happened during the XIX century, the Revolution in 1848 and the Paris Commune. The balance Lenin did about the ideological development of the working class has its most important point in the proletarian theory of the State, and from this perspective the bolshevik master synthetises the progresses of the proletarian doctrine through the new elements that are being introduced little by little from Marx and Engels thoughts about the practical experience of the proletarian class.

In Lenin’s rich experience as revolutionary master, two different types of problems have been the main ones, trying to summarise it, problems that we could say join all kinds of political and theoretical questions on which Lenin worked on and all the meanings of all the debates in which he took part. Both problems are the ones related to the theory of the proletarian vanguard Party and the ones related to the proletarian theory of the State. Well, at the moment of the general balance previous to the revolutionary assault, Lenin chooses the marxist theory of the State as the most important matter to "actualise" the revolutionary theory. In The State and the Revolution, the bolshevik master analyses the relation between the Proletarian Revolution and the State, and he abstracts this matter to much from another political institution that even the Party disappears from his analysis. In the State and the Revolution, all the aspects related to the problems of the State in the marxist point of view are so defined to the detail that the other aspect, the Revolution, the revolutionary movement, is taken for granted, gravitating along the whole book in an abstract way, as something given and understood. And the revolution in abstract does not need Party. This subject –to do abstraction of the Party- is really odd and curious being the big leader of the building of the proletarian vanguard party, and who is a great theoretician, so some people with bad intentions have even asserted that The State and the Revolution is Lenin’s anarchist book. But if Lenin does not mention the Party in this important book, he expressly talks about the proletarian class as revolutionary class in active. And a good understanding of a leninist conception of the Party allows us to thinks that even in abstracto, Lenin presumes the presence of the Party through that revolutionary proletarian class, precisely as revolutionary proletarian class, and at this point he stops in his analysis, leaving it as an "independent factor," because what he pretends is to examine in detail the question of the State.

Anyway, this silence will bring itself, that the leninist theory of the Party was never exposed in a systemised way by its author, and this will bring at the same time, important ideological and political consequences. Although all these fundamental elements of that theory were already formulated before 1917. The fact that all of them were not never showed in an organised manner, but only as a result of the following debates originated by different reasons, worsened the understanding of its internal coherence as theory, and therefore its orientation aim in the building of the bolshevik party, and even more, of the communists parties that came afterwards under its inspiration. So, in this way, while the theory of the marxist State had its own life and universal patent, the marxist theory of the revolutionary working Party, better said, the theory of the Party that the Russian marxists elaborated, the bolshevik theory of the Party, seemed to have a limited radius, only related to the peculiarities of the history, politics and society of Russia.

From the vanguard party to party of masses

The one who tried to synthetise and systemise the leninist theory of the Party to give its universal value was Stalin, in his famous Fundaments of Leninism, who wrote it a few months later after Lenin’s death. When Stalin resumes the leninist conception of the Party, even though the bolshevik Party has already approached a lot in the direction of becoming a party of masses. Probably, this contibuted that the stalinian tesis about the Party aims to give the most important part to the organizative aspect mainly because the political and ideological even if they do not subordinate themselves, both of them are supposed, so, in a certain way, seemed to be split or separated from the organization, so this last one gains importance, to that point that "to talk about the party", means in practice - and Stalin begins with this practice- to talk about its organization.

In his Fundaments, Stalin describes the leninist Party through half a dozen of "particularities", and in a great part had quite a lot of Lenin’s descriptions about his idea of the Revolutionary Party; but as they are not enough in its whole, and as he misunderstands in particular matters the truly sense of leninism in some concepts, so they finish as a deformed representation of the theory of the Party. This deformation, was accompanied by the progressive process of massification of the soviet party, so all this will further the real leninist spirit.

Stalin defines the Party as "detachment of vanguard" and "organised detachment of the working class", as the "highest form of proletarian organization", and "as instrument of the proletarian dictatorship". These are the essential characteristics of stalinian views of the leninist party we are going to give importance to.

As you can see, the "organization" is the most important matter in the first formulations that are fixed as essential ideas. But the organizative issue is not, at all, the main thing to take into account in the configuration of the proletarian party of new type. Stalin’s organicist definition impels us to see what gives its truly historical and political meaning, that the Party is, in Lenin‘ s words, the product of the link of scientifical socialism with the working movement, or if you want the link of the revolutionary vanguard with the masses. The question about the way or the ways, that adopt this link (fusion), in the organizative field is secondary; the principal is "the link" as it is, that put forward the ideological and political aspects of the relations of the vanguard with the rest of the class. To start with, Stalin reverse the position of the truly relation ideology-organization, on which the Party should hold, when he puts the organizative matters forward.

In a second place, we have to say that is really inexact to say that the Party is "the detachment of vanguard of the working class". In the debates Lenin had with the economists and mensheviks, the question to solve was if the working party that was being built in Russia should be a masses party as the mensheviks wished or vanguard party as Lenin wished. Therefore, it is not that party has to be "the detachment of vanguard" of the working class, but that this one has its own vanguard party. The difference is that to talk about the "detachment of vanguard" aims only to talk about the organization of the vanguard of the class, and identify it with the Party, as if only this organizative matter was enough to build the Party. But we have already said that the vanguard, no matter how organised it is, could no build itself in a leninist party if it does not join with the movement of masses, if it does not bring the revolutionary ideology to the masses, so they can be part of the movement, and transforms itself in a revolutionary movement. It is not enough that the vanguard organises itself from the revolutionary ideology or vanguard ideology as Stalin says, it has to be able to "join the revolutionary tasks with the working class to form a whole one, as Lenin formulated in his book What to do? And that "whole one", which is something higher to its constitutive elements, the organization of the vanguard and the masses movement is not but the leninist party of the new type. To talk about this Party, therefore, means to refer to the ways and the necessary instruments to achieve the join of "detachment of vanguard" with the spontaneous movement of the masses; to talk only about the Party as "detachment of vanguard" supposes to separate this constitutive elements of the Party and to open the door, at a long term, to an organizative and dogmatic vision, not dialectic.

On a third place, and after a general formulation which can feed an organizative deviation in the concept of the Party, we add the following definition on which the Party is "the organised detachment of the class", so after this, the door is completely opened to this type of deviation. And it is not that this formulation is wrong itself; it is true the Party is "the sum of all its organizations" and the "unique system of theses organizations" as Stalin adds using Lenin’s ideas. The mistake consists on insisting on the organization, and only on this one, so it aims to defend the thesis that the type of links and relations that mainly describe the Party have an organic character and, on top from this, internal character; but, really, it means the whole of ideological and political links and relations, given inside the "detachment of vanguard", when as a matter of fact it means the joint of ideological and political links and relations (links and relations generated from conscience: we must not forget the relations based on organization are always a product of spontaneity) between the vanguard and the masses, links and relations which crystallize in many ways. So it make us think about the building of the Party, as an "external" way of the vanguard, "outside" to the vanguard; therefore, transforming the movement of masses into revolutionary organization from the conscious political activity of the "detachment of vanguard".

In this sense, it is important to confront the idea of Party as revolutionary organization, as is deduced from Stalin‘s ideas, with the idea of Party as revolutionary movement which is truly its leninist spirit. At this point a very important role is played by the leninist thesis about the historical split of the working class movement in two wings, a reformist and counterrevolutionary and another revolutionary one. The peculiarity of the modern working movement, which with the First World War is general, but in Russia, pioneer in the fight of split of Revolutionary marxism against oportunism which lasted from 1905 and 1912, completely determines the question of the Party in a qualitative sense. When Stalin explains what he understands by the third "particularity" of the leninist party, the "higher form of proletariat’s organization" refers essentially to the political leading of working class by that party. Therefore, the "highest form of proletarian’s organization" is determined by the political place the Party stands -the "central organization" as Stalin says-, in relation with the rest of working organizations and Stalin defines them as "non-party" organizations. The "highest form", then is the one which has the capacity of centralising "in the same direction" proletariat’s battles. It is a functional decision, "quantitative", and not "ideological", "qualitative", that is the most important issue for Stalin about the leninist type of Party. It is not its revolutionary nature, but the possibility to manage, to guide, as Stalin says, so only "the necessary experience" and "the necessary prestige" is needed. The ideological problem, therefore does not exist; the problem of the revolutionary or counter-revolutionary character of that political guide is secondary.

Stalin omits ideology to such a point, the problem of "who guides", so the theory of Party goes back to the II International. So this allows him to describe an idyllic class struggle where the Party struggles with "non-party" masses and "non-party" working organizations. Lenin in 1907 criticised the mensheviks, as they separate between social-democratic (marxist) conscience and "independent" class conscience, "non-party", when Lenin explains that only the working organizations based on social-democrat (revolutionary) spirit and the ones politically and organically attached to the revolutionary party were "independent". Therefore, there are not "non-party" working organizations; or either they are attached to revolution or they are bourgeois working organizations attached to the political direction of capital. It is silly to say that "all and each one of non-party working organizations [on which the Party has influence] are auxiliary organizations and transmissions that joins the Party with the class". The subsidiary organizations and transmissions if they are revolutionary will be attached to the vanguard, and therefore a part of the Party, of that "unique system" of all organizations part of the Party. On one hand it is not possible to talk simultaneously and separately that the Pary is constitued by "a sum of organizations", and on the other hand a group of organizations that do all the masses work of the Party but they are not part of it. The chinese wall of Stalin’s organizative point of view obbeys him to separate between revolutionary organizations and another ones impels the correct understanding of the nature of proletarian revolutionary party. Lenin insisted a lot in dividing and establishing chinese walls between the revolutionary working movement and bourgeois working movement, that’s why he was always debating with opportunists (mensheviks, above all), but never wanted that chinese walls were built inside the revolutionary working movement. What Lenin pretended was to organise everything under the leadership of the revolutionary vanguard. That task is not other than building the Party.

The Party is, therefore, the organised revolutionary working movement, constitued by the vanguard (organised through the proletarian ideology, the marxism-leninism) and a whole system of connections and joints between this one and the masses (organised through the politics of vanguard), which join them in an unique and superior whole. The Party is the "highest form of organization of working class", not only because it occupies the vanguard position in respect to other working organizations, but because it is its way of revolutionary organization. In the Communist Manifiesto, Marx and Engels defined the Party as another working organization,and it only differed to the other ones because it had a clear vision of the whole results of proletarian movement. This was the only thing on which the vanguard character consisted. The communists were part of the working movement, although the political circumstances situated it on its head. The II International addopted this model of the party of masses and Stalin came back to it although giving importance to the elements as an advanced group (guiding group). Lenin really contributed understanding the necessary transformation of working party of the masses in peaceful development of capitalism in a higher form of working party, the revolutionary working party, the vanguard party for the proletarian class in imperialism times, the times of socialism revolution and proletarian dictatorship. Or expressed on other terms, Lenin understood the historical transformation in the ways of development of working movement. If in capitalism of concurrence times there was a development, let’say "homogenous", of the growing conscious of class thanks to the accumulation of fights against bourgeoisie, nowadays, in imperialist times, the internal split of working movement impels that from the quantitative accumulation of spontaneous class fights comes the revolutionary conscience: a split with the former form of movement is necessary so as to organise it from the conscience. Therefore, the class conscience will be revolutionary conscience, as the economic, spontaneous, conscience is inside the bourgeois field (the same as the old way of organization of working class movement) and it only serves its own interests. The proletarian movement is a revolutionary movement that organises itself as Communist Party. In this "superior form of organization of working class" the revolutionary conscience is achieved by opposition with the opportunist wing of movement (two lines fight) inside the general class struggle against bourgeoisie. So in this qualitative manner should the Party be understood as "the highest form of organization of working class", as its revolutionary organization (or otherwise, as the organization of revolutionary proletarian class), opposite the oldest ways it adopted and adopts in its resistance struggle against capital.

From Party to State

Finally, Stalin finished his view of the Party, asserting that "it is the instrument of proletarian dictatorship". The main commitment Stalin gives to the Party is therefore, to achieve the proletarian dictatorship and to make it firm.; so it is directly and closely related to the problem of power. Stalin thinks the Party is "an instrument of proletarian dictatorship". In other words, the Party is subordinated to the State of proletarian dictatorship. The contradiction is very clear: in practice from Stalin’s point of view the Party as the "highest form of organization of proletarian class" is taken its place by the State of proletarian dictatorship. In this way, the highest form of organization of proletarian class is its organization as ruling class, not above all its organization as revolutionary class. Of course, both qualities -ruling class and revolutionary class- can and should be the same in the question of the working class. But that is not the question. The question is the hierarchical order among the instruments the proletarian class should gain to achieve its historical mission: revolutionary conscience, new type party and proletarian dictatorship. In this last case, to put the Party below the State, means to establish the problem of power as the highest political level of proletarian class struggle, when actually, from marxist point of view, is the other way round: the political power, the class dictatorship, is considered as a mean, a necessary instrument, to create the social conditions (economical, political and cultural) so that the Party can raise more and more people’s conscience towards its political positions, these one are the struggle for the proletarian emancipation. In other words, the main commitment of the Party is not the power, and the power if not where all the theoretical and practical problems should run through, as Stalin says, no doubt inspiring himself in Lenin’s thoughts, but the question of social emancipation (emancipation of humanity of society classes throughout the working class emancipation as class, so this matter can not be reduced to the theory of State). The power and the State are only instruments so the Party can achieve its objective. So, the political aim (the power of the State of proletarian dictatorship) will be subordinated to its historical aim (emancipation of working class), in the order of matters of proletariat, which will always subordinates the condition of ruling class to its condition of revolutionary class. A small or misunderstanding of these two elements and its mutual relations could contribute to create the ideological basis for the incorrect vision of long term tasks of socialist proletarian class.

And trying to summarise, we have seen Stalin’s party vision completely reverses the position of internal relationships among the different instruments the proletarian needs to do its revolutionary tasks. On one hand, as we have already expressed, the organizative point of view is dominant in questions referred to the Party, and leaves the ideology in a second place, and on the other hand, the Party becomes a simple instrument of the State. The truly marxist-leninist order, Conscience-Party-State, was changed in political practise, not only by Stalin, but by all the different sensibilities which were ruling the bolshevik party: State-Party-Conscience; the soviet political system was built on this way and on a long term, had a lot of unresolved problems as the objective we have set ourselves –the Communism- can not be reduced to the seizure and consolidation of political power.

The truly marxist-leninism order shows, that the conscience, the ideology, is the main and should always keep its prominent position of guide in building the rest of the instruments (the Party and the State), and the Party which is the organised proletarian class towards Communism, guides and orders the political apparatus aimed to create the conditions so the rising historical movement of the class becomes bigger and bigger, so the whole humanity can achieve a new era of freedom, equality and fraternity. The ideology guides the Party and the Party guides the State: this is the real proletarian order, from marxist-leninist point of view. But its early overthrowing during the revolutionary cycle began in October impelled the adoption of proper political steps to the historical significance it had; and it impelled too, the correct orientation trying to look for solutions to the contractions the revolutionary proletarian class had to overcome.

And before finishing, it is necessary to add that afterwards, when Stalin exposed his point of view about the relations between the proletarian Party and the State -and these ideas were predominant in the bolshevik party- Stalin actually was closing the cycle Lenin had opened in 1917, when he exposed more than half a century of proletarian class struggle and when he attached that balance to the narrow logic to the answers and questions that the theory of marxist-leninist about the State necessary questioned, but are not enough – and in fact, they were not enough-, to resolve all the questions the future will bring, and in fact, in the past, these questions were not resolved in the revolutionary process.

Once the October revolutionary cycle has finished (1917-1991), nowadays, the communists’ main task consists on doing the general balance of this great revolutionary experience whose main actor were the international proletarian class. As Lenin did in 1917, we should rethink our former experience and synthetise it and understand that revolutionary practice is a great theoretical development in proletarian doctrine and should be the political-ideological basis for the future, and the starting point for the next revolutionary cycle. We should try as well to adopt the highest perspective, so the results we obtain could be helpful to marxist-leninist theory as a whole, so all and each of the aspects of this doctrine has a qualitative jump in its contents and therefore, it will allow a stronger coherence in a higher level of unity.

The marxist- leninist theory of the Communist Party is the higher perspective to analyse the balance of the October Cycle.

Our experience

The struggle for the correct interpretation of the nature of the Communist Party -a necessary starting point so as to board any plan for its recuperation- started in the Spanish State in the middle of 90 s, with the first try of a systematic formulation of a marxist-leninist vision throughout what we call Thesis of Reconstitution of Communist Party. The idea of "Reconstitution of the Communist Party" comes as a contraposition to former experiences for the fight of recuperation of the PCE, which had started in the 60, but in all cases were a reproduction of the same theoretical premises of the traditional Party which was imposed in the international communist movement – through the Komintern- since the 20s; adding that once the century finished, those theoretical principles were its most degenerated expression. The point of view that understands the Party as a whole of organizative relations inside the "detachment of vanguard", and not as a system of ideological-political ties between this one and the masses, brings, at a first place, that the whole of organic relations that forms the "detachment of vanguard", is homogenised and normalised, becoming its components to be considered juridically as integrating parts of a whole, of a unique organization, so it will bring to reduce those internal organic relations in simple relations between individuals, and in a second place, because of this simplification the question of the individual militant becomes the centre of the problem, so what it is under the truly concept of the Communist Party is the true answer to the old question "¿Who can be considered member...?" So the individualist thesis of the Party as a sum of militants is opened (not as an aggregation of organizations). And, the estimation of the individual who could be "considered member" had suffered an intolerable drop in its requisites. So, the highly leninist sense of "the detachment of vanguard", Stalin resumes as "political master of the working class" and as "the Staff of proletariat", made the Party as a constitued institution, as a group of executives [cadres] formed in immediate fights of the masses and partial fights of the class, strikes organisers and street fights against capital "tactical cuadros", with no capacity to reach the strategic level of guiding the proletarian class struggle. And its bases were formed by anyone who formally accepted the Program and the party Statutes. The party face, as party of masses. formed above the individual finds, in this way, its other face, as party of masses. And the individualist conception of the Party finishes the organizative conception which closes its cycle where it started : the ideology. The stalinian organicism trusted on the ideology that guided the Party, trusting ingeniously in the political results of decades of ideological forge throughout the continuous two lines struggle whose main actor was the bolshevism (results that Stalin tried to fix "for ever" under the epigraph of "leninism"). The party individualism trusts on the revolutionary conscience of the member of Party, what it means, although the Party has been defeated politically by the revisionism, it has not been ideological defeat, neither revolutionary conscience defeat, because both of them are supposed to be well kept in the "communists" brain or in the "marxist-leninists" taken individually.

With all this, the experiences of recovering the PCE had its proper expression under the slogan of "communists’s unity" (or "marxist-leninist’s unity", etc). The fashion of "communist unification" came from a failure after another failure (including its best conquest: the foundation, in 1984 of the Communist Party of the People of Spain). The most recent experience of the communist movement in the spanish State, shows the errors and inconveniences –not only for its postulates but for its results- of founding any political project of political Reconstitution of communism on the basis of "unity", or any that does not bring the permanent fight for the ideological split with revisionism and for the political independence of working class.

We will add that, the different conceptions about the Party, has its different tactics, not so different of those which result from the theoretic meditation or the comparative analysis.

It is true, that between the groups splitted politically from the revisionism of PCE, the revisionist theory of the Party, however, was the dominating one. All of them shared the same equation: the leninist party is equal to the detachment of vanguard. It is true, that it was believed that this one was "reconstitued", in more than one occasion, but in any case it was aimed to the needs of the organised proletarian class as revolutionary movement. And this happens because a particular vision of the Party means a particular vision of that movement, and a consequence, a particular tactic line.

In this sense, there is what we could call a proletarian principle related to the revolution, not even the revisionists can deny it, and it is that once the Party is reconstitued, the immediate task is the seizure of the masses and the power. So, as it cannot be avoided, all the experiments of "unity" and "reconstruction" that have considered, that were a genious expression of "vanguard guider" of the proletarian, have had to face that problem. And their failure has been huge, because the imposition of "going to the masses" with parties constitued in a separate way from its movement has led them toward terrorism, towards its isolation, or towards the economism (tradeunionism, electoralism, parlamentarian crestinism), so, behind the movement of masses. As clear examples of our experience, we have for the first case, the PCE(r)–GRAPO [Communist Party of Spain (reconstitued) - Groups of Antifascist Resistance First of October], and for the second, the PCPE.

Both tactical lines obbey, as we have seen, to a conception of the Party, and to a particular vision of the revolutionary movement. The constitution of the Party separated from the movement of masses as "detachment of vanguard" presupposes the revolutionary movement; the false theory that the revolutionary movement of masses is a spontaneous phenomenon that spout "apart" from the Party, due mainly to economical and political crisis reasons (therefore, due, mainly, to "the objective factor"). The revolutionary movement, then, adopts an external existence to the "detachment of vanguard" y the tasks consists on "being prepared" to be its guide when it starts. This "theory of collapse" of capitalism dominated the perception of most communist parties about the revolutionary process during last cycle, and even today it is hegemonic in our movement. To combat it means fighting to recover the truly leninist relationship between vanguard and masses, this relation consists, mainly "the subjective factor "and "the objective factor" of the revolution are not independent between them, but, in general they have influence together, and in particular, the "subjective factor" (the conscious proletarian, the Party) transforms from its political activity the conditions of social development, revolutionizing them, so it generates, from minor to major scale, the revolutionary movement and order, firstly as political movement, and at long term as social system.

The activity of the conscious vanguard on the social being provokes a movement of elevation of the masses towards the positions of that vanguard, and this movement is a revolutionary movement. It is not necessary to "wait" to an economical recession, to the drop of the government or to a "general crisis"; this one, the so called "general crisis of capitalism", is already there since this system passed its imperialist era. The "objective conditions" of the revolution, therefore, are already there, and in general it is the ordinary social context. This is the abc of marxism-leninism. That’s why, for this reason, the theory of proletarian new type party, the theory of revolutionary party was already formulated at the beginnings of that new era of capitalism, because there we have the objective material conditions for its effective political activity. To talk that we have to wait so that "the objective conditions of revolution are given" is simply revolutionary liquidationism. "To do the revolution" means building, from now, "the subjective factor" (the Communist Party); and at the same time, to generate "objective factor", revolutionary movement, and with both of them, to prepare the general political conditions for the seizure of power (army insurrection), when the "revolutionary crisis" is provoked and produced.

Our tactic

The building of the necessary revolutionary links between the vanguard and the masses presupposes the particular recognising that these ones do not exist; therefore, today’s political situation is characterised by the split between the vanguard and the movement of masses as the most manifest result and the most important of revisionism liquidationist. However, this true which is so simple and evident is not recognised by most of the vanguard organizations and marxist-leninists groups, at least in imperialist countries. This brings heavy and bad consequences.

At first place, the complete misunderstanding analysing the contradictions of our era. As, on one hand the huge yanqui military hegemony has pushed to a second place the imperialist contradictions after the disappearance of the USSR, and at the same time starting a huge offensive for the imperialist control of the world, being the most important the contradiction between imperialist and oppressed nations; and on the other hand, the split between the revolutionary vanguard and the working class movement have reduced nowadays the contradiction between work and capital to the narrowest economical matter, thanks to the leadership of the working class movement which is on hands of the working aristocracy, interested on reducing this contradiction (at the same time with an alliance with the monopolist capital, promotes explotation of oppressed countries), so it seems that the contradiction between imperialist and oppressed countries is the main one, and it is there where the politics of the communists should find its ways and towards the Proletarian Revolution.

All this produces a political blindness which hinders understanding the true nature of nowadays tasks of conscious proletarians, and at the same time subordinates the proletarian class’s fight to the national liberation’s fight and, therefore, the crack of political independence of proletarian class. But, above all, it hinders understanding the impossible continuity between the political tasks of the vanguard inside the practical movement of the masses and all revolutionary tasks in the present state of split between the vanguard and the masses. So, it is not understandable that the main thing now, is to rebuild that link in the form of true Communist Party, and without this one, it would be fruitless, from the point of view of revolution, all political activity inside the movement of masses. And to finish, the contradiction between the vanguard and the masses of the proletarian class, which is resolved by Reconstitution of the Communist Party, is the main contradiction the conscious proletarian should develop. This brings, at the first place, the struggle for the correct conception of the nature of that contradiction, that includes –as we have already said- the struggle for the correct conception of the nature of the Communist Party.

The mistakes of the misunderstanding of the historical split which domains all relationship between the revolutionary vanguard and the movement of masses in its different fronts and the misunderstanding of the political consequences that brings, are as we have said characteristic of the political organizations "constitued" or "reconstitued" under the shadow of the conception of the party exclusively as organised vanguard. To start a line of masses with the aim of leading the working movement as a whole, once they have proclaim themselves as the "detachment of vanguard" of the proletarian, can not and not either in the future, solve the problems on which the vanguard is especially interested and all the problems that interest mainly to the masses without suffering a complete collapse. The problems of the vanguard are directly related to the revolutionary principles, the strategy and tactic of the revolution, the building of its instruments, etc; the problems of the masses are immediately about its existence conditions. So as we have already explained "the detachment of vanguard" has no other way than renouncing to solve the problems as vanguard and try only to "solve" the problems of the masses, so it will renounce to its revolutionary vanguard position and adopts the reformist "vanguard", and therefore going toward the trade-unionism and parlamentarism (as most "reconstitued" groups and parties); or either it could try to "solve" the theoretical and political problems of the vanguard so, later on, it will carry those solutions to the masses as a receipt book and trying that these one consider them as "their" own answers, and this an idealist idea that would bring to the misunderstanding and a type of politics totally isolated from the masses (and in some cases to terrorism, as the only way to justify themselves).

At a second place, this kind of error is even more obvious when, as today is happening, the inexistance of the Party is recognised in words and, therefore the need of recovering it, and in the facts, it can not be understood that this circumstance is the result of the split between the vanguard and the working class movement. In this case, plans of "rebuilding" are done and applied -always on the basis of "communist unity", of course- they want to "rebuild" the Party from the practical movement of the masses, from taking part in the fights of resistance of the masses. Nowadays it is different than in 70 s and 80 s when the model of reconstruction based on the unification of several organised groups dominated, independently of the movement of masses –a model that nowadays, it has its own leaders-, in the 90 s and in the changing of the century, the model which dominates is the one which consider the most important thing to work on the political tasks to recover the Party inside the movement of masses. The degeneration is, at this point, the higher. The leninist type of Party, which was founded in the quality of a group of political-ideological relationship, is transformed into an organised one, and therefore it brought the quantitative, and equalising between the idea of "strong party" and the idea of "big party" of masses. This development brought the thesis that defends the Party can only come out from political work in the practical movement of masses.

And summarising, this is the old model inherited from the tradition of the Third International that brings, in one way or another, to take only into account the practical movement of masses; which is politically a suicide in a context of liquidation of the Party and a divorce between the revolutionary theory and the needs of the masses.

In these circumstances, the conscious proletarian should assume its own incapacity to lead a revolutionary transformation on the contradictions which rule the world. All active participation in the fronts of fights that are mainly an expression of those contradictions, is subordinated and aimed to fulfil the tasks related to the Reconstitution of the Party, or simply it will suppose to be behind those fights and working for other classes. It is necessary to recognise that, from the moment the proletarian class has no conscience of class and it has not been organised around that conscience (a maturity grade that is only expressed as Communist Party) it can not work politically as independent class, and consequently, can not oppose the bourgeois class as an antagonist class. So, in this way, the door is closed to participate in the different contradictions that lead our era (capital-work; imperialism-oppressed nations; inter-imperialist contradictions) to fill its historical role as revolutionary class. The question the vanguard has to face consists on restoring the proletarian class its condition of politically independent class, revolutionary class. And this question implies the vanguard must submerge its political activity in a "system of contradictions" different to the one it now leads the world : the "system of contradictions" that orders the process of Reconstitution of the Communist Party with the aim to solve them.

Today’s tasks: the Plan of Reconstitution of the Communist Party

We depart from the point that the proletarian as politically independent class is the revolutionary proletarian, and this one organises as Communist Party building a net of links of all types between the vanguard and the masses of the class. But it is necessary that the vanguard (which is the main aspect of the contradiction "vanguard-masses", as we say this is in the basis of the building of the Party) has been constituted as that vanguard, it must fulfil the requisites Stalin asked for to "the detachment of vanguard" of proletarian class. This means that the most conscious sectors of proletarians, armed with the ideology of vanguard, the marxism-leninism, have been able to gain for communist and for the program of the Proletarian Revolution the sectors of the class which lead the fights of resistance against the capital. When the vanguard which brings the theory of vanguard (we call it "theoretic vanguard") achieves to transform the conscience "in itself" in conscience "for itself", in revolutionary conscience, of the most active sector of the workers’ s spontaneous fights (we call it "practical vanguard") for its rights and the improvement of its conditions of existence, attracting to that sector to the positions of communism, organizing it to the revolutionary way and acquiring with it and through it, the possibility of seriously influencing in the working class movement of masses, it is when the Reconstitution of the Communist Party happens and this one can board the problem of the seizure of that movement of masses o lead it against the power of capital.

The correct expression of the split between the revolutionary vanguard and the masses is, precisely, the divorce between the "theoretic vanguard" and the "practise vanguard" of the working class movement: the fact the proletarian vanguard is split in an ideological and revolutionary vanguard, on one hand, and in a reformist vanguard that leads the resistance fights, on the other hand. And in this point we arrive before the tactic insufficiencies they have, as we have said, the ones who can not understand the true nature of party of proletarian new type. Because, if, as we have explained, the "detachment of vanguard" can not gain the masses from politics elaborated outside its movement, it is because, in the facts, it is totally impossible to achieve the spontaneous class consciousness from the simple principles of communism. In other words, the "theoretic vanguard" can not attract to itself the "practical vanguard" only from ideology, without some practice that shows the capacity of marxism-leninism to give answers to all the problems of the masses. So it is necessary, a "translation" which transforms the principles of the revolutionary ideology, step by step, first, in Political Line (answer from the ideology to the strategic and tactic needs of a certain revolution) and afterwards, in Program (answer from the Line to the needs of the masses). The Program is the final synthesis where the marxist-leninist vanguard is able to translate the claims of the masses in revolutionary claims thanks to its contact with the "practical vanguard"; it is the political demonstration that the problems of the masses can only be resolved through the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of proletariat. From the political point and organizative point of view, important sectors of the "practical vanguard" comes to the positions of communism as a result of the political activity of the "theoretic vanguard" in the fronts of masses. Only in this way, and through its different steps, bridges can be built between communism as ideology and the movement of masses, bridges that can overcome the present emptiness between them and to achieve again its fusion, and therefore, the Reconstitution of proletariat as politically active class, and the centre of social development will be again its opposition against capital.

However, the "theoretic vanguard" should have previously constituted in the one who brings the true ideology of vanguard so as to be able to gain the most advanced sectors in the fight of resistance against capital. The liquidationist work of the revisionism has been so deep that it has not only limited to destroy the communism as political movement or as revolutionary organization –its program and its organization-, but it has also achieved to its ideological fundaments and its theoretical speech. This means that before any other political action, the conscious vanguard of proletariat should start the fight to restore the theory of vanguard. In other words, even before the political Reconstitution of communism (Communist Party), we should pursue its ideological Reconstitution. And it is in this context where the critic balance of the revolutionary experience of the October Cycle finds his full meaning and his true importance, as theoretic development of communism from the synthesis of an unheard-of and a new revolutionary praxis.

In the political life of the imperialist countries, mainly, there are a lot of different groups called by themselves as "communists" or "revolutionaries". This is because the political fragmentation of proletarian class and the need of the question of the Reconstitution of Party is put forward. But it is not only that all those different groups express the general disagreement in communism or "revolutionary marxism" about the correct political line; it is, in the first place, that this political fragmentation is a product, in fact, of the ideological fragmentation there is in all communist political project which is linked, in some way or another, with the tradition of the October Revolution.

The ideological Reconstitution of communism is the struggle of marxism-leninism to conquer again the position of hegemony inside the vanguard; it is the previous and necessary period in which the marxist-leninist sector of the "theoretical vanguard" fix the limits of the revolutionary matter in the theoretical level through the spread of fight of two lines to the rest of the ideological fractions which have influence between the sectors of vanguard of proletarian class. This struggle so that the marxism-leninism be again the ideology of reference between the most fighting sectors of the working class has two complementary factors: on one hand, the structuration of marxism-leninism as an internally coherent ideological speech and its reconfiguration as outview, as a whole representation of the reality in all its spheres, as conception of the world. On the other hand, the formation of communist executives [cadres] in the ideological fight of two lines will allow the building of a collective of vanguard educated in the higher school of revolutionary science (breaking, in this way, the tradition of the education of our leaders in the school of spontaneity and of the resistance fights of the masses), with an elevated perspective so as not to lose the final objective and with a concept of class struggles which always guarantees the strategic orientation of the proletarian fights. Recovering the marxism-leninism as conception of the world, as whole theory of vanguard so as to be again the guide of the revolution and the building of "the detachment of vanguard" to be its political support, and from these principles – the revolutionary Conscience as guide- it will start the building of the necessary instruments so the Proletarian Revolution will be successful (Communist Party and State of proletarian dictatorship).

In the first part of this document we have said that, during the October cycle, "the statist" point of view of the political processes dominated; so all the questions were articulated through the problems attached to the State, with the problem of conquer and consolidation of the power, and the relationship Party-State. This happened in a great part because, from the II International –neither Lenin nor Komintern, corrected this- in the revolutionary movement dominated a conception of marxism which believed it more as "political philosophy" than as a conception of the world, so all this brought in several times to political pragmatism and short term politics. We have said too, that in the next revolutionary cycle, it is necessary to build bases in a higher departure level. Opposite the point of view of the State, we should take into account the Party. This means that we can not start the new revolutionary wave from the political "step" (as it happened in the past) but we should be in the ideology, the marxist-leninist theory as conception of the world, as the generating engine of all the new steps to build the communism. We should not, therefore, situate our departure point in the relationship between Party-State, but in the higher one, Conscience-Party, which is the most elevated perspective the proletarian vanguard should adopt because it will allow to fulfil all the requisites the correct order claims in the progress of revolutionary process step by step.