The Party’s General Meeting was Held in the Spirit of Continuity and Clarity of the Revolutionary Message

On January 25th and 26th, the Party’s general meeting took place. It has become a tradition for the past few decades that the last weekends of January, May, and September are set aside for these general meetings. At these meetings, comrades take stock of the study and work of the various working groups of the party.

Both because of the large geographic extent of the Party’s network and the availability of computerized communication, the party has for years held its meetings in a mixed manner. Comrades can either travel to a physical party office or connect online.

Thus, comrades and sympathizers from numerous countries in Europe and beyond were brought together.

The purpose of the Party’s general meetings is to carry out the work according to the method the party gave itself when it was reconstituted in 1951.

The Characteristic Theses state:

“Today, the party registers social phenomena scientifically in order to confirm the fundamental theses of Marxism. It analyses, confronts and comments on recent and contemporary facts, repudiating the doctrinal elaboration tending to found new theories or to indicate the insufficiency of Marxism as an explanation of the phenomena.

The same work, demolition of opportunism and deviationism as accomplished by Lenin (and defined in What is to be Done?) is still at the basis of our party activity thus following the example of militants of past periods of setback of the proletarian movement and of reinforcement of opportunist theories, that found in Marx, Engels, Lenin and in the Italian Left, violent and inflexible enemies. […]

Although small in number and having but few links with the proletarian masses, the party is nevertheless jealously attached to its theoretical tasks which are of prime importance, and because of this true appreciation of its revolutionary duties in the present period, it absolutely refuses to be considered either as a circle of thinkers in search of new truths, or as “renovators” who consider past truths insufficient. […]

In spite of the small number of members which corresponds to the counter-revolutionary conditions, the Party continues its work of proselytism and of oral and written propaganda, it considers the writing and the distribution of its press as its principal activity in the actual phase, being one of the most effective means (in a situation where there are few and far between) to show the masses the political line they are to follow and diffuse systematically and more widely the principles of the revolutionary movement.”

On Saturday the 25th, the meeting was initially reserved for discussion of organizational issues, as well as an update on the work of the comrades.

Then the review of ongoing study began, with detailed expositions of reports.

This session was open both to sympathizers and those readers who specifically requested to attend.

In this issue, we will begin to summarize those reports.

The Civil War in Germany

The second chapter of the “Foreword to the Study on the Civil War in Germany (1918–1923),” titled “The Birth and Parallel Growth of the Second Reich and German Social Democracy: The Roots of the SPD’s Betrayal of the Working Class,” was presented.

The first section, “The German Bourgeoisie Renounced National Unification Under Its Aegis,” and the beginning of the second section, “The Significance of the Franco-Prussian War for Marxists—Last Progressive Bourgeois War in Western Europe,” were read.

The first section describes how the German bourgeoisie, which faced defeat in 1848 and was terrified by the proletarian threat, renounced the unification of the German state under its own banner. Instead, they took refuge under the protective wing of the Prussian militarism of the Junkers, leaving to them the task of national unification.

What made German unification unique was that it did not originate from a popular uprising led by the bourgeoisie—like in England, the United States, and France—but was carried out from above, by monarchical power.

Consequently, Germany witnessed a situation with a character unlike that of other modern nation-states.

There was a stunted unification, which lacked real national character, whereby the Prussian latifundist military aristocracy and bourgeoisie would stand side by side in the inevitable transition from feudalism to capitalism via a continuous compromise between the two sides.

Despite the fact that the German proletariat was very ideologically mature and strongly combative, the lack of a unification that had true national characteristics had significant consequences because it adversely affected the maturation of the proletarian struggle.

The second section was devoted to the Franco-Prussian War. It dwelt on several aspects, one of which—presented at this general meeting—pertained to the significance of this war for Marxists.

In our doctrine, this war marks the watershed between the common struggle of the bourgeoisie and proletariat against feudal regimes, and the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

The wars that took place in Europe up to 1870 are considered by Marxists to be progressive wars because they took place in an area and epoch when the cycle of bourgeois revolution was not yet closed. Thus it was still possible that, by participating in the bourgeois uprisings, the struggle of the proletariat would be driven to its ultimate end.

After this point, nationalism loses its progressive connotation and becomes reactionary.

Thus the direct confrontation of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie began. The proletarian confrontation seeks to destroy the bourgeoisie’s state and the bourgeoisie’s economic and social system in order to move to a higher stage of existence: communism.

The Middle East and the Conflict in Syria: The Chessboard of the Great Imperialist Powers

Syria is currently at the center of a confrontation between the major imperialist states. This conflict has emerged from the now fully-parasitic phase of the capitalist mode of production which followed World War I.

In this work, we trace the clashes that have occurred in the race for world markets between different states since World War I up to the current situation in the Middle East. The Middle East is a strategic region rich in raw materials that are indispensable to the capitalist monster in its ineluctable and nearly-mechanical race to produce goods and profits.

In this race, the ruling classes are more and more openly set against the workers, who are the only force capable of arresting the current criminal drift.

The tempo of wars, destruction, attacks on civilian populations, and deterioration of workers’ living conditions to extract maximum profit is accelerating and can only result in a third world war.

The old imperialist states that dominated in the early 20th century—England, France, and Germany—are now secondary imperialist powers. Russia has been in a similar situation since the late 1990s.

The only superpowers are the United States and China.

The former is in decline and uses military force while the latter relies mainly on its economic power. Regardless, both are slowly but surely preparing for physical confrontation.

Syria shows that all the small and medium sized states in the region—including Russia—are nothing more than pawns in the game of the two great powers. The only goal that these two have at the moment is to use the terror and chaos of bombing and murderous destruction to prevent a popular uprising. They especially want to prevent the masses of workers from organizing and paralyzing the gears of the great capitalist machine.

Never mind the chaos and suffering caused, never mind the need to use dictatorships, jihadist terrorists, religion in all its forms, to make a temporary pact with yesterday’s enemy, because the only enemy that frightens the capitalist monster must be defeated!

American, European, Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and jihadist leaders all agree on one point: to maintain the oppression of the proletariat. They will never forget what really drives them: the struggle for world markets and the accumulation of their capital, endangered by the menace of an economic crisis!

The United States brands the planet with its military might. Meanwhile, China quietly advances its economic pawns around the world, just as quietly arming itself to the teeth.

History of the Australian Labor Movement

This history continued by detailing the early period of working-class formation in Australia. This part describes how the early Australian labor movement was forged in the crucible of the gold rush and the nascent proletarian class struggle.

After its discovery in 1851, gold encouraged a vast influx of immigrants and capital, which transformed Australia from a penal colony with relatively good working conditions into a hotbed of capitalist development. The gold deposits not only enriched the colony, they also imbued it with a young proletarian spirit. Agitators and seasoned radicals—many of whom carried with them the legacy of British Chartism—merged with the “currency lads” (the first generation of natives) in a solidarity that had been absent in the penal colony period.

In a land where democratic ideals had begun to blossom as early as the 1820s, the gold rush further accelerated the awakening of a labor consciousness—though it was not yet fully proletarian.

With the advent of the gold rush, the population grew from 34,000 in 1820 to over a million in the 1860s. Although many of the arrivals were not suitable for mining, the lure of gold diminished the supply of labor. Thus, many felt entitled to demand a progressive democracy. However, the squatters (largely wool ranchers), with their aristocratic leanings and reactionary ideals, tried to preserve an outdated dominance and did not take kindly to the new wealth and democratic fervor of the prospectors. In this context, Eureka Stockade fostered this antagonism.

In their uprising, prospectors violently challenged both the colonial bureaucracy and the entrenched aristocracy of wealthy squatters and settlers. Although the revolt was suppressed, it left an indelible mark on the collective consciousness and helped galvanize the labor movement into the 1890s. However, the defeat of the Eureka Rebellion was inevitable.

The workers were reduced to obedience and the urban bourgeoisie began to consolidate its power. The bourgeoisie marginalized colonial bureaucrats and landowners so that they could establish themselves as the ruling class.

Parallel to these overt rebellions, the first labor unrest developed, especially in the construction industry. Inspired by British trade unionism and Chartist ideas, workers fought for the eight-hour day. In Sydney and Melbourne, stonemasons and skilled artisans organized and obtained their demands. This was the first such movement, and it also served as an example for British and American workers in their struggles 20 years later.

In this way, the gold rush, which contributed to the formation of the workers’ self-identity, not only reshaped Australia’s economic-penal landscape, but also set in motion an agitation that would not let up in the following decades. Hence, it was a prelude to the rise of manufacturing, the great strikes, and the political growth of the labor movement which will be developed in the next section.