Denying the Work of the Communist Party in Workers’ Struggles Means Retarding the Expansion of Proletarian Organization and Abandoning It to Bourgeois and Petty-Bourgeois Ideologies

From Il Partito Comunista nos. 76 & 77 (December 1980–January 1981)

The necessity of the proletariat’s class struggle in defense of its material conditions is not an original discovery of Marxism. Indeed, several bourgeois theorists before Marx observed this necessity. Its enunciation is part of our doctrinal heritage in the sense that it constitutes a physical, empirical fact. It is a simple description of a reality that takes place before everyone’s eyes, which does not need to be discovered or invented.

Our theory explains social relations and the economic laws that determine them. Our program defines the objectives which the proletariat must achieve for its final emancipation. Our tactics define the means—the practical course—by which the proletarian class must take to achieve the goals set by the program.

We reject defining our body of knowledge as an “ideology.” Our theory is a scientific theory that has been established after a series of historical experimental verifications. It is the only one capable of providing an explanation of economic and social reality. It is still valid, as its laws are confirmed by facts. A theory cannot be subject to revision or updating. It is either valid en bloc or must be rejected en bloc. The program includes measures to be implemented to remove obstacles to the achievement of communist goals: the end of wage exploitation, the liberation of humanity from the bondage of want, and classless society. These obstacles—the private ownership of the means of production, the state political power of the bourgeoisie—today remain standing a thousand times stronger than yesterday. Our program is nothing but their negation: first the overthrow of the bourgeois state and proletarian dictatorship, then the socialization of the means of production.

Following from these tactics is the range of possible means for the achievement of our ends. This range has become increasingly narrow. Means that might have seemed suitable in the past—such as participation in elections and parliaments—have proved lethal for communists. In the course of living historical experience, tactics become increasingly precise in the sense of excluding those avenues that practice has shown to be unsuitable or harmful.

Precisely because our positions do not come from the realm of ideas, but constitute a scientific doctrine, our ultimate aims do not negate the daily struggle in which wage earners must engage to defend themselves against exploitation. Our political objectives do not entail the overcoming of the economic struggle, but, indeed, its maximum extension and its bursting into revolutionary struggle. The idealist tendency, petit-bourgeois in origin, considers the economic struggle as a temporary phase, a necessary evil to be overcome when the masses attain “political consciousness.” This consciousness would first be acquired through a denial of the crude struggle for needs, counterposed to the exalted struggle for ideas.

Revolutionary communist consciousness already exists, impersonally and objective, in the historical theory, methods, and traditions of Marxism.

This consciousness can not be acquired spontaneously by the proletariat through its defensive struggle. Rather, it is the fruit of the living experience of a century of struggle and will not be acquired on the basis of the limited, local experience of factory or trade. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 after decades of struggle by the English, French, and German proletariat, after the Vienna Uprising, after the Paris Riots, after the German Civil War. The necessity of proletarian dictatorship was realized following the bloody experience of the Paris Commune of 1871.

This consciousness can be possessed collectively only by a body that transcends the limits of individuals, generations, and localities, that is, by the Party. The proletariat, says Lenin, can only receive this consciousness from outside. It is only to trade-unionism, that is, the consciousness of the need to organize in defense of its material conditions within existing social conditions by extracting wage improvements, reforms, and laws to protect wage labor, the proletarian can come spontaneously.

But economic struggle in itself does not affect the causes that generate exploitation and cannot break out of the framework of the bourgeois social order. In its imperialist phase, capitalism not only admits of economic struggle, but also anticipates it as a given and seeks to control it through its regime unions. By itself, the realization of the need to defend against exploitation can lead to movement in the direction of mitigating this exploitation, but not to removing its causes. The original contribution of communists is that, starting from this material fact, they want to eliminate forever the causes that generate exploitation and class oppression, and dedicate themselves to the revolutionary preparation of the proletariat. That is why the Communist Party organization must be separated from proletarian economic organizations.

Anarcho-syndicalist tendencies admit the necessity of the proletariat’s attack on the bourgeois state, but deny the necessity of a “special” organization separate from workers‘ associations. They maintain that economic struggle will,  at any given moment, spontaneously evolve into insurrectional struggle against the bourgeois state. They deny not so much the Communist Party but the very concept of a Party.

Even if they refuse to admit it, they nevertheless constitute a definite party: the anarcho-syndicalist party. This party has its own vision of class struggle and its own program.

Economist and corporatist tendencies are characterized not so much by the rejection of the concept of the Party as by the rejection of politics in general. They argue that workers‘ associations—in order to be autonomous from parties that would like to instrumentalize them—must be apolitical. They argue that workers have to think about the struggle with the bosses and should not be involved in politics.

This tendency starts from the absurd pretense of safeguarding the unity of the working class by simply denying the existence of political currents within economic organs. In this way, they relegate workers‘ associations to dealing only with questions of the firm or industry without seeing their connection to political and social reality.

To deny the free movement of political tendencies in proletarian organizations is tantamount to saying that the proletarian class should not have its own political program or its own vision of social relations: the workers attend to the economic struggle, the intellectual petty bourgeoisie concerns itself with politics.

Economism is a very definite political position that stands in the way of a minority of proletarians securing themselves on the terrain of revolution.

Intellectualoid tendencies argue that workers must not fight for their material needs, but…for “communism” or for more general “political” goals.

Anarcho-syndicalists argue that communist workers must not have their own separate organization. Economists argue that within proletarian organizations there must not be political confrontation. We communists, while we are staunch defenders of the open character of economic organs, do not wish by this to argue that there is no talk of politics in them. On the contrary, we are for the free movement and clash of political tendencies precisely because we have an interest in exposing our class line, which, in being the description of the course the proletariat must necessarily take, is the only one that can find confirmation in the direct experience of the masses.

Our strenuous defense of the open character of proletarian economic organizations starts from the realization that it is only on the ground of the defense of living and working conditions that the proletarian class is objectively united. This and only this can be the basis for enlisting the proletarian army. Neither proletarian defense nor offense can ever disregard this objective premise.

The various tendencies—not the overtly bourgeois ones, but those that admit of proletarian class struggle—represent the possible strategic orientations according to which the proletarian army can move.

Let us not adopt the childish method of exorcising tendencies opposed to our own by denying them the right to exist. On the contrary, we think it good that they express themselves as fully and freely as possible, that they circulate and clash with the greatest freedom in the proletarian milieu. We entrust the evidence of facts with the task of exposing the correct course and of dismissing the others.

In this sense, we are for maximum proletarian unity in the field of action and maximum division on the terrain of political conceptions.

To us, class struggle and political confrontation between parties are separate, standing on two different planes. We don’t mean this in the trivial sense that movement is the prerogative of trade unions and that political struggle is the prerogative of parties; letting workers think about strikes, intellectuals think about politics. While we defend the open character to all proletarians of economic organs and the broadest unity in action, we also argue that proletarians themselves must freely discuss general political issues, freely divide, freely clash.

We have not forgotten that Capital was written not for university professors but for the working class, in a language that was as accessible as possible to proletarians—few of whom at the time could read—and that the International Workingmen’s Association officially thanked Karl Marx for clarifying the causes and mechanisms of class oppression. We have not forgotten that in the early 1900s in Russia—as Trotsky recounts—proletarians competed for copies of Capital and tore them apart so they could read them at the same time.

Precisely because we have confidence in the physical and intellectual energies of the proletariat, we communists do not fecklessly stoop to extol the spontaneity or simplicity of the masses. Instead, we want to elevate them to revolutionary consciousness.

* * *

Economic struggle is an objective fact arising from the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. No reforms, no concessions, no special laws, nor any police operations can eliminate it as long as private ownership of the means of production and wage labor remain.

After an initial phase in which the bourgeoisie absolutely denied workers‘ struggle and organization, it was then forced to tolerate it. Then, under fascism, it attempted to give it a framework in its own legal system with the creation of labor organizations under direct state control.

During the period of the First International, the proletariat was still a tiny minority of the population. The nascent proletarian movement was developing in a direct and open clash with bourgeois legality: strikes and street demonstrations were prohibited. Worker and peasant demonstrations almost always took on the appearance of riots; looting, clashes with the police and army, mass arrests, shootings, deaths, and injuries. Workers always—even for the most limited claims—faced the state in its true essence as a repressive apparatus, with its militias and courts deployed in defense of property. Any assertion of demands led to a clash with the state because the state always responded with police repression, leaving no room for anything but mass action. Striking or participating in demonstrations could result in years or life in prison.

In the second phase, that of the development of the great socialist parties of the Second International, the bourgeoisie could no longer contain the movements of a proletariat—greatly increased in numbers—by purely police methods. Simultaneously, it had greatly increased its profits and could make concessions by bribing certain layers of workers.

Here rose the objective terrain for the development of reformism and trade-unionism that would result in the degeneration and passage into the bourgeois camp of the parties of the Second International.

Police methods alone would have brought an increasingly numerous and concentrated proletariat to the field of open confrontation. Hence, the bourgeoisie were more shrewd and combined repression with the haranguing of social-democratic leaders who channeled workers‘ struggles toward partial gains within the framework of the bourgeois social order.

Because of the changed economic and political situation, worker struggles resulted in demands for reforms, wage improvements, and the amelioration of working conditions. These were no longer steps toward the assault on bourgeois power for the complete destruction of all forms of private property and exploitation. Rather, they were ends in themselves, perfectly compatible with a booming capitalist economy.

The economic movement of the masses proceeds firmly in this direction under the leadership of the reformist leaders of the big social democratic parties and the big class unions.

Of course, street clashes, shootings, and arrests did not cease, but there was a noticeable improvement in proletarian living conditions. This was fertile ground for democratic, pacifist, and legalitarian puffery.

Revolutionary political organizations no longer coincided with workers‘ associations and became progressively isolated. They were reduced to small groups or factions within the parties of the Second International.

The movement of the masses was then driven onto the terrain of reformism and class collaboration, even to the support of the respective bourgeoisies in the imperialist war. Being a communist revolutionary then meant not following the masses onto this ground, but sharply distinguishing oneself to safeguard the prospect of revolution. This was done by Lenin, the Italian Communist Left, and a few others who declared war on war while the proletarian masses were led to the slaughter under their respective national flags.

The welding together of the revolutionary program and the spontaneous motion of the masses was realized in the revolutionary wave of 1917-23. This was not because one adapted to the other. It was because in that brief historical window the goals which the masses were moving toward could only be pursued with the realization of the revolutionary program.

The example of Russia is crystal clear: the exploited masses wanted an end to the war and the estates of the great landed proprietors. But neither peace nor land could be obtained without either an insurrection which would overthrow the bourgeois state and the formation of a workers‘ and peasants‘ militia.

The preparation of the Bolsheviks—not improvised, but done over decades of extremely hard trials and with iron discipline—was precisely this: readying themselves for revolution on the theoretical, programmatic, tactical, organizational, and military levels. The masses were with them in one of those very rare moments when action and consciousness, spontaneous movement and revolutionary organization became one and the same, coalescing to form a formidable army that routed the defending adversary.

Fascism, an expression of the modern capitalism of banks and monopolies, brought together the two methods of reform and that of open police repression. It realized the old reformist dream of juridically regimenting labor struggles and labor organizations by bourgeois legislation. The novelty it introduced is precisely the creation of state unions with compulsory membership by workers. These unions defended workers economically, even going so far as to call strikes, but they did so on the condition that the economic struggle never affected the national interest.

The trade union confederations that arose after World War II, although formally open to join and not legally subservient to the state, follow the fascist policy: open and avowed submission to the state. Economic struggle, yes, but only to the extent that this is compatible with the performance of the capitalist economy. This means fighting for wage and regulatory improvements when the economy is booming, controlling the working class to endure layoffs and increased exploitation when the economy is in crisis, and collaborating with the state for patriotic mobilization in the event of war.

In an economic crisis, we are in a period when workers‘ demands become incompatible with the stability of the regime. Yesterday, it was a purely economic claim to demand wage increases or reduced working hours. Today, simply fighting to prevent aggravations from labor, to abolish overtime, to prevent layoffs, or to reduce working hours takes on an increasingly subversive flavor because these demands, compatible yesterday, clash with the bourgeois plan to dump the crisis on the shoulders of the proletariat. That is why we see the state, all parties, all unions, and all institutions arrayed in the defense of the national economy, against proletarian needs.

In this sense, today, economic struggle tends to become political because proletarians who want to move in defense of their needs are forced to acknowledge that:

1) the official trade unions are on the side of the bosses and the state

2) in order to struggle, it is necessary for workers to form their own organizations, independent of the state, bourgeois political parties, and regime unions.

The question then becomes exquisitely political not only because class demands would endanger the social order, but also because it is clear that the state defends its unions in every way. The state primarily does this by granting them the right to exclusive representation of labor. This means that workers‘ organizations that spontaneously arise are de facto illegal, unless they submit to the state (as Solidarnosc has done). It also means that it is forbidden for all individual bosses, all corporate management, whether publicly-traded or privately-held, to enter into agreements of any kind with spontaneous workers‘ associations that act outside the control of official trade unions.

This also means that, today, it is not enough to tell workers that one must fight against the bosses. One must also say that in order to fight against the bosses, they must free themselves of policing by regime unions and resurrect real class organizations. But even this is not enough. It must also be said that the resurgence of class organizations can never take place “freely,” but only in fierce struggle against the state, all the parties and unions that support it.

In this respect, the demands which yesterday perfectly fit into a trade-unionist policy take on a political character. This is not a result of inherent characteristics, but in relation to the changed situation in which the bourgeoisie—their room for maneuver shrinking and no longer able to make concessions—will soon have to openly resort to force by denouncing all those who struggle for housing or jobs as subversive and anti-social elements.

However, if economic struggles take on a distinctly political character, this does not mean that the nature of class economic organizations changes. The objective determinations that drive the proletariat to struggle and organize are always the same, even in moments of the most acute revolutionary struggle, and are material, not ideal, in character.

Economic organization, therefore, even in the rare moments when it is guided by genuinely classist politics, always retains its objective limitations. This renders it an organ suitable only for defense, not offense.

A revolution is not the “beau geste” of a handful of desperate people nor is it the uprising of crowds on a “big day.” All the experiments were performed in Italy. From the ridiculous Mazzinian efforts, to individual terrorism (which then reached the flattering result of killing Umberto I), from the action of bands of anarchists (who, in the Matese mountains, declared the monarchy deposed and private property abolished). From the peasant revolts to the Palermo uprising of 1866, to the great proletarian uprisings of 1893 and 1898 that simultaneously affected a large part of the national territory. From the agitations against the Libyan War, from the Red Week of 1914, to the armed occupation of factories in 1920; from the strikes of ’43 to the half-insurrection following the assassination attempt on Togliatti in ’48.

In Italy, there existed a party that identified itself with workers‘ associations and which only proletarians could join. The Italian Workers‘ Party, 30,000 strong, with a wide influence on the proletariat of Lombardy, Piedmont, and Liguria, was the first autonomous organization of the Italian proletariat that finally separated itself from the bourgeois left and the radical petty bourgeoisie. This party was, in practice, no more than an association of leagues. It claimed to be disinterested in general politics and was only concerned with proletarian struggles. In 1886, it was outlawed on charges of preparing for insurrection, its organization was virtually destroyed in a major police raid, and its remnants later merged into the future Socialist Party. The same fate befell the organization of anarchists—numerous and scattered throughout Italy—after 1888.

The history of these attempts is well-preserved in the police archives, which passed seamlessly from the Bourbons to the Savoy, to Fascism, to the democratic republic. Governments, parties, institutions pass by, but the essence of the state, the “seasoned detective” who knows everything about everyone, who has learned his lesson and knows when to cane and when to dress as a lamb, remains. No change of government, no uprising has made him leave his post.

The poor fools of today, who know nothing about nothing and claim with their stupid improvisations to “attack the state,” should reflect that, one by one, all their approaches have been tried.  Much more determined men, much more numerous, fierce, and exasperated masses, have failed there.

History has shown that in order to bring down the capitalist regime and to lead workers‘ struggles in this direction, a dedicated organization specially created and prepared for this purpose is needed. This organization is called the Communist Party, an organization that treasures past experience so as not to repeat old mistakes, which can foresee situations and not be surprised. It is an organization which is able to resist repression because it does not feel that it has “spaces to defend” in this society. A Party that has a precise and proven plan in which the daily proletarian struggles, the assault on bourgeois power, and the political and economic measures to be taken after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie are framed. A Party that knows how to lead proletarian organizations not on the terrain of ephemeral partial achievements, but toward the final abolition of the exploitation of wage labor. A Party such as the Bolshevik Party tended to be, the Third International, or the Communist Party of Italy of 1921, which, we can proudly say, was defeated not by the fascist repressions which it resisted and to which it responded, but by the betrayal first of the socialists and then of the Stalinists. The proletariat lacks this today, and, without it, all the strikes, demonstrations, and riots in this world may come, but the power of the bourgeoisie will not suffer even the slightest cosmetic damage. Those who say they want to bring down this infamous regime must therefore be consistent and accept the instruments necessary for this purpose.

(continued from the previous issue)

From “Il Partito Comunista” n. 77/1981

Economic struggle is an objective fact that arises from the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. No reforms, concessions, special laws, or police operations can eliminate it as long as private ownership of the means of production and wage labor remain.

After an initial phase where the bourgeoisie absolutely denied workers’ struggle and organization, it was forced to tolerate it. Then under fascism, the bourgeoisie attempted to give it a framework in its own legal system by creating labor organizations under direct state control.

At the time of the First International, the proletariat was still a tiny minority of the population.

The nascent proletarian movement developed in a direct and open clash with bourgeois legality, as strikes and street demonstrations were prohibited.

Worker and peasant demonstrations almost always took on the appearance of riots; looting, clashes with police and army, mass arrests, shootings, deaths, injuries.

Even for the most limited demands, workers always faced the state in its true essence as a repressive apparatus. The state’s militias and courts were fully deployed in defense of property.

As the state always gave a police response, any movement for demands led to a clash with the state that left no room other than mass action.

Both striking and participation in a demonstration meant risking either your life or years in jail.

Thus, economic struggles immediately became political because they presupposed an awareness that capitalists and landowners could not be hit without clashing with the apparatus set up to defend their privileges: the State.

The distinction between economic struggle and revolutionary political struggle was not clear-cut. They coincided because the economic struggle could only be conducted by revolutionary methods.

At this time in Italy the leaders of the first major workers‘ agitations—such as the construction workers in 1888—were the anarcho-syndicalists.

In the second phase, which saw the development of the great socialist parties of the Second International, the bourgeoisie could no longer use pure police methods to contain the movements of a proletariat which grew enormously in terms of numbers. Simultaneously, the bourgeoisie had greatly increased its profits and could make concessions by bribing certain strata of the workers.

Thus arose the objective basis of the development of reformism and trade-unionism, both of which resulted in the Second International’s degeneration and transition into the bourgeois camp.

Police methods alone would have brought an even more numerous and concentrated proletariat into the terrain of open confrontation. This is why the more shrewd bourgeoisie combined repression with the haranguing of social-democratic leaders; leaders who channeled workers‘ struggles toward partial gains within the framework of bourgeois social order.

Because of the changed economic and political situation, workers‘ struggles resulted in demands for reforms, wage improvements, and alleviation of working conditions. These were no longer seen as steps toward the assault on bourgeois power and the complete destruction of all forms of private property and exploitation. They were now ends in themselves, perfectly compatible with a booming capitalist economy.

The economic movement of the masses compactly proceeded in this direction, all under the leadership of the reformist leaders of the big social democracies and the big class unions.

This is not to say that street riots, shootings, and arrests cease! Of course they continued, but there was a noticeable improvement in proletarian living conditions, which is fertile ground for democratic, pacifist, and legalitarian canvassing.

Revolutionary political organization no longer coincided with workers‘ associations, and were progressively isolated and reduced to small groups and factions within the parties of the Second International.

The movement of the masses was then taken to the terrain of reformism and class collaboration. This went so far as to even support their respective bourgeoisies in the imperialist war.

Being communist revolutionaries then meant not following the masses on this ground, but sharply standing out in order to safeguard the prospect of revolution.

This was done by Lenin, the Italian Communist Left, and a few others who declared war on war while the proletarian masses were being led to slaughter under their respective national flags.

With the revolutionary wave of 1917-23, the welding between the revolutionary program and the spontaneous motion of the masses was realized. This was not because one fit in with the masses, but because the goals the masses were moving towards—in that brief historical glimpse—could only be pursued with the realization of the revolutionary program.

The example of Russia is crystal clear.

The exploited masses wanted an end to the war and the lands of the big owners.

However, neither peace nor land could be achieved without an insurrection set out to overthrow the bourgeois state and form a workers‘ and peasants‘ militia.

The Bolsheviks did not improvise, but prepared with iron discipline over the course of decades of hard trials.

They prepared for revolution on the theoretical, programmatic, tactical, organizational, and military levels.

The masses were with them at one of those very rare moments when action and consciousness, spontaneous movement and revolutionary organization become one and the same, merge and form a formidable wedge that routs opposing defenses.

Fascism—an expression of the modern capitalism of banks and monopolies—brought together the two methods of reform and that of open police repression. Fascism realized the old reformist dream of legally framing labor struggles and labor organizations in bourgeois legislation.

The novelty it introduced was precisely the creation of state unions with compulsory membership by workers.

These unions defended workers economically—even going so far as to call strikes—but they did so on the condition that the economic struggle never affected the national interest.

Although formally free membership and not legally subservient to the state, the trade unions that arose after World War II, the current confederations trace the fascist policy.

They display open and avowed submission to the state, economic struggle yes but only to the extent that this is compatible with the performance of the capitalist economy.

They struggle for wage and regulatory improvements when the economy is expanding, they control the working class in order to push through layoffs and increased exploitation while the economy is in crisis, and they cooperate with the state in patriotic mobilizations in the case of war.

Due to the economic crisis, we are in one of those periods when workers‘ demands become incompatible with regime stability.

Yesterday it was a purely economic claim to demand wage increases or reduced working hours.

Today, simply fighting to prevent work aggravations, to abolish overtime, to prevent layoffs, to reduce working hours, etc, acquires an increasingly subversive flavor because these demands—compatible yesterday—clash against the bourgeois plan to dump the crisis on the shoulders of the proletariat.

That is why we see the state, all parties, all unions, all institutions, etc, arrayed in defense of the national economy and against proletarian needs.

Thus, today, the economic struggle tends to become political because proletarians who want to move in defense of their needs are forced to take note that

1) the official trade unions are siding with the bosses and the state; 2) in order to struggle, it is necessary for workers to form their own organizations independent of the state, parties, and the regime’s unions.

The issue then becomes exquisitely political not only because class claims would endanger the social order, but also because it is clear that the state defends its unions in every way. This is primarily done by granting them the right to exclusively represent labor.

This means that the workers‘ organizations that spontaneously arise (and will arise) are in fact illegal. This is unless they submit to the state—as Solidarity has done. This also means that it is forbidden for all individual bosses and all private or public business administrations to enter into agreements of any kind with those spontaneous workers‘ associations that act outside the control of official trade unions.

This means that it is not enough to today tell the workers that one must fight against the bosses. One must also say that in order to fight against the bosses, one must free oneself from the police control of the regime unions and revive real class organizations.

But even this is not enough. It must also be said that the resurgence of class organizations can never take place “freely,” but only in fierce struggle against the state, all parties, and all unions that support it.

In this sense, therefore, the claims that yesterday fitted perfectly into a trade unionist policy, take on a political character. This is not because of any inherent characteristics, but because the changing situation means that the margins of maneuver of the bourgeoisie have shrunk. They are unable to make concessions anymore, and they will soon have to openly resort to force by denouncing all those who struggle for housing or jobs as subversive and anti-social elements.

But even if economic struggles take on a distinctly political character, this does not mean that the nature of class-based economic organizations changes.

Even in moments of the most acute revolutionary struggle, the objective determinations that impel the proletariat to struggle and organize are always the same. They are material in character, not ideal.

Therefore, even in the rare moments when it is guided by genuinely classist politics, economic organizations always retain their objective limitations that make them a suitable organ not of attack but defense.

Class unions alone can excellently defend working-class living conditions against exploitation, but they cannot by themselves constitute a suitable organization for the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie.

A revolution is not the “beau geste” of a handful of desperate people, nor is it the uprising of crowds on a “big day.”

It was precisely in Italy that all the experiments were performed,

from the ridiculous Mazzinian attempts, to individual terrorism (which then reached the flattering result of killing King Umberto I), from the action of bands of anarchists (who in the Matese mountains declared the monarchy deposed and private property abolished), to the peasant uprisings to the Palermo uprising of 1866 and the great proletarian uprisings of 1893 and 1898 that simultaneously affected a large part of the national territory, from the agitations against the Libyan War and the Red Week in 1914, to the armed occupation of factories in 1920, from the strikes of ’43 to the half-insurrection at the assassination attempt on Togliatti in ’48.

A party already existed in Italy that identified itself with workers‘ associations and which only proletarians could join:

the Italian Workers‘ Party.

It was a strong party, with 30,000 adherents with a wide influence on the proletariat in Lombardy, Piedmont, and Liguria. It was the first autonomous organization of the Italian proletariat that finally separated itself from the bourgeois left and the radical petty bourgeoisie.

This party was basically nothing more than an association of leagues and claimed disinterest in general politics and to be concerned only with proletarian struggles.

In 1886, it was outlawed on charges of preparing insurrection. The organization was virtually destroyed in a major police raid, and the remnants later flowed into the future Socialist Party.

The same fate befell the organization of anarchists—numerous and scattered throughout Italy—after 1888.

The history of these attempts is well preserved in the police archives, which seamlessly go from the Bourbons to the Savoy, through Fascism and to the Democratic Republic.

Governments, parties, and institutions pass away, but the essence of the state, the “old fox questor” who knows everything about everyone, who has learned their lessons and knows when to cane and when to dress as a lamb, remains. No change of government or uprising has caused it to leave its post.

The poor fools of today, who know nothing about anything and claim with their baleful improvisations to “attack the state,” should reflect that one by one all their attempts and all their ways have been tried by far more determined, far more numerous, and far fiercer men and exasperated masses and have failed anyway.

History has shown that to bring down the capitalist regime and to lead workers‘ struggles in this direction requires a special organization specially created and prepared for this purpose. This organization is called the Communist Party, an organization that treasures past experience so as not to repeat old mistakes, which knows how to foresee situations and does not allow itself to be surprised, which is able to resist repression because it does not feel that it has “spaces to defend” in this society, which has a precise and proven plan in which the daily proletarian struggles, the assault on bourgeois power and the political and economic measures to be taken after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie are framed.

A Party that knows how to lead proletarian organizations not on the terrain of ephemeral partial achievements, but toward the ultimate abolition of the exploitation of wage labor.

A party such the Bolshevik Party, the Third International, the Communist Party of Italy of 1921, all tended to be. We can proudly say that the Communist Party of Italy was not defeated by the fascist repressions to which it resisted and responded, but by the betrayal of the socialists first and the Stalinists later.

This is what the proletariat lacks today. Without this, all the strikes, agitations, and riots in this world may come, but the power of the bourgeoisie will not be affected in the slightest.

Those who say they want to bring down this infamous regime must therefore be consequential and accept the necessary tools for this purpose.