On September 27th and 28th, the party’s periodic Generail Meeting was held, in an inevitably mixed format, both in person and online, given the planetary distribution of the party’s forces. As always, the vital themes of party doctrine were addressed, not with the intention of finding new and decisive solutions to the absence of broad proletarian movements, the sole prerequisite for a revolutionary period, but rather to reaffirm the cornerstones of the doctrine of the party of the revolution, to confirm, also in light of recent acquisitions and developments, the correctness of the party’s method and perspectives, according to the imperative of invariance transmitted to us by previous generations of militants of the Left.

The topics discussed included the trade union issue, the military issue, the preconditions for revolution in Germany, organic centralism, the trajectory of the capitalist economy, and the history of the Left. Below we present summaries of the reports, which will be published in full in future issues of our publications.

Organic Centralism through Party Correspondence

The series of reports on the functioning of the Party’s center, and in general on its internal life, continued with a series of excerpts from our internal correspondence covering the period of the reconstitution of the Party from 1952 to the end of the 1970s; invaluable material that allows us to observe in depth the already existing fraternal relations that will characterize future communist society.

The speaker emphasized that this method of operation, unique to the Communist Party and reached at a certain stage of its development, is not the result of a brilliant discovery by an equally brilliant “Leader,” but

“originates from the dialectical organic nature of social relations, even in their contradictions, and is not a method to be used only within the Party organization, as if the Party were something suspended in mid-air. The Party must operate according to organic centralism also in its relations with the class and outside its ranks in general.” (Letter of June 5, 1966)

This fundamental thesis has, as a corollary, the idea that

“function develops the organ, and therefore it is the function that determines the corruptions of its forms; therefore, it is not the obsessive codification of the organ’s forms that ensures better function.” (Lettera del 27 Novembre, 1966)

The organization of the Party could be geometrically described as a,

“bundle of lines lying in a plane and emanating from the same point O, the origin of the bundle, which would be the center. The base or periphery (p) are the points of the plane, p, p1, p2, p3, etc., and the link between the center and periphery (-) is the system of rays O-p1, O-p2, O-p3 and so on. If one of the points p is chosen as some new origin and, by creating a circular correspondence, attempts to replace the original system with a new system or a new bundle of lines, p-p1, p-p2, p-p3, then that person has placed themselves outside the system, and it is simply a matter of acknowledging this, otherwise the entire Party would fall apart. Marx, in his polemic with the anarchists, referred to these concepts when he said that the General Council of the First International had to be much more than a simple ‘mailbox’.” (Letter of April 13, 1967)

However, comrades should not be misled by the geometrical example; this operational strategy of the supreme organ that will guide the new Red October is not an “a priori”, theoretical construction, but is precisely the result of a long historical process marked by the lessons of the counter-revolutions. “It was an exceptional qualitative leap from ‘democratic’ centralism to ‘organic’ centralism […]. In the Third International, the conditions matured for moving from a party formed by various organizations […] to a party based on a homogeneous foundation. The victory of the counter-revolution materially interrupted the achievement of this further leap. The party must rise again starting from the highest point of its development to which history has forced it: the positions of the Communist Left, ‘organic centralism’. […] The party no longer needs any legal form to express its existence and its authority: these derive from the program and the way in which it implements the program.” (Letter of February 19, 1966)

Since the working class organized itself into a political party, opportunists of all kinds have been searching for the infamous guarantees, for insurance against degeneration, to the point of distorting the very content of organic centralism, turning it into a strict scheme consisting of a more or less extensive series of “behavioral” norms.

“The entire history of our movement indicates, on the contrary, that, although the principles upon which the organization is founded are clearly stated once and for all, the organ Party must constantly acquire them and make them flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, translating them into practical action, into a correct interpretation of the reality in which it moves and fights, in terms of correct organization, etc. In this sense, the theoretical work of the party never ends, but unfolds in the continuous effort to make its tactics, its organization, and its practical action adhere to its principles and the program. It is in this living work, that characterizes the very existence of the Party, that errors of all kinds can and do actually occur.” (Letter of March 2, 1972)

The report then addressed the issues of the authority of the Center and the relationship between the Center and the periphery, and how the crises that periodically afflict the Party should be resolved; these are vital issues that will require further study.

Franco-Prussian War: the consecration of Germany as a capitalist power

The presentation of the lntroduction to the study on the civil war in Germany in the years 1918-1923 continues. During this Generai Meeting, the first part of the chapter on the Franco-Prussian War was presented: the consecration of Germany as a capitalist power, and the beginning of the imperialist phase.

The economic situation of Germany in the early 19th century was then described as a country that lived mainly from agriculture and a technically backward handicraft industry. Industriai development was substantially hindered by the profound territorial fragmentation of the country (300 states and 1400 feudal territories), which was drastically reduced by the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon put an end to the thousand-year-old Holy Roman Empire, unleashing a politica! upheaval and a series of profound social and economic transformations: while the rising bourgeoisie increasingly pressed for territorial, and therefore economic and consequently political unification, the feudal pyramid was crumbling, with the abolition of serfdom that in turn led to the “liberation” of agricultural labor, making it available for the developing industries.

The guilds, which strictly regulated city trades, were also dissolved, making markets more open and competitive. The simplified borders and reforms introduced by Napoleon, such as the new civil and commerciai codes, began to favor internal trade, eliminating barriers and outdated regulations that had previously hindered economic development.

In this context, Prussia’s hegemony over the other German states was consolidateci thanks to a combination of factors that positioned it not only as the leading military and politica! power, but also as the economic engine that would drive Germany towards industrialization and unification.

lt was Prussia that first implemented a reform program aimed at establishing factories in German territory; however, the results of this strategy were modest due to the stilI existing profound fragmentation, which was successfully addressed in 1818 through a reform of the customs system.

In 1834, the Customs Union (Zollverein) was finally created. To optimize the customs union, starting in 1840, massive investments were also made in improving transportation. But the real “great leap” in the German economy occurred following the victory in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871.

This date marked the beginning of a powerful and unprecedented era of development, fueled by several factors, such as the abolition of all barriers with the creation of an immense single market; a huge injection of capital from the war indemnity imposed on France (5 billion gold francs); and the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, regions rich in iron ore and coal deposits which, together with those of the Ruhr, laid the foundations for the supremacy of German heavy industry.

This issue continues the publication of summaries of the reports presented.

Trade union subservience to the interests of imperialism

The purpose of this report was to demonstrate how the bourgeois regime, having reached its imperialist phase, needs to subjugate the trade union movement to its own class interests and does so in almost identical ways in all countries with advanced capitalist development. “National approaches,” where they exist, are limited to details of form rather than substance.

The bourgeoisie can no longer propose the physical destruction of proletarian organizations and is forced to recognize their existence. However, in addition to creating its own white and yellow unions, it also attempts to influence “red” workers’ organizations from within through reformist leaderships that are always ready to collaborate with the enemy class. In the absence of a strong revolutionary party and a truly class-conscious proletariat, these collaborationist leaderships gradually developed until, on the eve of the First World War, they became dominant both politically, in the parties of the Second International, and in the trade unions.

So, after presenting, through a series of quotations from our classic texts, the position of revolutionary Marxism and the party on the trade union question, we moved on to analyze the behavior of the CGdL (General Confederation of Labor) throughout the war.

Through careful documentation, it was demonstrated how the CGdL trade union leaders, since the period of Italy’s neutrality, had declared themselves ready to go to war alongside the coalition of “democratic” nations, handing over the proletariat to the class enemy and pushing it into the global carnage. During the war, this “sacred union” became increasingly close. But the same thing happened in all the other belligerent countries.

It was during the war that the theory of common interests between the two antagonistic classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat) under the “impartial” arbitration of the state began to take hold. As we will see in the next reports, fascism appropriated this concept for the theorization of the corporative state.

We then moved on to the next chapter on the fate of the proletariat in the plans of imperialism.

The war had definitively marked an irreversible historical watershed; social democracy was now a cornerstone of bourgeois conservation at all levels, and the trade union policy directed by the social democratic bonzes would be equally reactionary.

At the same time, a revolution had recently broken out in Russia that threatened to spread throughout Europe and bring down all the plans for the new imperialist order that had emerged from the war.

Therefore, in order to prevent the rekindling of a genuine class-based trade union movement on a national and international scale, the victorious imperialist states created their own International Labor Organization as part of the League of Nations system, which the collaborationist trade unions promptly joined.

In November 1919, the US government, pursuant to Article 424 of the Treaty of Versailles, opened the first session of the International Labor Conference in Washington, where it was decided that a Council composed of 24 members would be appointed to head the International Office: 12 representatives of bourgeois governments, 6 representatives of industrialists, and 6 trade unionists of the worst opportunism. This was another international preview of the corporative system.

Meanwhile, in Amsterdam, the yellow trade union international had been restored, which did not fail to declare itself in favor of the International Labor Office, thus adhering, with an indissoluble bond, to the needs of world imperialism.

The cycle ended with the complete subjugation of the trade union headquarters to the respective national bourgeoisies, with their use for the patriotic mobilization of workers. And this too was a goal that the bourgeoisie achieved at the international level.

March on Moscow, second phase

Denikin, considering the first phase of the operation to strike Moscow and the heart of the Bolshevik revolution to be successfully concluded, moved on to organizing the central phase of the complex maneuver. He needed to conquer the city of Kursk, considered a valuable point for the subsequent assault on Moscow. He therefore assigned a large part of his troops to this task, which were opposed by those of the Red Army, in a clear imbalance: the Red Army had a clear superiority in artillery, twice that of the White Army, even if with little ammunition, but the White cavalry had a frightening supremacy over the Red cavalry, with a ratio of 7 to 1. The Cossack cavalry was decisive in those endless steppes.

Kursk was conquered by the Whites on September 19, creating a conspicuous gap in the Red lines that Denikin tried to extend towards Voronezh using the cavalry of the Škuro Wolves. Meanwhile, the devastating incursion of the Cossack Mamontov into the Red rear continued to such an extent that, overloaded with booty from their raids, the Cossacks decided to abandon their assigned front and return to their home territories. Shkuro conquered Voronezh, and the Red Army realized the absolute necessity of equipping itself with adequate cavalry. We read a few pages from Trotsky’s “Military Writings” on the analysis of the military situation and the surmountable difficulties in equipping themselves with cavalry forces, especially now that Denikin was threatening to conquer Tula, home to the historic military arsenal and only 195 km from Moscow. From Trotsky’s “The Steel of Tula,” we read his analysis on the matter.

Following new military developments, the two sides took three weeks to realign their units. Following a non-aggression agreement with the Bolsheviks, Makhno’s Insurrectionary Army had reorganized itself for an anarchist and independent Ukraine, which was a serious problem for Denikin, who meanwhile controlled the whole of Ukraine. To counter this danger, because Makhno had reached Mariupol on the Black Sea and was heading for Taganrog, the headquarters of the White forces, Denikin had to divert troops, including those in reserve, to block him.

Meanwhile, on the central front line, the White attack began on Kursk and then on Orel, opening the way to Tula. The Soviet command ordered a slowdown in the White advance to give the forces defending Orel time to organize a strong defense. The battle, which began on October 13, developed with extreme intensity throughout the theater of war. The turning point came when part of the 13th Red Army defending Orel deserted, causing the collapse of the Soviet defenses.

The White troops advanced with great caution towards Tula, thanks to the Red opposition, while in the Orel sector the situation was very fluid and uncertain. In the eastern sector along the Volga, the Red Ninth Army had taken control of the strategic Povorino-Caricyn railway line, which was essential for all White supplies. Denikin ordered an immediate and powerful counterattack, which took more than three days of fierce fighting to resolve in his favor. By mid-October, the counterrevolutionaries controlled a vast territory from Kalinin, Kiev, to Odessa, with over 50 million inhabitants.

It was a moment of extreme crisis, because in the northwestern sector Petrograd was under attack and in Moscow the evacuation of the Soviet government was being prepared.

On the history of trade unions in France

In the previous report on the trade union movement in France, presented at the general meeting in May 2025, we addressed two aspects of the economic organizations that emerged in the 19th century, namely mutual aid organizations for workers and trade union organizations specific to workers. We then summarized the economic and social situation of the main European countries (Great Britain, Germany, France) at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century with the emergence of four types of labor unionism (British collaborationist unionism, French anarchist unionism, German unionism, which was Marxist in origin but evolving towards reformism, and the communist unionism of the Communist International). In this second report, we described the characteristics of the French labor movement as analyzed by Marxists, before addressing in a future report the trade union forms that emerged after the Commune of 1871. The main aspects covered were the revolutionary alliance between the bourgeoisie and the French proletariat until February 1848, the importance of the petty bourgeoisie, the breeding ground of anarchism, parasitic financial capitalism, and finally French imperialism and the conquest of the colonies as a source of corruption for part of the proletariat.