Two Historic Texts on the Relationship Between the Party and the Class Struggle

Marxist doctrine teaches us that “The history of all so far existing society is the history of class struggle,” an uninterrupted struggle, even if it is not always overt.

The struggle that the proletariat wages against the bourgeoisie began with its very existence and will end only with the disappearance of social classes. All attempts the ruling class may devise to exorcise this irreconcilable antagonism will be in vain: neither the deceptive systems of democracy nor the dictatorial systems of fascism will be able to overcome it, because it is the capitalist mode of production itself that generates, develops, and intensifies it.

The proletariat in this society has nothing of its own to defend; it has only the historic task of destroying it, after seizing power through revolution.

To conduct its struggle, the proletariat naturally needs its own independent organization, and this organization, which the working class establishes for itself autonomously, goes through various stages of evolution.

“At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze. […] At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies. […] But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized. […] The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages. […] Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle” (K. Marx – Manifesto of the Communist Party)

As exhilarating as these latest statements are, painting a picture of a working class in full swing and eager to fight, it is equally depressing to observe how, save for a few very rare and isolated outbursts, the proletariat on an international level remains, for now, a passive victim of unchallenged capitalist domination.

Every class struggle is, therefore, a political struggle; but as long as there is no awareness of their respective interests, there are only classes in potential, or classes in themselves. Only when awareness of common interests and common goals is achieved, that is, when the class party is formed, only then does the proletariat, as a “class in itself,” reach the level of a “class for itself.”

It is Marx again who says: “Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interests. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance – combination. Thus combination always has a double aim, that of stopping competition among the workers, so that they can carry on general competition with the capitalist. If the first aim of resistance was merely the maintenance of wages, the unions, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups as the capitalists in their turn unite for the purpose of repression, and in the face of always united capital, the maintenance of the association becomes more necessary to them than that of wages. This is so true that English economists are amazed to see the workers sacrifice a good part of their wages in favor of associations, which, in the eyes of these economists, are established solely in favor of wages. In this struggle – a veritable civil war – all the elements necessary for a coming battle unite and develop. Once it has reached this point, association takes on a political character.

Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests. But the struggle of class against class is a political struggle.”

It follows, therefore, that the organization of the proletariat as a class requires the presence of the political party. But while economic organization, the labor union, is the spontaneous product of the exploited class, the same cannot be said of the party, which is imposed on the class from the outside.

“A small section of the class stands apart from it and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.” This is what we call the “Reversal of Practice.”

Let us now turn to Lenin: “We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic [Today we would say: ‘communist’—Ed.] consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from the outside. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. […] Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course. […] Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. […] The spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism […] and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is […] to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy”

“The Social-Democracy leads the struggle of the working class, not only for better terms for the sale of labour-power, but for the abolition of the social system that compels the propertyless to sell themselves to the rich. Social-Democracy represents the working class, not in its relation to a given group of employers alone, but in its relation to all classes of modern society and to the state as an organised political force. Hence, it follows that not only must Social-Democrats not confine themselves exclusively to the economic struggle, but that they must not allow the organization of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities.” (Lenin-“What is to be Done”)

But if the proletariat needs the cooperation and guidance of defectors from the bourgeoisie, it is equally true that the bourgeoisie, too, makes use of traitors from the proletarian class to maintain its domination. It is Marx who says: “The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule.” Just how true this concept is can be clearly seen in the behavior of all those former workers who, over time, have risen to lead opportunist and counterrevolutionary unions and parties.

In conclusion, only the intervention of the class-based political party can give the proletariat, by taking the lead in the unions, a truly class-based direction and a historic goal: the overthrow of the capitalist regime. On the other hand, the party, too, needs to base its strength on a militant workers’ movement organized within strong class-based unions; without these conditions, the revolution will remain nothing more than an unattainable myth.

Turning now to our two earlier trade-union writings, which we are republishing below, we can say that (apart from very minor, insignificant variations due to the current complete collapse of the official unions and the now-defunct opportunist parties, all of whom now declare themselves to be liberals and democrats), we fully stand by their content, and we consider all the practical guidelines to be highly valid and relevant today. Guidelines that, as the class struggle resumes, the proletariat must adopt and apply, both as a method of struggle and as demands.

However, there are two necessary conditions that are still lacking.

– A militant workers’ movement ready to take up the struggle in defense of its immediate interests and those of the working class as a whole

– A Party equipped with a vast organization and a strong hold on the working class, which, through its communist groups within factories and unions, strives to seize leadership of the unions and drive   the working masses, to revive substantial class action.

In the absence of these two essential factors, any attempt to provide guidance to the working class, whether in terms of demands or methods of struggle, that goes beyond the general principles set forth in Theses 23 and 25 of the “Bases for the Rebirth of the Workers’ Union” would amount to nothing more than wishful and inconclusive activism.

Foundations for the Rebirth of the Workers’ Union

from “Il Sindacato Rosso, 11/1969”

Amid the prevailing chaos, brought about by the struggles between factions of the bourgeoisie and the major international concentrations of finance capital, the workers’ movement is also sinking, due to parties that have betrayed and permanently abandoned the main path of the communist revolution, and to unions that yearn only to place themselves under the protection of the capitalist state. Confusion reigns supreme everywhere. What dominates is the practice characteristic of historical periods of general decline, the absolute absence of programs and of precise, unambiguous guidelines. The most absolute anarchy and the most unbridled existentialism reign supreme.

All the more so, in this pitiful state of affairs, the class-based political party, the true revolutionary Marxist party, has no reason to alter its traditional program of struggle; therefore, even on this occasion of the 7th National Congress of the CGIL, our party has no choice but to reaffirm its long-standing positions, including those regarding the working class’s struggle for demands, drawn from the classic and immutable principles, confirmed by over a century of proletarian struggles, and contained in the Communist Party’s time-honored program. On the occasion of the Sixth Congress of the CGIL in late March 1965, brief papers were drafted summarizing these classic positions, to provide revolutionary proletarians with an outline of social problems and a guide for revolutionary struggle. We have nothing to change, and we are republishing them in their original text, except for a few formal corrections and clarifications of certain aspects that have since become more clearly defined.

For decades, political parties and groups have continued to adapt to reality, dismantling and reassembling the positions of the previous day on a daily basis, yet things remain at square one: capitalism dominates society. Various protesters and storytellers have resurfaced, claiming to offer new and more concrete positions—only to vanish within a single day. Things have not changed. The whirlwind of turncoats borders on madness as the impetuous and tragic collapse of society approaches, a vortex into which dying capitalism would like to drag the propertyless class.

The communist program remains as unshakable as a lighthouse in a storm, showing the proletarian masses the path to salvation. Capitalism will collapse when the working class takes this luminous path. That is why all the energies of revolutionary communists are directed toward making this light shine, always, by every means, at any cost.

1. In today’s society, dominated by capitalist relations of production, in which labor has taken the form of wage labor and the products of labor have taken the form of capital, labor and capital as social forces that are hostile and irreconcilable to one another, the struggle between the fundamental classes into which it is divided: the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, and the landowners, is permanent and violent until the complete victory of socialism throughout the world.

The monopolistic development of capitalism increasingly exacerbates, rather than mitigates, class conflicts, since the imperialist phase characterizes the agonizing and decaying state of economic and social structures.

Capitalism is incapable of developing the productive forces for the benefit of society as a whole, and is historically ripe to give way to a new and youthful social formation. Capitalism is capable only of expressing its inherently parasitic nature; it subordinates every technical and scientific resource and all the forces of production to its existence, which is founded on the extortion of unpaid labor and profit, making part of the fruits of this system available to a stratum of intermediate classes, the petty and middle bourgeoisie, and the labor aristocracy, who are therefore interested in defending the present regime.

2. Driven by its internal contradictions, the capitalist economy tends to concentrate within the state, where the profit system finds its sole bulwark against the historic proletarian assault. State capitalism, foreseen by the classics of Marxism and brilliantly described in its recent development by Lenin, therefore constitutes the form best suited to perpetuating the conditions of exploitation of the proletariat.

3. Today, even more clearly and openly than in the past, it is evident that the central state represents the permanent historical interests of capitalism, regardless of the government in power or the party or coalition of parties holding power. For this reason, every struggle of the proletariat against capital, even if only in defense of current economic and wage conditions, inevitably clashes with the state of capital and constitutes, albeit still unconsciously, an action that subverts the established order.

4. In this historical, social, and political context, just as political programs that straddle the interests of various conflicting classes are impossible, so too is a trade union program that seeks to defend the immediate interests of the proletariat while simultaneously refusing to fight thoroughly against the power of the state representing the privileged classes absolutely inconceivable.

5. The economic struggles of the proletariat are not the product of anyone’s will; they are imposed by the existing social system, in which, on the one hand, the capitalist bourgeoisie, through its state, tends to squeeze the conditions of the working classes into ever-tighter constraints in defense of its privilege, and, on the other hand, the proletarian masses are driven to resist this constant capitalist assault so as not to be reduced to a state of slavery.

6. The trade union thus represents the proletariat’s instrument of economic defense. But the effectiveness of this instrument depends on the political forces that direct it, the objectives they set for themselves, and the means they employ.

7. For over forty years, no autonomous revolutionary struggles of the proletariat have appeared on the historical stage; the proletariat is completely captive to the opportunist parties that dominate unchallenged all mass organizations, including, first and foremost, the professional trade unions. The labor union, thus directed by non-revolutionary political forces, does not pose a threat to the capitalist regime even on the very terrain of economic struggle, although the strongest federation of all, the CGIL, still dares to call itself a “class-based union.”

8. The explicit proclamation of loyalty to democracy, the republican constitution, and the state constitutes proof of open betrayal of the historical interests of the proletariat and of the abandonment of any serious struggle on behalf of wage earners. Democracy is the typical form of the capitalist state, through which it is able much more easily to deceive the masses of the exploited by giving them the illusion that the current social system, founded on the exploitation of the labor force, is eternal and, at most, can be “corrected.” The democratic republican Constitution is the official charter of this deception and this illusion, intended to distract the proletariat from achieving its historical goals, which are the overthrow of the current inhuman system of production and life and the establishment of communist society.

9. While the leaders of the trade union apparatus brand revolutionary communists as reactionaries for their firm determination to propose to the entire proletariat the revolutionary solution to social conflicts, they are setting the labor movement back by more than half a century, leading the dispossessed masses toward a demagogic and disastrous prospect of reforming economic and social structures, thereby wiping away with a stroke of a sponge the tragic significance of fifty years of tremendous struggles, which gave rise to two bloody world wars and confirmed the dictatorship of capital.

The alternative facing the workers’ movement is not “democratic reformism or fascism,” but: “hidden dictatorship (democracy) or open dictatorship (fascism), or a victorious communist proletarian revolution.”

10. In fact, the prospect of structural reforms and “democratic planning” touted by the trade union federations leads back to a reformist past, which the history of recent decades has set out, often with the utmost violence, to destroy once and for all, demonstrating that capitalism is not to be reformed, but annihilated.

11. Therefore, confining the proletariat’s immediate struggles for demands to the limits of “structural reforms” means proclaiming in advance the trade union federations’ refusal to seriously defend wages and jobs; it means reinforcing the illusion that the wage-based system is eternal; it consequently means destroying the revolutionary will of the working masses.

12. The dismal reformist vision has always and entirely encompassed the trade union policy not only of organizations of bourgeois origin such as the CISL and the UIL, but, unfortunately, also of the CGIL. In the immediate postwar period, in concert with the opportunist parties constituting the two factions at the helm of the CGIL, the counterrevolutionary task of rebuilding the “national” economy was undertaken; and subsequently, when capitalist power had been reestablished and powerfully reinforced, that of the “struggle against monopolies.” During this period, the trade union federations subordinated their demands to the preservation of the productive apparatus and the national economy, that is, to the substantial privileges of the capitalist classes.

13. The struggles to demand differentiated wages have fostered the formation of a privileged, better-paid stratum of workers at the expense of the vast majority of wage earners. These fragmented struggles have further divided the working-class front, enabling the capitalist employers, company management, and the monopolies themselves to gradually absorb the workers’ pressure and demands without suffering any damage.

Demands for production bonuses, piecework pay, and overtime have contributed to the intensification of workers’ exploitation, the spread of unemployment, and, in general, the fragmentation of class unity.

14. Strikes that had all the prerequisites to succeed as impressive demonstrations of workers’ strength were neutralized in advance or diverted in the course of the struggle, with the overriding aim of preventing alliances between different occupational groups and out of fear that the struggles, driven by the tragic conditions of the working class, would spread and automatically call for a new and different political direction for the union.

First the economic collapse (the 1963 crisis) and then the recovery in production (1967–68), both resolved at the workers’ expense, led the trade union federations to sabotage any general defense of the workers, allowing layoffs, a real wage freeze, and an increase in the intensity and exploitation of the workforce take place with impunity company by company, allowing workers’ anger to dissipate into a thousand local and company-specific incidents, in order to prevent the proletariat, by converging into a single collective surge, from testing the validity of a direct and generalized struggle against capitalism, and at the same time from exposing, in the heat of the struggle, the betrayal of the union leaders.

15. The much-vaunted trade-union unity pursued by the CGIL leaders together with the “white” and “yellow” federations, CISL and UIL, which are expressions of open employer interests, since it is not and cannot be achieved on the basis of a program of general interests common to all proletarians, aims rather at the creation of a single counterrevolutionary trade-union organization that would ensnare all wage earners; just as yesterday the single trade union organization, the CGIL, was split by the formation of the CISL and the UIL with the intent of weakening the workers’ natural resistance as quickly as possible by dividing the proletarian front.

A return to proletarian unity either means, as is the case now, the CGIL’s complete abandonment of any semblance of class consciousness, or, as we hope, it will be the result of the growing class mobilization of wage earners determined to reestablish a single, united, and invincible organization, the prerequisite for which is the replacement of traitorous leaders with leaders loyal to the workers’ interests.

For the Communist Leadership of the Union

16. The economic crisis has highlighted the inability of union leaders to propose effective solutions to the proletariat in defense of wages and jobs; it has also clearly demonstrated the absolute impossibility, under the capitalist system, of avoiding economic disasters or achieving a harmonious evolution of the economy. New and deeper crises will bring to the fore the inevitable direct clash between the proletariat and the capitalist state to put an end to this mad rush toward the destruction of people, resources, and energy.

17. Revolutionary communists, drawing on the centuries-old experience of proletarian struggles, observe that the current unfaithful union leaders will not leave their leadership positions until they have been driven out by the workers through a protracted struggle aimed at purging their ranks of traitors and those sold out to the bourgeoisie. This struggle, an advanced form of the class struggle, will take place to the extent that the proletariat decides to move from passive acquiescence to opportunist influences to a firm determination to defend their livelihoods, their wages, and their jobs by any means necessary, refusing to defend national, patriotic, republican, or constitutional interests, behind which lie only capitalist privileges; refusing to subordinate their economic struggles to the demagogic struggle for structural reforms.

18. This struggle will be possible to the extent that the proletariat makes the revolutionary communist program its own; it will be victorious on the condition that it allows itself to be led by its class party, the International Communist Party. For this reason, revolutionary communists do not propose the creation of new unions as long as it is possible to carry out revolutionary work within the existing ones, as long as the CGIL does not formally renounce the class attributes to which it claims to adhere, and does not prohibit the formation of factions within its ranks.

They organize themselves into communist groups in factories and trade unions to spread the revolutionary program of the class party there and to work toward winning leadership positions in the trade unions.

19. The establishment of the revolutionary communist program within the trade unions will ensure that the struggle of the masses takes a revolutionary course, an essential prerequisite for preventing the trade unions from being co-opted by the capitalist state and enabling them to serve as the unified organization of the proletariat in defense of its economic interests and in preparation for the seizure of power.

20. As the clashes between the dispossessed masses on the one hand and the privileged classes and their state on the other intensify, it becomes increasingly impossible to continue a so-called neutral policy, one that maintains an equal distance from the parties and the state, which the CGIL bureaucrats boast of pursuing.

In reality, by declaring themselves faithful guardians of the democratic method, they objectively place themselves at the service of the capitalist regime and tie the conditions and fate of the proletariat to those of the capitalist state. According to the teachings of Lenin and the Left, trade unions cannot pursue a policy independent of political parties; they are either under the influence of opportunist parties, that is, agents of capitalism, or are led by the revolutionary Communist Party.

21. The work of revolutionary communists within the mass organizations of the proletariat is therefore essential, because it serves to expose the counterrevolutionary policies of the leaders, urges the proletariat to demand greater resolve in waging struggles and in setting their immediate objectives, and to remain vigilant so that no collusion occurs between union leaders and corporate management.

The primary task of communists is precisely to fight against the corporatism generated by company-centered unionism, to provide the entire proletariat with a comprehensive view of economic and political issues, and to imbue the struggles with a class perspective that transcends not only the narrow confines of the company but also those of the occupational category and sector, the region, and the nation, reaffirming that the proletariat’s struggle is an international struggle against a regime, the capitalist regime, which extends its dominion over the entire world.

For this reason, company-based union sections, conceived as “contractual agents,” “autonomous and independent” from the union, imprison the masses within individual companies and prevent their general and unified action.

22. In order to unite the forces of the proletariat and to unify their efforts and struggles, revolutionary communists advocate a return to the traditional function of the Chambers of Labor, where all proletarians come together across occupational categories and sectors, offices, and companies, for that mutual, physical, and natural contact that instills confidence in their own strength, breaks the isolation to which the proletariat is forced in the workplace, and reawakens in workers the consciousness of being a class and not mere aggregates or productive appendages of capitalist society.

This goal is achieved not through abstract organizational formulas (“grassroots democracy,” “workers’ committees,” etc.) but through a network of struggles that mobilize all sectors of the working class, which, in the heat of the battle, will produce appropriate leadership bodies, leaders loyal to the cause, and closer, more organic ties with the central leadership of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

23. Revolutionary Communists do not claim to possess a magic formula that would guarantee, once they are at the helm of the trade unions, the full and continuous success of the struggles for workers’ demands.

Because of the consciousness they derive from being militants of the class-based party, they know full well that any achievement under the capitalist system is fleeting and ephemeral; and that the masses’ realization of the inevitability of communism’s victory over capitalism constitutes the indispensable and necessary prerequisite even for immediate struggles for specific demands.

Therefore, they will always propose immediate objectives that contain elements which unite, rather than divide, the many categories into which capitalism has separated workers in order to better dominate their forces and interests; elements that generalize workers’ struggles to elevate them to the higher political form of class struggle; objectives whose attainment, or even the mere struggle to achieve them, undermines capitalist interests and compels the capitalist state to cast off the infamous mask of the “state of the nation” or the “people,” that is, the democratic state, and to reveal itself in its true form as an instrument of the dictatorship of capital. Characteristic objectives include: the reduction of the workweek to at least 36 hours with no loss of pay; wage increases commensurate with the real needs of the proletariat; full wages for the unemployed, strikers, and retirees; the abolition of piecework and overtime; and the elimination of production bonuses and all forms of incentives that companies use to squeeze every last drop of energy from workers.

24. The myth of the employment contract shifts the focus of the struggle from its social and class-based terrain to a legal and formal one. On the basis of this legalistic practice, the trade union federations instill in the working classes the belief that everything is resolved once a contract is reached; when company management takes a hard line, they channel disputes into the labyrinth of government ministries to subject them to formal adjustments or ambiguous compromises, for the sole purpose of diverting workers’ attention from the political and class significance of their struggles for better conditions, and thus defuse workers’ anger while they await a legal resolution of the dispute. Labor contracts are won through struggle and in the streets, and they offer no guarantee to the proletariat unless they are defended by daily battles and struggles that put the bourgeois classes under intense pressure.

25. Revolutionary Communists call on the proletariat to put an end to the ignoble practice of timed strikes, those announced in advance to company management, prefectures, and police headquarters, strikes that instill no fear in the bourgeoisie and which, when, through the workers’ spontaneous initiative, they take on an unexpected class character, they serve as a rallying cry and an outlet for the hatred of the ruling classes, manifesting itself in harassment, arrests, and convictions of proletarians. The strike, as used today by the counterrevolutionary trade union federations, is a blunt and counterproductive weapon. Only a sudden strike, and one as widespread as possible, truly strikes at the economic interests of capitalism, while also preventing it from effectively preparing means of defense and immediate counterattack.

26. Neither the individual worker, nor the work unit, nor even the class conceived in statistical terms, and consequently not even the immediate organs of the working class themselves, the trade unions, can have an overall view of social struggles, understand their causes and effects, evaluate the choice of means of action, set objectives, or assume centralized and disciplined leadership of the struggles. Only the class-based political Party possesses these indispensable qualities for the victorious conduct of the historic battle against capitalism. Therefore, the demand that the Party voluntarily renounce this leadership would mean renouncing the victory of communism over capitalism. The revolutionary proletariat, therefore, is engaged on two fronts: against the privileged classes and their central state, and against opportunist parties and union leaders. All workers are called upon to join this struggle, and the International Communist Party relies on the lowest-paid and most exploited section of the proletariat to stir up the necessary momentum for the revolutionary class struggle.

Attempts to impose “allies” on the proletariat, recruited from the ranks of the petty bourgeoisie, shopkeepers, “people,” and students, aim solely to perpetuate the “democratic infection” among the masses, which has kept them from the revolutionary resurgence of the class struggle.

The same goal is served by the stale propaganda of pseudo-left groups, which seek to discredit the workers’ trade union organization among the proletariat under the pretext that the unions are led by covert agents of the bourgeoisie.

In this way, it becomes clear that both groups operate as de facto allies of the enemies of the working class and the communist revolution; they act as elements of disintegration within the proletariat and seek to deprive it even of its organs of economic defense, after having worked to demolish the class-based political party.

27. Winning over the trade union to the revolutionary struggle, that is, transforming the CGIL into a Red Union, depends essentially on the formation within the Confederation of revolutionary communist groups, around which the most radical and determined section of the working class can be mobilized with the precise and explicit aim of wresting the leadership of the proletarian organizations from the hands of the bonzes, in order to turn the unions into fighting organs against capitalism and its state, under the leadership of the true Communist Party.

Communist proletarians do not renounce this aim, even if driven out of the unions by the traitorous leaders. They remain at their posts of struggle within the ranks of the workers to organize the defense of the union against the disruptive actions of the traitorous leaders.

28. The proletariat has nothing to defend, demand, or contest under the capitalist regime; rather, it must completely destroy it through its class violence, consciously organized by the class-based Party. It follows that, contrary to the increasingly clear and solemn assertions of union leaders and official political leaders, the proletariat must also organize itself within the unions to turn them into “powerful levers” with the specific aim of overthrowing the current social system, if it does not wish to perpetuate its condition as a modern slave, periodically forced to shed its blood on the altar of defending the fatherland, after having shed its sweat throughout its life on the altar of the national economy.

The Evolution and Dynamics of the Trade Union Form

Part Two of the report to the party’s general meeting of May 6–7, 1978, published in Issue 1 of Comunismo, January–April 1979.

The Phase of State Totalitarianism: State Trade Unions

a) 1926–1945: The Fascist Period

The crisis of 1929 passed without any revolutionary upsurge, and the bourgeoisie was subsequently able to resolve its contradictions through World War II, a slaughterhouse for millions of proletarians, which saw what had been the glorious Soviet Republic first allied with German imperialism, then fighting alongside American imperialism in the name of democracy. The attitude of the true communists during the First World War had been quite different: war against war, no to national solidarity, transformation of the imperialist war into a revolutionary class war.

With the revolutionary wave over and the World Communist Party destroyed, the bourgeoisie can calmly and unhindered implement its plan to bring workers under union control: they no longer have their own party; they no longer consider themselves an internationally linked class opposed to other classes, but rather a “factor of production,” a component of the people and the Nation, which, together with Capital, contributes to the good and prosperity of the Fatherland. In the fascist conception, wages must indeed be defended, but only if this does not harm the national economy; conflicts may arise, but above all else, the imperative of national solidarity applies to everyone. This is the reformist program that the bourgeoisie, unified in its fascist party, is attempting to implement in practice.

The entire proletariat is compulsorily organized into unions that are, to all intents and purposes, organs of the state; the bourgeoisie can no longer tolerate the existence of free trade unions, even if their leadership is not revolutionary. The Chamber of Corporations brings together representatives of the various “factors of production” (today we would say “social partners”): industrialists and so-called workers’ representatives who, under state supervision, settle any disputes.

At the same time, the state imposes from above a series of social security and welfare measures aimed at regulating the exploitation of the workforce, ensuring production, and preventing class action: these measures are nothing more than the reforms, the long-standing banner of the Social Democrats.

Simultaneously, the state evolves in a totalitarian direction. The bourgeoisie no longer needs parliament and eliminates the forms of elective democracy, perfecting its state apparatus, which increasingly takes the form of a gigantic administrative-bureaucratic-military apparatus that dictates over all sectors of society. Maximum centralization, a single party, absolute dominance of the executive branch, and an attempt to plan and regulate every sector of economic and social life.

This process corresponds to the evolution of the economy toward a monopolistic structure. The conflict between the various factions of the bourgeoisie has long since been definitively resolved in favor of finance capital, which now reigns unchallenged. The entire economy is in the hands of large financial holdings that operate as monopolies in every productive sector. The state itself intervenes massively in the economy, and in Italy in particular, it is the most powerful capitalist.

The nineteenth-century ironworks owner is gradually giving way to the manager, a state employee with a lavish salary, to the financier, and to the anonymous joint-stock company.

Monopolistic capital requires strict control over the labor market, uniform conditions throughout the entire country, and national labor contracts that are valid everywhere and enforced: this is why it must absolutely crush class-based unionism and bring all wage workers under the umbrella of state-controlled unions.

In countries with more developed capitalism, such as France, England, and the United States of America, where there was no strong revolutionary party, this process unfolds peacefully, and the bourgeoisie can maintain the forms of elective democracy and unions with formally free and voluntary membership. In other words, the same process takes place: the centralization of the state apparatus and the subjugation of the proletariat to national solidarity, without the need to resort to open dictatorship. All political forces spontaneously submit to the state, the working class, corrupted by welfare measures such as the American New Deal (adopted by Italian fascism), allows itself to be quietly led into war; and within this context, the tradition of a trade unionism willing to sacrifice everything for the defense of institutions and the regime takes hold, a unionism willing to sabotage any strike if it weakens the national economy, and willing to sign, as in Switzerland, an “eternal peace” between labor and capital. This is fascist trade unionism in disguise, which would also take hold in Italy and Germany after World War II and which our party would define as “tricolor trade unionism.”

b) 1945, the post-fascist period: Tricolor trade unionism

Once the war was won, the Allies, who had dragged the working class into slaughtering one another in the name of democracy, for “freedom” against the fascist dictatorship, imposed on the defeated Italy and Germany the restoration of democratic institutions: free elections, a parliament. In the trade union sphere, the parties previously united in the CLN established from above a trade union federation to be called the General Italian Confederation of Labor. But the tendencies that led to the rise of fascism as a method of governing the bourgeois state apparatus not only persisted but became increasingly pronounced: vast financial empires, massive state intervention and attempts to plan the economy, the strengthening of the state’s repressive apparatus, and the executive branch’s absolute dominance over the legislative branch. Parliament has now been reduced to a “smoke-and-mirrors” charade: it serves only to make workers believe that the state is also their state, since they are free to elect their own representatives. It is today’s very same opportunists who implicitly confirm these facts when they complain about the almost exclusive reliance on decree-laws, the continued existence of fascist laws, and so on.

The so-called anti-fascist parties are in reality nothing more than a single party, having all submitted to the state, which today rightly finances them. The formally free trade unions formed after World War II are the successors to the fascist state trade union; they are “tailored to the Mussolini model.” Their function is, in fact, to keep the working class firmly anchored to national solidarity, to prevent it from acting on class grounds, and to ensure that workers do not feel like a separate class but rather a “component of the nation.” This is the trade unionism that the Party has called “tricolore.”

It inevitably tends toward open integration into the state apparatus.

State law, in fact, provides for the legal recognition of trade unions, that is, their institutionalization, and in this regard they have taken numerous steps, such as the establishment of the “delegation” system, that is, the method of collecting dues through state and employer offices (a method employed by an organization that has effectively signed a social peace agreement and renounced the class struggle forever), and the practice that has gradually taken hold of resolving disputes at the bargaining table, under the high patronage of the state, starting not from the needs of the workers but from those of the national economy.

Through the “Tricolor” unions, the Italian bourgeoisie has been able to rebuild, at the expense of the proletariat, its productive apparatus destroyed by the war, re-enter the world market, reap immense profits, and enrich itself beyond measure through the brutal exploitation of the workforce. What has the working class gained from this? Ten years of crumbs, of fleeting prosperity, and then once again, with the crisis, unemployment, sacrifices, and hunger.

Driven by pressure from the workers, the “Tricolor” unions are even forced to call strikes; however, they do so in such a way that these actions amount to mere demonstrations, formal protests, and never to genuine class struggles. They sabotage any demand, any struggle that threatens the capitalist order. Like the fascist unions, they operate by: “playing the tune of the struggle against the bosses in the key of national unity,” and their specific function is to “deprive future revolutionary class movements of the solid foundation of a truly autonomous workers’ union structure.”

The General Confederation of Labor of 1921, even though led by reformists, was an anti-capitalist class-based union, a purely workers’ organization born of struggle, which the proletariat could use for its own defense against the bosses and against the traitorous leaders themselves. Its charter stated:

“Article 1) The General Confederation of Labor is established in Italy to organize and direct the struggle of the working class against the capitalist system of production and labor (…)

“Article 2) The Confederation is composed of: a) all national industrial and professional federations that carry out functions of resistance and are guided by the principles of class struggle (…) b) all Chambers of Labor that adhere to their own general and complementary tasks of resistance, which are guided by the principles of class struggle.”

Article 3) established the Confederation’s functions as follows: “(…) the general leadership of the proletarian, industrial, and peasant movement, above any political distinction (…) so that every partial conflict between capital and labor may be resolved in the manner most favorable to the working class, and every general movement, brought about by the intensification of the class struggle, may be directed toward practical goals.”

The Fascist “Charter of Labor” stated:

“The good of the State must therefore take precedence over that of isolated individuals or groups of individuals who make up the Italian Nation. This concept underlies not only the Charter of Labor, but the entire Fascist policy (…) Trade union or professional organization is free. But only a union that is legally recognized and subject to state control has the right to legally represent the entire category of employers or workers for which it is established; to protect their interests vis-à-vis the state and other professional associations; to enter into collective bargaining agreements binding on all members of the category; to impose dues on them; and to exercise, with respect to them, delegated functions in the public interest (…)

“In the collective bargaining agreement, solidarity among the various factors of production finds its concrete expression through the reconciliation of the opposing interests of employers and workers and their subordination to the higher interests of production. This provision eliminates any cause for animosity between workers and employers, who, in their relations, no longer regard each other as enemies but as cordial collaborators in the common endeavor to improve production.”

Article 1 of the Statutes of the General Italian Confederation of Labor states:

“The General Italian Confederation of Labor (CGIL) is a national workers’ organization. It organizes workers who, regardless of political opinion, ideological conviction, religious faith, or membership in any ethnic group, by accepting and practicing the principles of its Statute, consider loyalty to freedom and democracy the permanent foundation of trade union activity (…)

“The CGIL bases its program and actions on the Constitution of the Italian Republic and pursues its full implementation, particularly with regard to the rights proclaimed therein and the economic and social reforms prescribed therein.”

And the Constitution states precisely that:

“Article 39) Trade union organization is free. No obligation may be imposed on trade unions other than their registration with local or central offices, in accordance with the law.

“A condition for registration is that the statutes of trade unions establish an internal structure based on democratic principles. Registered trade unions have legal personality. They may, represented collectively in proportion to their membership, enter into collective bargaining agreements that are binding on all members of the categories to which the agreement applies.

“Article 40) The right to strike is exercised within the framework of the laws governing it.”

Italian trade unionism, therefore, does not differ in its policies from that of the Fascist era.

Post-World War II trade unions, however, are not yet organs of the state, but inevitably tend to become so, and in this sense they have taken significant steps, such as the introduction of proxy voting.

The reestablishment in 1945 of formally free and voluntary union membership means that the bourgeoisie, thanks to the PCI and the PSI, was able to bind the exploited masses to itself without needing to resort to the coercive state union.

By leveraging a usurped tradition and the corruption of substantial sections of the labor aristocracy, the opportunist parties have succeeded in tying the exploited masses to the chariot of the bourgeois economy, which now—after ten years of “boom,” is once again pushing them into the same misery of the post-World War I period.

But just as the bourgeoisie’s tendency to imprison workers in regime-controlled unions is irreversible, so too is the crisis that will lead to the collapse of the capitalist economy, and with it, all the achievements once believed to be eternal, all the democratic deceptions, and all the pacifist illusions.

The exploited masses will have no alternative but to fight to defend their very means of existence. From this struggle, which will pit them against all the “tricolor” unions, all the political parties, and the entire state apparatus, the class-based union must rise again.

“Tricolor” unions and class-based unions are two antithetical terms; one excludes the other. Workers must break the apparatus that currently ties their conditions of existence to the vicissitudes of the profit-driven economy in order to assert by force their right to live and work even when corporate profits decline.

The rebirth of the class-based union, therefore, must take place in opposition to current union policy and structure, against national solidarity, and in favor of solidarity among all the exploited against the ruling classes.