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.