An occasional participant at the weekly meetings held in one of our sections, intending to establish his “preferences” between ourselves and others (whom Lenin would define “not particularly intelligent critics who insist on considering themselves communists”), and embarking on a hateful “comparison”, thought he had located the classical sore point when he asked: “Do you believe you’re the Party of the revolution or don’t you think that you are, instead, one of the groups destined to become caught up in a movement of revolutionary revival that you will lend your support to, just like other groups?” This is the real watershed between ourselves and all the other groups, including those who, believing themselves “very intelligent”, are ready to constantly update their positions and appear, according to the occasion, as the most “revolutionary”.
Of course, our reply disappointed the questioner, who thence felt able to “make his choice” with the utmost confidence and never turned up again, finding it more logical to go to those who feel they are part of a “historical” and “non-sectarian”, “mass” movement and not one of “parties”. But the episode deserves a non-episodic comment.
First of all, we can observe that this is just an easy way out when faced with the difficulties of the counter-revolutionary situation. The idea of not facing, within historical limits, the task of forming a party to direct the revolution, even if it appears a more “modest” position, really means “waiting to see” how the film will develop and not taking part until everything – literally everything – has turned out according to our wishes, our illusions, automatically, because this is how “history” means it to be; it is equivalent to being irresponsible. And even admitting this development, the role of the party would prove useless, or would find itself lagging behind events. The “modesty” here consists solely in the modest, subordinate role assigned to the party, not in the foolish claim of being able to understand at every turn the sense of historic events outside a complete and exhaustive doctrine, or a definite programme, with established tactical possibilities, getting by, instead, and aside from modesty, thanks to one’s own capabilities and brains, in the sea of events which in the end (how convenient!) take the right direction and show our “brains” the positions to be taken (and those to be abandoned).
Clearly, behind a seeming shade of meaning, which only too easily takes the form of opposing “moral” attitudes, a complete theoretical and programmatic contrast is hidden. As always, on the one hand, the easy, “creative” path, which is certainly activist and always seeks justifications in events that happen outside the organisation and theory; on the other, the hard and “sectarian” path, charged with wanting to “superimpose” itself on the real movement, but which is the only way to constitute a revolutionary organization of militants animated by the party’s clear picture of the objectives and route to be pursued – and therefore ready to submit to this, ready to make continuous sacrifices, with the utmost abnegation and to carry out work that is modest because it is not personal.
On the one hand, there is the role of the party as “illuminator” and its work, which takes place solely as “agitation” at all costs, independently of any possible channelling of the real movement in a given political direction, guided by a sort of “marketing” (i.e. market research to find an outlet for one’s own products; and isn’t this the claim of the honest “philosophers” of advertising or information technology, too? merely to provide a “stimulus” for consumers without depriving them of their... creativity and choices?). The consumer masses would choose the made-to-measure “party product”, as though at the supermarket, at some point. In the meantime, some trifles are completely neglected: theoretical issues that are not of current interest and tactical choices that will be evaluated on the spur of the moment, whilst the form of organization is left up to the party’s work with the masses and, above all, with the masses in the party.
On the other hand, there is the role of the party as the guide of the revolution, which can only be so on one condition: that it poses itself the question of its own role, at all levels – theoretical, programmatic, tactical, organizational – well before it effectively represents that precise organization formally. This means understanding that history has already supplied all this material and that the masses cannot take possession of it unless there is the active presence of the organization that constantly presents it to them anew in the events that take place and shows that it is capable of organizing them efficiently to achieve the supreme objective: communist society.
It is comical to hear some people who think we are too demanding, or the sole “heirs” of Marxism, in our attempt to set up the nucleus of the future class party, ask suspiciously and with bias: “What form of organization do you ‘propose’?” Of course, because we can wait around for enlightenment by the “movement” to set up the party, but the organization, good heavens!, in the miserable activity that is possible today, must be democratic, the true expression of its members’ will! These people can never understand, since they do not have the slightest idea of its basic premises, that only a programmatically coherent party, compact (or, if you like, its initial nucleus), consisting of militants united by the very same programme, can constitute a cast-iron and centralized organization that is at the same time voluntary because it is wanted. The organization is a consequence of all aspects of the party: supporting it means supporting the communist programme (the only one) and consequently working on the constitution of the only communist party. When support has been given, practical (organizational) subordination to the programme necessarily follows and the transposition of individual “will” into the will of the party, if the term “subordination” is really too much to use.
It is of no use talking about “organization” without a profound discussion of the party prior to this, a definition of its programme and its tactics. And it is irresponsible to speak of this in relation to a group of individuals linked only by an ideal objective far removed in time but without sharing the same opinion on the means to be used and the path to follow in order to reach this objective. This irresponsibility is greatest when certain people, not satisfied with the confusion already reigning in their own ranks, try to convey this to others, suggesting agreements on joint action, to try out in practice.
Yes, we do intend to constitute the nucleus of the party that will be able to direct the revolutionary class movement. It is a hard task that is beyond us. It is not sufficient to declare this – it must be applied to all our work. At present this work is carried out inadequately and is fragmented, generally amidst unfavourable conditions, but we would be absurd amateurs if we did not set ourselves this precise task. The history of the class struggle has an experience behind it that must stand as a treasure for us. We must take possession of it without delay. Belonging to our movement must mean that we have the willpower to claim this heritage and so understand the words of Lenin in What Is To Be Done?: “Can a weak revolutionary, hesitant in theoretical matters, with a limited perspective, who justifies his inertia with the spontaneity of the mass movement […], incapable of presenting a bold and wide-ranging plan that commands respect even from its adversaries […] possibly be called a revolutionary? NO. He is just a poor artisan [amateur].”
You artisans [amateurs] who want a party free of programmatic limitations and well-defined tactics, where your contribution will find enough “room”, turn elsewhere!
International Communist Party
(International Papers - Cahiers Internationalistes - Il Programma Comunista)