(n)PCI: Let’s really embrace Maoism as the superior phase of the theoretical communist heritage!

Comrade Paolo Babini, a member of the International Relations department of the CARC (Committees to Support Resistance – for Communism) Party in Italy, wrote in the comments section of my post on the latest issue of Maoist Road magazine that:

As a matter of fact, the lack of involvement of the (n)PCI and organizations ideologically linked with it, as the CARC Party, in the debate developed in Maoist Road is due to a sectarian attitude by PCm Italy. I myself and other comrades of the CARC Party tried to participate in some international seminars by Proletari Comunisti (this is the italian name of the group named PCm Italy) but they said always that the meetings were not open. So we were not invited at a Paris seminar on 30-31 January 2010, A comrade of the Delegation of the (n)PCI went there anyway, You’ ll find the statement he read in www.nuovopci.it/eile/en/letsreal.html.

I am neither in a position to verify or debate the allegations that Comrade Paolo Babini has made however, I have decided to re-post the entirety of the statement that the members of the delegation of the (new)Italian Communist Party [(n)PCI] read, despite the fact that they and the CARC – according to Comrade Paolo Babini – had been actively excluded from the Paris seminar on 30-31 January, 2010 as I think it sheds light on serious ideological and political differences that really do exist inside the Maoist movement. The statement is interesting because, besides two more open-ended critiques of dogmatism and economism, it critiques unnamed Maoists and the PCm Italy on three significant points: 1) an assumption that socialist revolution is only possible when an anti-imperialist new democratic revolutions develop on a large-scale in the oppressed countries; 2) a misunderstanding on the party of the PCm Italy regarding the nature of the economic crisis inasmuch that the (n)PCI believe that this is a terminal crisis, whereas the PCm Italy believes that this it is a cyclical crisis, or at least the (n)PCI has come to understand the PCm Italy’s line to be; and 3) a defeatist attitude towards the Italian working classes by assuming that the current period of Italian politics is already a case of “modern fascism”, which suggests that the ideological struggle and struggle for revolutionary mobilization has already been one by the reactionary classes. Interestingly, the problem of how and when to employ electoral tactics and work inside organized trade unions is also briefly raised as the (n)PCI make it clear that they see electoral politics and existing trade unions as sites of political struggle, and regard any abandonment of these sites of struggle as a form of defeatism.

Again as I am not deeply familiar with the PCm Italy’s line on these matters I cannot discuss their line, but would like to briefly make a few points regarding these questions as similar issues have been raised in regards to the line that the RCP(Canada) has practiced, and I think probably marks some general differences between different tendencies inside the Maoist movement as a whole. The RCP(Canada), who has never described Canada as a ‘modern fascist’ state and thus differs from the PCm France and PCm Italy on this account, has advanced two basic correlated propositions regarding electoral politics: 1) that large swathes of the working class, indeed a major section of the 45% of the electorate, already do not vote and that this lack of electoral participation is not due to political apathy but rather, due to political dissatisfaction with the political status quo. Thus, they assert that the Canadian working classes are in fact practicing an implicit boycott of the electoral system; and 2) that the Canadian working class and proletariat is already implicitly predisposed towards a revolutionary politics, but has been unable to organize itself due to construction of a clandestine party and the lack of a proper revolutionary strategy that is appropriate for our current situation. Thus, the RCP(Canada) argues that rather than support the NDP or other electoral social democratic parties, thereby re-instilling bourgeois illusions about electoral politics, that the Party should promote a boycott call and use the electoral period as a means by which to advance explicitly revolutionary politics. Indeed, the role of any revolutionary communist organization is to unveil the apparatus of bourgeois power and prepare the working classes for a revolutionary overthrow of the State. This of course is closely related to the question of involvement in trade union struggle as the RCP(Canada) asserts that the trade union movement is not a primary site of struggle, as many of the Left have suggested, as the trade union movement is oriented towards a form of class collaborationism and this orientation is reflective of the class composition of the trade union movement itself. The RCP(Canada) claims that nearly 40% of the trade unions are comprised by the salaried petit bourgeoisie and the upper-layers of the working class that have been bought off by imperialist super-profits (it must be noted that they differ from groups like the LLCO and MIM as they continue to assert that 65% of the Canadian population are still proletarians) and that this section of the trade unions controls the trade unions themselves. Furthermore, they also point out that the large majority of the working class continues to be unorganized and outside of the formal structure of any trade union, and that thus a disproportionate amount of energy and activity is expended on a very small section of the proletariat. Although, I am sure that the (n)PCI may regard much of this as also being a form of dogmatism.

Let’s really embrace Maoism as the superior phase of the theoretical communist heritage!

Statement submitted by the Delegation of the Provisional Commission at the meeting convened in Paris on 30-31 January 2010 by Maoist Communist Party – Italy (Communist Proletarians), Maoist Communist Party of France, Maoist Communist Party of Turkey/Northern Kurdistan

 There is the crisis. Millions of proletarians are sacked or anyway put on the fringe of the economical activities and are forced to live on social security cushions, on assistance, on misery and expedients. Riots and turmoil are breaking out here and there. The conditions have become more favorable to the revolution. It is essential to build a Marxist Leninist-Maoist Communist Party in every country. Is all this true or is it wrong? It is true, but it is also wrong!

The ones who think that it has become possible to make the socialist revolution in the imperialist countries only today because there is the crisis, because the conditions of the masses and in particular of the workers are worsening and therefore the socialist revolution will break out, are misguided. The parties who think this way will not make the revolution, even if they say they are Maoists and sincerely believe to be Maoists, because no socialist revolution will break out, as it did not break out in the past.

Anyway, is it possible to make a socialist revolution in the imperialist countries: in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Great Britain, in the USA? It is possible today, but it was possible in the last century as well, during the first wave of proletarian revolution. Notwithstanding, still today and also among the Maoists, some say that, in order to do the socialist revolution in imperialist countries, we need first that an anti-imperialist revolution of new democracy develop on a large-scale in the oppressed countries. This thesis is wrong. It is the result of a deterministic conception of history, a caricature of historical materialism. Lenin was right, Stalin was right, already in the early decades of the last century, when they both claimed that it was possible to make the socialist revolution in the imperialist countries and rightly denounced the Social Democrats because they did not want to make it, because they were saying that socialist revolution was impossible. Actually, the movement of the masses cannot develop over a certain level if it is not headed by a communist party able to lead it. The socialist revolution is possible only if the vanguard of the workers is organized in a party that wants to make it.

It was possible to make the revolution in the imperialist countries: so, why was no communist party able to make the socialist revolution in its country? The parties that today do not answer to this question clearly and correctly, basing themselves on the evaluation of the experience, do not know the way to manage to make today what the communist parties did not make yesterday: the socialist revolution in the imperialist countries. So they will not make it, even if they call themselves Maoists and sincerely believe to be Maoists.  To make the socialist revolution is not only, and even not mainly, a matter of goodwill and of dedication to the cause. The first communist parties of Italy, France, Spain and of other European countries led heroic struggles against Fascism and Nazism, they made the Resistance, yet they did not make the socialist revolution. Why did not they make it?

They did not make it because they did not have a sufficiently good understanding of the conditions in which they fought and did not have a strategy to seize power and establish socialism. They did not know how to make a socialist revolution in an imperialist country. Maoism has given us the intellectual tools for understanding at a higher level the situation in which we fight and for defining the strategy that we follow, it gives us a higher method for knowing and acting. The glorious and heroic communist parties that have preceded us did not have this nor developed it by themselves. That is why they did not make the socialist revolution.

But which are the main contributions Maoism gives to the communist thinking?

The socialist revolution is not an event which breaks out because capitalism is in crisis and the masses are in a bad situation: substantially the communist parties should only get ready to take the opportunity. The socialist revolution is a revolutionary people’s war, the party organizes it stage by stage, it collects forces in every front of class struggle in order to carry it out on a growing scale, it identifies, organizes, directs and combines the thousand threads, episodes and cases of class struggle. These develop spontaneously in open order and sometimes even neutralize each other: the party instead combines them together so that they reinforce each other, giving rise to clashes of a higher level until the constitution of an invincible force, which makes bourgeoisie and clergy’s life impossible. If the party does not organize and conduct the class struggle in this way, there will be no socialist revolution, no matter how much the crisis of capitalism becomes serious. It will be the bourgeoisie that will find some way out on its side.

The comrades who say that the system we live in today in Italy is modern fascism, although they say they are Maoists and sincerely believe to be Maoists, do not understand that the most reactionary and criminal groups of the bourgeoisie and of the clergy, are trying to promote the mobilization of the masses under their orders to throw part of the masses against the other part, and to lead them to plunder other countries. They do not understand that the communist party must promote the revolutionary mobilization of the masses around itself, under its direction; even less they understand how to do it. They do not see the competition between reactionary and revolutionary mobilization that is going on. They declare already lost a war that is just beginning.  They take for granted that the most reactionary and criminal groups of the bourgeoisie and of the clergy have already won and created a system of modern fascism. Not by chance they borrow this thesis of the regime of modern fascism by the bourgeois left (Asor Rosa & Co.) that really has indeed already lost the game and has been already excluded from the direction of the movement of popular masses. The comrades who do not see the struggle that they must lead, of course they do not even lead it; even less they lead it effectively.

They say that we are electoralists, because we contest the ground with the bourgeoisie during election campaigns, even in representative bodies, wherever we are able to take the struggle. They say that we are entrists because we also contest the ground with the bourgeoisie in the trade unions of the regime. We only need they say that we are policemen because we promote the struggle also in squares and streets and also in police corps; that we are magistrates, because we promote the struggle in the courts and also among magistrates; that we are jailers because we promote the struggle also in jails and also among jailers. And so on, because we actually promote the struggle wherever we can understand and exploit the contradictions between the masses and the ruling classes or the contradictions between the groups of the ruling classes.

The comrades that say that the current crisis is a cyclical crisis, even if they say they are Maoists and sincerely believe to be Maoists, are not over the level of understanding of imperialism already got by the parties of the Communist International, which was an insufficient level to make the revolution. Those parties continued to talk about cyclical crises as well and have been repeatedly caught by events. By its nature, a cyclical crisis is a crisis during which the collapse of the business creates the way for the resumption of business in itself. The Authorities would be able to mitigate the effects of the fall of business on the masses with social security cushions and the reformists would then be realistic competitors of us Communists (the argument that “reformists are our worst enemies” feeds on this, whereas, if we have a right line, we actually can use them as auxiliary forces of the revolution). But we are not going through a cyclical crisis: we are at the terminal stage of the second general crisis of capitalism for absolute overproduction of capital.

What is the Protracted Revolutionary People’s War in the imperialist countries, in our country, according to these comrades, who sincerely believe to be Maoists? Besides universal characters, the PRPW has particular characters and laws in every country. In order to lead the PRPW successfully every communist party must discover and use them. We have to experiment, to try, to verify, and to correct wherever necessary, and to improve. It is essential to understand the nature of the political regime in each one’s own country. Italy is Papal Republic. The Criminal Organizations have a political role that the (n) PCI indicates in its Manifesto Program.

Comrades, we must build Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties!

That is why we must put an end to the dogmatism which leads us into repeating empty phrases, maybe even beautiful and resounding, but empty. In every country we have to understand the concrete situation which we live in, the nature of the ongoing crisis, the nature of the ongoing political conflict, the conditions, the forms and the results of class struggle that was fought and that is being fought in our country and on the international level, drawing a line from it and verifying this line putting it into practice. It is not enough to put the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism at the place of the term Marxism-Leninism as the RIM did in 1998 with its founding Declaration of 1984. The word has been changed, but the substance remained the same: what are Mao’s major contributions to communist thinking? It is not enough to dress up as Maoists, if we continue on the old way.

That is why we have to put an end to the economism, which puts the economic demands as the main issue always and everywhere for mobilizing and organizing the workers and the rest of the popular masses, which neglects or puts in the second place the school of communism, the communist conception of the world, the political struggle, the clandestine party, its public work, mass organizations, the construction of the New Power, the establishment of socialism. A communist party that is not built starting from clandestinity and that does not work in view of the civil war as second phase of the ongoing revolutionary people’s war is not fulfilling its task today and will not fulfill it even tomorrow. The terminal phase of the crisis makes increasingly difficult to defend and even more difficult to improve the conquests of civilization and welfare, if we don’t build the socialist revolution. On the ground of only immediate and practical demands, the reactionary mobilization of the masses has the upper hand. The most reactionary and criminal groups of the bourgeoisie and of the clergy can give something to a part of the masses for mobilizing them against the rest of the masses and against other countries as they did in Germany with Hitler and in Italy with Mussolini. If we do not involve the masses in the struggle to establish socialism, the reactionary mobilization empties the merely claiming organizations: the popular masses pass from the left bourgeoisie and from the claiming organizations to the Northern League, to the racists, to the fascists, to the Criminal Organizations. Rosarno teaches it. The metalworker who today at the same time belongs to FIOM [the Italian Federation of Metalworkers, leftist wing in the CGIL, the greatest Italian trade union, translator’s note] and to the Northern League [the racist party, which is in Berlusconi’s government, translator’s note] will go to the left if we Communists develop the revolutionary people’ s war with incisiveness and create the conditions for constituting the People’s Bloc Government, and then drag FIOM to the left, by the mass line and the method of levers. Otherwise he will go to the right.

To build true Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties in our countries means to give to all these questions answers clear and based on a just evaluation of the experience. Maoism itself has taught us how to fully understand also the class struggle that has gone on in the first socialist countries. Today we can draw huge teachings from their glorious experience, although it ended ingloriously in a long period of decline until they collapsed or changed side. In fact they showed to the humanity that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism and present barbarism.

Strengthened by the example of Soviet Union, of the People’s Republic of China, of the first socialist countries, armed with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism we can make the revolution in every imperialist country leading the protracted revolutionary people’s war.

Let’s go forward with courage comrades!

We can win! The future is ours! Long live Maoism!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “(n)PCI: Let’s really embrace Maoism as the superior phase of the theoretical communist heritage!

  1. Dear comrade, thanks for your comments, and for all.
    I am writing here for some specifications:
    1. I am writing in charge of the CARC Party. This is an open party, which struggle is carried out in the field of struggle of bourgeois politics In these field of struggle there is still left some freedom to work for Communists we conquered when the Partisan Resistance defeated Nazi-Fascism.
    2. The CARC Party is connected with the (n)PCI on the ideological level, that is we fully share (n)PCI conception, line and strategy.
    3. The (n)PCI is a clandestine party.
    4. You may find full explanation of (n)PCI conception, line and strategy in its Manifesto Program (see http://www.nuovopci.it/eile/en/in080619.html). An interesting synthesis are also the Four main issues
    to be debated in the International Communist Movement (see http://www.nuovopci.it/eile/en/f-issues.html). Recently, the Maoist Party of Russia sent us a comment about the latter document, telling also us that it was written in a poor English, and difficult to understand. We shall be grateful if you shall give us a comment (and maybe a help) also on this matter. (n)PCI translators are doing their best but English is not their mother language.
    5. I do not believe that the (n)PCI could consider dogmatic the positions of RCP Canada about participating in the bourgeois elections. To participate or not in it in Canada is a matter that regards Canadian revolutionaries. Neither (n)PCI nor anybody else outside Canada can say how to carry out revolution in Canada better than Canadian revolutionaries. (n)PCI and anybody else can and must debate about matters of universal value, for example about this statement: “Everyone who participates in the bourgeois elections in the imperialist countries is revisionist.” This was a statement of the 2010 Paris Seminar, on the base of which (maybe) the CARC Party was not invited in it. This is a wrong statement. This is demonstrated by the same Communist Proletarians (known abroad as PCm of Italy, as they call themselves in their international documents), main defenders of the statement. In the latest local elections in two great Italian cities, Milan and Naples, the popular masses participated pushing onwards and making win the most leftist candidates, and the extreme right wing so as the moderate right wing of the bourgeoisie forces suffered a terrible defeat (the CARC Party tactically cooperated to Naples victory giving a big contribution to it, carrying out vanguard struggles supporting workers and unemployed, against fascists and against Berlusconi). In the very last stage of the electoral battle, the Communist Proletarians released posters inviting people to go and defeat the rightists, that is to say, implicitly, to vote for the leftist candidates.
    6. So as regards participating or not in the elections, the general principle is that this is a matter regarding the parties who are building revolution and carrying out People’s War in their countries, related to the concrete analysis of the concrete situation that no one better than them can carry out about their country.
    7. According to this principle, this is a matter of debate, in Italy, between (n)PCI and Communist Proletarians. Different opinions about this must not be matters of mutual exclusions. The (n)PCI, the CARC Party and others are willing to carry out political activity commonly every time is possible (in defending workers, imprisoned revolutionaries, against repression, against fascists and so on). Is in carrying out together common activities that we could test which conception, line and strategy is better (which one is working)

    Anyway, I hope we shall go deeply in these matters in the future in order to determine which is the right conception, line and strategy the ICM needs for winning. The unity of the new ICM grows on this, on the new science we are building, and is not a grouping around flags waved. We too wage flags, anyway. We do it mainly because of enthusiasm, because we are aware and feel we are building Maoism as a new revolutionary theory, through the debate, the two lines struggle, the concrete analysis of the concrete situation, the research, the experimentation in the practice. The way to victory is open and wide, It depends on us.

    I wish I could send you soon a very detailed document about divergences between Communist Proletarians and us, about issues that could be debated by the ICM as they have universal value.

    Comradely,

    Paolo Babini

    1. Dear Comrade Paolo Babini,
      Thank you for your clarifications as they are very useful and am sure that readers will find your remarks useful. Also, thank you for clarifying your the CARC’s position towards the question of revolutionary strategy. I definitely would be interested in reading the detailed document in which you outline your differences with the CPn Italy, and with your permission would like to reprint it on this blog. Also, I will read the document on the 4 Main Issues to be debated in the Maoist movement, and post some comments on this blog when I am done. I am very interested in learning more about the line of your party, and agree that it is only through working together with the(n)PCI and the CPm Italy could there be a real analysis of which line is more appropriate in the current conjuncture.

      1. Party of the Committees to Support Resistance – for Communism (CARC) – Italy
        Via Tanaro, 7 – 20128 Milano – Tel/Fax 02.26306454
        e-mail: resistenza@carc.it – website: http://www.carc.it

        National Direction – International Relations Department
        Tel. +39 0226306454 – e-mail: carc.ri@libero.it
        27/08/2011

        To theworkersdreadnought.wordpress.com
        To Thomas van Beersum

        About the divergences between Communist Proletarians (known abroad as Maoist Party of Italy) and us

        Dear comrades,
        you asked me information about the divergences between the (new)Italian Communist Party [(n)PCI, from now on] and the Communist Proletarians [CoPro, from now on] , who are known abroad as Maoist Party of Italy. Those divergences are important. I know very well that for Communists of other countries it is not easy to evaluate them, The (n)PCI explained its conception of the world and its analysis of the present situation and the line it carries out. You may read it in its basic text, the Manifesto Program [see http://www.nuovopci.it/eile/en/in080619.html, where you will find the English version – soon French version will be available]. CoPro never did something like this, even if the leading group of CoPro has been existing and working without interruption since the beginning of the Eighties, that is to say carrying out activities of organization and propaganda for more than 30 years.
        The importance given to the communist conception of the world for founding the party’s building and activity is one of the features that distinguish radically the two organizations.
        This leads to a very different practice as regards socialist revolution in Italy. A main difference concern the Party: the (n)PCI is a clandestine party, while CoPro is a legal organization. The other main difference concerns the strategy: the (n)PCI’s strategy is the Protracted Revolutionary People’s War carried out according to the conception exposed in the Manifesto Program, chapter 3.3, while CoPro put at the centre of its activity the economic claims it intends to politicize (so they often say, but not explaining clearly what they mean).
        Obviously it is not easy for foreign comrades as you are to evaluate the line of the two organizations referring to the Italian situation that you do not know or know superficially. So I believe you may understand the divergences between the two organizations considering them from the point of view of the International Communist Movement, rather than from the point of view of the analysis of the situation of the single country and of the line the organizations are following in the class struggle developing there.
        On November 2010 the Central Committee of the (n)PCI sent a letter to a leader of the UCPN(Maoist) in charge of the international relations for his party. It shows the divergences between (n)PCI and CoPro from this point of view. The CARC Party, which I am in charge of for the international relations, shares the position here exposed by the (n)PCI.

        Paolo Babini

        Central Committee of the (new) Italian Communist Party

        22:11:10

        On Divergences between Proletari Comunisti and Us

        In order to illustrate the divergences between the (new) Italian Communist Party [(n)PCI] and Proletari Comunisti [Communist Proletarians – CoPro] (also known as Rosso Operaio or Maoist Party of Italy) to foreign comrades, we shall not expose the many divergences about the analysis of history and situation of our country or the many divergences about the line (on the strategy and tactics) followed by (n)PCI and that followed by CoPro in the class struggle ongoing in Italy. We think that to expose this kind of divergences is not necessary, since the evaluation of the first ones requires a knowledge of the history and of the situation in Italy that the foreign comrades usually do not have nor are required to have and the second ones concern tasks that must be defined on the basis of knowledge of the history and of the particular and concrete situation of our country and so they are under sole competence of the Italian communist movement. We instead shall show the different positions of (n)PCI and CoPro in the history of International Communist Movement [ICM] and as regards the ideological divergences and the differences in the line existing in the ICM. The foreign comrades know or can know the history of ICM and the divergences in ICM as we do. So they can properly consider these divergences between (n)PCI and CoPro.

        The communist movement was born in Italy as in many other countries for the split of the socialist movement as a result of the failure of the Second International in 1914. The first Italian Communist Party (PCI) was founded in 1921 and carried out the struggle against fascism, culminating in the Resistance (1943-1945) and in the defeat of fascism, in the frame of the first Communist International (Comintern) [CI]. The Kingdom of Italy, established 150 years ago under the Savoy dynasty, was wrecked with fascism but, under direction and protection of U.S. imperialism, it was replaced the Papal Republic, which has its main pillar in the Vatican Court and its Church.
        The real founder of the first PCI, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), was imprisoned by the fascist regime in 1926 and was released only in 1937 when, because of the prison regime to which he was submitted, he was already dying. However, before his arrest he carried out a fruitful work of building the party and while in detention he did a great work of reflection on the problems of the socialist revolution in our country. His work has stamped a deep imprint in the Italian communist movement and in the history of our country. Despite this and despite the heroic struggle waged against fascism, the first PCI did not establish socialism in Italy and then its work was left unfinished, so as the work of the communist parties of the first CI was left unfinished in the other imperialist countries. The ideological and political line of the first PCI in the 50s and 60s of last century is well known abroad, thanks to two famous documents released by the Chinese Communist Party: On the Divergences between Comrade Togliatti and Us (December 1962) and More on the Divergences between Comrade Togliatti and Us (February 1963).
        The Twentieth Congress of the CPSU (1956) initiated the fragmentation of ICM. Initially two wings were formed. The right wing openly repudiated some fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism and the left wing asserted allegiance to Marxism-Leninism. In many countries the two wings separated organizationally and the left one formed the Marxist-Leninists parties and groups who assembled the most resolute part of the left of the old communist parties and continued its tradition.
        In 1966 in China Mao Zedong launched the Cultural Proletarian Revolution [CPR]. In essence, with the CPR it was stated that to assert allegiance to Marxism-Leninism was not enough. For the victory of the communist movement, the one needed to be divided into two. It was not enough to oppose the denial of Marxism-Leninism that Khrushchev and his followers promoted. Marxism-Leninism needed to be enriched with the principles developed from the experience of the proletarian revolution that had taken place since the October Revolution (1917), with the CPSU and the first CI as a driving force in the ICM, with the Soviet Union as red base of the world proletarian revolution and whose central work was the creation of the first socialist countries and of the socialist camp. In essence, the CPR was the founding act of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Part of the Marxist-Leninist parties and groups rejected the CPR and its message, and this gave rise to a further division in the ICM.
        In 1976, after Mao Zedong’s death, in China the CPR was defeated, the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] ceased to aspire to be the driving force of the renewal of the ICM and the People’s Republic of China [PRC] ceased to aspire to play the role of red base of world proletarian revolution. This led to further divisions in ICM as well. In some countries, the Marxist-Leninist parties and groups disintegrated. Some Marxist-Leninist parties and groups substantially aligned to the positions supported by Enver Hoxha (the Party of Labor of Albania [PLA]) which condemned the previous Maoism and the CPR, in the name of the continuity of Marxism-Leninism. Others asserted Maoism as the third higher stage of communist thinking, after Marxism and Leninism. The Communist Party of Peru [CPP] was the standard-bearer of this current. Others remained on intermediate positions.
        In 1984 it was formed the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM], which professed allegiance to the anti-revisionist struggle carried out by the CCP led by Mao Zedong. However, in its founding Declaration (1984) the RIM did not refer to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but to Marxism-Leninism. In essence, the Declaration made a formal tribute to the CPR, but did not expose and still less assimilated the contributions of Maoism to communist thinking. The current leading team of CoPro participated in the founding of the RIM.
        The relation that after the foundation of the RIM was established between the RIM and the CPP, however, made the RIM a channel for spreading internationally the thesis of PCP that Maoism is the third higher stage of communist thinking. But in 1998, when the RIM published a new edition of its founding Declaration, it was completely identical to that of 1984, except that the term Marxism-Leninism was changed to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
        CoPro is entirely internal to this path of RIM. Even today it asserts to be based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and pays tribute to Maoism. But in fact, in its theory and his practice, in the current situation CoPro continues the tradition of the old left of the PCI, for good or ill.

        In the imperialist countries along the first part of last century, during the first wave of proletarian revolution, the communist parties of the first CI played a positive role as national departments of ICM, in defending the USSR and in the fight against fascism, but in no country they developed their understanding of the conditions, forms and results of the class struggle in order to carry out the class struggle until the establishment of socialism in their country. As long as the ICM has been strong and growing, in general they mobilized the working class and the masses in large and effective struggles, and under their direction the masses wrung many conquests of civilization and prosperity from the imperialist bourgeoisie. When since the 70s the ICM entered a phase of decline, even the communist parties of the imperialist countries have gradually lost strength and, also as a result of the second general crisis of capitalism for absolute overproduction of capital which began during those same years, the imperialist bourgeoisie has begun to reduce and eliminate the conquests that the masses wrung from her under the direction of the communist parties of the first CI and for the effect of ICM.
        When, starting from the XX Congress of the CPSU, in the old communist parties the right wing was gradually coming fully to light, the left wing differed for asserting allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism and for opposing the attenuation of the struggles of demands. It did it the more clearly the more, also on this ground, the right wing was coming instead to compromise with the imperialist bourgeoisie. The Marxist-Leninist parties and groups that were formed in the imperialist countries in the wake of anti-revisionist struggle led by the CCP and the PLA, continued to accentuate the features of the left wing of the old communist parties. They were parties and groups characterized and hampered by dogmatism in theory and by economism in practical matters.
        They were dogmatic in the sense that they asserted the principles of Marxism-Leninism without taking them as a guide for their work. So they did not carried them out in the particular situation of the socialist revolution in their country, they did not develop them on the basis of the experience of the first wave of proletarian revolution, and they reduced them to empty formulas.
        They followed economism as they supported claims and claiming slogans more radical than the right wing was doing. This practice was made possible and even facilitated by the fact that in no country they were directing large organizations or large masses’ claiming struggles. So generally their radicalism was limited to slogans and propaganda.
        The split between theory and practice characterized them and slowed or prevented their development.
        As far as we know, even among those who after the struggle promoted by CPP declared themselves Maoists no one of the parties and groups of the imperialist countries has overcome the limits of dogmatism and economism outlined above. Also CoPro, among them, did not do it at all. For CoPro to join Maoism is to wave a flag. For CoPro Maoism is like a badge that it put on in order to be recognized, as a sign of identity and recognition. CoPro says that Maoism is the third higher stage of communist thinking, but it has never defined which the main contributions of Maoism to communist thinking are. Still less it carried Maoism out in any positive innovation in comparison to the left of the old PCI. In the theoretical field CoPro repeats the principles of Marxism-Leninism turned into empty formulas. In the political field it has not formulated any strategy to establish socialism. It does not distinguish between strategy and tactics. It reduces the political struggle to the claiming struggles: growing in number and strength, sooner or later those claiming struggles should lead to the outbreak of the revolution (this is the real strategy of CoPro). The most important negative innovation in comparison to the left wing of the old PCI that CoPro introduced is the confusion of roles and boundaries between party and trade union: CoPro called “communist party of new type” the hybrid organization resulting from it.
        The lack of distinction between strategy and tactics expresses itself in particular in the polemic that CoPro explicitly carries out against the (new) Italian Communist Party [(n)PCI] and in a less systematic and somewhat blurred way against the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [UCPN(m)]. As for (n)PCI, in any ground CoPro reduces our strategy to the tactics that we follow in a particular moment in that ground, it points out that tactics as a strategy and criticizes it from the standpoint of the strategy. CoPro has never yet faced in a systematic and comprehensive way the criticism of the strategy that we follow and indicate to establish socialism in Italy. Because of this the criticism of CoPro towards the (n)PCI is actually denigration of the (n)PCI. The criticism of CoPro towards the UCPN(m) is more blurred, but in essence is of the same type of that towards the (n)PCI. This is however logical because the critic is always the same and does not escape its conception of the world, by his nature it sees what it is able to see and talks with the language it knows. CoPro does not distinguish between tactics and strategy and insinuates doubts about the revolutionary character of the UCPN(m) and its allegiance to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism relying on the fact that in 2006 the UCPN(m) had an agreement with the Alliance of the Seven Parties and suspended military activity.
        As regards the position of (n)PCI in the frame of ICM, the world conception that guides it and the strategy it follows to establish socialism in Italy and his tactics at this stage, the (n)PCI has described them in detail in his Manifesto program whose English version is available in the website of the party (http://www.nuovopci.it). It indicated the main contributions of Maoism to communist thinking in his writing The Eighth Discriminating Factor whose English version is available in the same website.
        The peculiarity of the development of the communist movement in Italy is that in the 70s the Red Brigades [BR] were formed. On one side this organization gave an interpretation mainly positive about the first wave of proletarian revolution, asserted allegiance to the principles of Marxism Leninism, and to some extent was inspired by Maoism; on the other side it upheld that the line taken by the PCI after the conclusion of the anti-fascist Resistance (1945) was wrong and that, in order to establish socialism in Italy, it was necessary to rebuild the Communist Party providing it the strategy of the armed propaganda. The Red Brigades constituted a healthy innovation in the communist movement in the imperialist countries. In their activities they combined political struggle with the armed struggle, and asserted that the socialist revolution in imperialist countries is not an event that breaks out, but a process that the Communist Party builds, as F. Engels indicated in 1895, in the Introduction to Class Struggles in France from 1848 to 1850.
        The Red Brigades were ultimately defeated because they degenerated in militarism, but their criticism of the first PCI was deeper and went beyond that of the Marxist-Leninist parties and groups: the BR also criticized the conception and practice of the left wing of the communist parties of the first CI (and not only the conception and practice of their right wing, as Marxist-Leninist parties and groups were doing).
        The (new) Italian Communist Party has collected and has assimilated Red Brigades’ criticism to the left wing of the old communist parties of the imperialist countries and, thanks to Maoism, it has developed this criticism in the conception of the world that guides it, in an organic system of evaluation of ICM experience during the first wave of proletarian revolution, in the identification of the reasons why during the first wave of proletarian revolution no communist party of the imperialist countries has established socialism in their country, in the analysis of the situation of the imperialist countries (general crisis for absolute overproduction of capital, regime of preventive counterrevolution), up to the strategy for socialist revolution in Italy (protracted revolutionary people’s war with a clandestine Communist party that develops a large mass work through generated and non-generated mass organizations) and its articulation in the tactics of the current phase (the General Plan of Work). Since the end of 2007, when we entered the terminal phase of the second general crisis of capitalism, the (n)PCI took into account the level where in Italy the rebirth of the communist movement and the establishment of new power are. Therefore it made concrete its tactics. Now our tactics is: “to create the conditions for making the Workers’ Organizations and People’s Organizations constitute an emergency government (the People’s Bloc Government) who will implement the six general measures,(1) giving form and strength of national laws to the provisions the same Workers and People’s Organizations will indicate in each particular case to eliminate immediately the worst effects of the economic and environmental crises and start the rebirth of the country, and so bar the way to the reactionary mobilization of the popular masses promoted by the most criminal groups of the bourgeoisie and the clergy.
        The (n)PCI is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party. As part of the ICM the (n)PCI struggles for making parties and groups take up Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as their ideology and carries it out into a line (strategy with its tactics) to establish socialism in their country. In the imperialist countries, only through this transformation, they will be able to promote the second wave of the proletarian revolution that advances in the world driven by the second general crisis of capitalism until establishing socialism in their own country, merging with the communist parties around the world to form the second CI and lead humanity in the transition to communism.

        In order to fully evaluate the divergences between the (n)PCI and CoPro, the communist parties of the imperialist countries must first understand the rational reasons why, during the first wave of proletarian revolution, the communist movement did not establish socialism in their own country. We believe that by making this search, they will reach the conclusion that Maoism is the third higher stage of communist thinking. In order to fully understand the divergences between the (n)PCI and CoPro, the communist parties based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism must ask CoPro what are the main contributions of Maoism to the communist thinking and how CoPro used them to define the conception of the world that guide it and the line (the strategy and tactics) that it follows in its activities.

        1. The six measures are the following:
        1. to give to every firm productive tasks (of goods or of services) useful and suited to its nature, according to a national plan (no firm must be closed);
        2. to distribute products to families and individuals, to firms and collective uses according to clear plan and criteria, universally known and democratically decided;
        3- to assign to every individual a socially useful work and, in exchange of its scrupulous implementation, pledge him the conditions necessary for a dignified life and for the participation in the management of society (no worker must be fired);
        4. to eliminate activities and productions useless and detrimental for human beings or for the environment, assigning other task to the firms;
        5. to start the reorganization of the other social relations according to the new productive base;
        6, to establish relation of cooperation or of exchange with other countries willing to establish them with us.

  2. We have to be hastening with the whole world in mind not just in the sense that the world situation overall and the dynamics of the contradictory objective conditions in the world as a whole are ultimately decisive in terms of making revolution in any particular country and advancing this revolution overall but at the same time with the sense and a deepening understanding that our objective is to actually make revolution as part of a larger worldwide process whose final aim is achieving communism. New people have engaged with the work of Bob Avakian and the movement for revolution and some have gotten actively involved. Its been a week in some places a bit more and a bit less in others that the revolutionaries have been out on the campuses with the special issue of Revolution promoting the new book BAsics featuring quotations and short essays from Bob Avakian.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s