Most of the organizations that claim to be socialist no longer see the overcoming of capitalism as a concrete historical perspective in their daily work, but instead talk of Socialism as an abstract perspective or pay lip service to it on special occasions. In their practice, they adapt, either openly or subtly, to the maintenance of the bourgeois state and promote the “lesser evil” of left posing capitalist parties or politicians. The expectations and illusions placed in the variants of bourgeois “socialism” in the past two decades are just one example of this, even when such politicians are clear defenders of wage exploitation, imperialist domination across the globe and the repressive forces of the capitalist state.
The adaptation of the left to the capitalist system is not restricted to the bourgeois or social democratic left, but includes organizations that contradictorily claim to be revolutionary. Decades of isolation, reaction and defeat have shaped the existing organizations. This dynamic already existed in the 20th century, but subsequent waves of defeat devastated parties and groups and led many ostensible socialists to take refuge in “solutions” adapted for capitalist rule, provided that they appeared more “realistic”. In the 21st century, cynicism, “possibilism” and an immediatist mentality became widespread among self-acclaimed revolutionaries.
Adaptation to the parties, figures or institutions of the bourgeoisie takes different forms according to the political situation and the pressures suffered by specific organizations. Many adapt to them while contradictorily claiming to base their actions on the historical lessons of revolutionary Marxism. But the fostering of illusions in, support for, promotion or even dissolution of these organizations into the spheres of influence of bourgeois politicians, parties and institutions is in complete contradiction with the need for an independent proletarian movement, an essential precondition of revolutionary struggle. “The proletarian movement is the independent movement of the immense majority for the benefit of the immense majority.” (Manifesto of Communist Party)
The political adaptation of the most conscious and active elements of the working class – its vanguard – to capitalism has social and historical roots. The predominant social composition of most socialist organizations – thanks both to the ideas of their leaders and to the disorganized and demoralized state of the movement in general – is petty-bourgeois, or restricted to the upper strata of the proletariat, which makes it even more difficult to break with the social bases and ideological foundations of the bourgeois regime. This adaptation results in the adoption by the vanguard of a consciousness typical of another class, the petty bourgeoisie. Despite criticism of the system’s pressures and attacks, the petty bourgeoisie generally expects their situation to improve by appealing to the bourgeois state and in approving reforms, rejecting the revolutionary method and the complete transformation of the mode of production.
Internally, many organizations emulate petty-bourgeois organizational methods. In some cases, there is a lack of militant discipline, detachment from the need for organization of the working class. In other cases, they reproduce a commanding discipline typical of the small boss. They develop an entrenched permanent leadership which does not seek to elevate members of the group to full participation: neither by helping them develop their theoretical and political education, nor in the consequent and democratic discussion of the political and methodological differences that arise. It is not uncommon for these organizations to try to train their militants as mere paper sellers, without preparing them for autonomous political thinking and elaboration.
We want to create a consistent and solid Marxist nucleus that is capable of fighting for the construction of a revolutionary party. As the working class is not politically homogeneous – and bourgeois ideology plays a very powerful role in instilling pessimism, acceptance of the status quo, apathy, illusion in bourgeois politicians, and a whole series of reactionary ideas in the class – not all workers must be part of the revolutionary party, otherwise it would not be a revolutionary party. We defend a vanguard party: a party composed of that segment of the class that has been able to perceive the need for workers’ organization to overcome capitalism and build socialism. The vanguard must be linked to the rest of the class, constantly pressing for the expansion of its borders and its circles of influence.
One of the most important tasks in the next period is the building of an international nucleus of Marxist workers, who will intervene to catalyze a regeneration of the revolutionary movement. This means regrouping the elements and groups around a solid program and against the political, organizational and even moral decay that took shape in the hegemony of petty-bourgeois ideology among those who claim to be socialists, and in the adaptation of socialist organizations to the bourgeoisie in different ways. This nucleus will seek to intervene as a well-defined section in the movements of the working class, to carry out fusions with the most dynamic tendencies evolving towards revolutionary ideas, and also to recruit individual workers who come close to its views.
It must take the form of a militant propaganda group. This means that it must combine the tasks of programmatic demarcation, discussion and ideological polemicizing with other groups, with the serious education of revolutionary militants capable of thinking for themselves, and the construction and strengthening of the struggles of the workers and the oppressed. A nucleus that, when given the opportunity to lead, builds an exemplary struggle that breaks the cycle of defeats. And that puts an end to the strengthening of opportunism through this long cycle. This nucleus needs to make every possible effort, respecting the proportions of its numbers and its current situation, in order to establish itself and build itself among the most strategic sectors of the proletariat in each place where it exists.
Theoretical and political training of militants is fundamental to building not only a democratic and functional organization, but also to give the future Marxist party an ideological and practical framework as leaders of the revolution, instead of as trained paper sellers, mere trade-unionists or militants educated in the school of “possibilism”.
Democratic centralism is a political principle, but it has no timeless practical application regardless of specific conditions. Instead of repeating 100-year-old formulas adopted in very different conditions, it is necessary to recover its principles by recognizing that a Marxist organization is both an organization for struggle, which needs to have firm unity of action, and a historically conscious organization, where there should be openness to debate over political differences and for the temporary formation of tendencies. This is a process that, if conducted with clarity and loyalty on the one hand, and without bureaucratic methods of excluding or silencing the debate on the other, tends to be tremendously educational for the members of the organization.
An organization with such a fragile confidence in its own program that it is unable to resolve its internal differences through political dispute, and that instead needs to appeal to bureaucratic organizational methods, will be completely unable to contribute to building a society where the majority of workers actively participate in the political process. At the same time, an organization with no commitment from its militants to act according to the decisions of the majority or to follow a democratically elected and authoritative leadership (abusive and bureaucratic leaderships excluded), will not be able to take a single firm step in the class struggle.