WHAT IS THE
ORGANIZZAZIONE COMUNISTA INTERNAZIONALISTA
(INTERNATIONALIST COMMUNIST ORGANISATION)?
After reading our journal for the first or even a number of times, many
comrades have rightly asked themselves or us: "What is this OCI?". Even those
who find themselves in agreement with what we have to say often wonder: "Where do
they come from? Why is it that we have never even heard of them before?". There is
also some legitimate perplexity among our more experienced proletarian comrades: they have
all too often seen the sudden appearance and equally rapid disappearance of a succession
of groups (some larger than ours) that have presented themselves as the "new"
and "real" party of the working class.
Our position is very different. In the first place, we are not ashamed to admit that our
organisation is still small even though it is anything but recent (as a formalised group
and above all as an organised tendency at the heart of the workers’ movement),
nor that we find we still have to present ourselves to important sectors of the
proletariat for the first time and as outsiders (it is our weakness – a weakness that
afflicts not only us but reflects the general weakness of the class forces of the
proletariat). Nevertheless, responsibly and without any self-conceit, we lay claim
to the fact that we represent something and have something to say.
This is not due to any sort of irrational self-exaltation of ourselves as a group or
(worse) as a set of "individual personalities", but because we feel ourselves strengthened
by the tradition of theoretical and practical battles to which we belong: the tradition
of communism. And we are certain that the proletariat, which has always been the historical
subject of this tradition, will inevitably return to being its protagonist. It is here
that our future lies: not our own restricted future as a "group", but the
future of the proletariat and its party for which we work.
We are communists in the authentic sense of the word: the invariable sense conferred upon it by Marxism, from the "Manifesto" of 1848 to the constitution of the Italian Communist Party at Livorno in 1921, from the formation of Lenin’s Third International to the left-wing battle against its subsequent degeneration (with Italians and Russians, such as Bordiga and Trotsky, in the front line).
Being communists means scientifically understanding that, although capitalism has enormously developed and "socialised" production, it has also appropriated the results for its own private purposes by submitting it to the capitalist laws of profit rather than dedicating it to the satisfaction of social needs; that capitalism is based on the systematic and increasing exploitation of wage labour (labour as a good), and is therefore antagonistic towards it; that the famous "self-regulating" market to which capitalism refers is actually a permanently anarchic factor eventually destined to explode under the weight of crises and wars; that the only way out from this anarchy (which is paid for in terms of proletarian suffering and blood) is the destruction of the present system and the organisation of a society finally based on the rational administration of social (and natural) resources for the purpose of satisfying the social needs of man.
The October Revolution in 1917, and the various attempts at revolution
occurring throughout Europe after the First World War, represented a concrete effort to
put these principles into practice. But are these things of the past?
No.
It is true that the revolution was subsequently defeated, and that all
of us are now suffering the consequences. Capitalism proved to be capable of averting the
extension and definitive affirmation of the revolution, of resuming its own
"rising" course, and (in the imperialist metropoli) of binding the previously
revolutionary proletarian parties to itself by transforming them into its
"reformist" appendages and temporarily offering the crumbs of its new-found
profits to the masses – but (and this must never be forgotten) always and only to the
metropolitan masses! However, this "victory" of capitalism involved another
world-wide bloodbath and the subsequent imposition of its financial and armed dominion
over the majority of the people living in non-metrolitan areas.
But it is still not satisfied. The crisis has returned and is today unarrestable:
it can no longer be "limited" by off-loading its effects onto the second or
third world; it is now penetrating the metropoli themselves, and promises
the proletariat nothing other than new blood and tears. The bourgeousies and their lapdogs
complain about the difficulties of the system and (surprise, surprise!) call out for the
"necessary sacrifices", but only communists denounce the real nature of the
capitalist crisis: capitalism is not suffering because of a lack of goods, but because of
a production hypertrophy due to the fact that demand can no longer be satisfied on the
basis of market mechanisms, which coincides with an increasingly evident inability to
satisfy social needs. The problems of society can only be solved by stripping private
capitalist of this potential social wealth. It is not the proletariat that has to make
sacrifices, but capitalism that must be sacrificed!
We are neither "refounded" nor "refoundable" communists. We say that
all of the talk about a "regulated market", State-guided "social"
capitalism, "workers’ power", and the possibility of gradual
"reforms" that will bring together the laws of profit and social needs is
nothing but hot air. We say that any "change" or "alternative" based
on the denial of the central antagonistic role of the proletariat (strengthened by its
communist party) in the anti-capitalist struggle, and its replacement by
"alliances" of different classes and parties created by means of electoral and
parliamentary alchemies, is nothing other than a lie and a betrayal.
This kind of "communism" is simply the fruit of habits acquired during the
previous "reformist" cycle of capitalist development, a nostalgia for the same,
and the false hope that it can be maintained and developed – whereas it is already
inevitably sliding into the abyss. It may be true that these are aspects that can be
fought for inside and on behalf of the proletariat, but the result can only be confusion
and defeat because there is no turning back. What is now clearly needed is an explicit
acceptance of the reality of the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,
and between capitalism and socialism – and this can no longer and in no way be
avoided by means of (impossible) "reformist" patching.
This is not to say that the communist revolution is just around the corner, and we
certainly do not deny the need for immediate and partial defensive action. Our
position is simply that this cannot be done by means of "reformist" methods or
in a "reformist" perspective: like Marx, we say that the real result of such a
struggle must be the greatest possible class unity and consciousness of its antagonistic
role, which means communist training for the struggle for power.
In our opinion, the same lesson can be drawn from what is happening in Italy. Far from
being simply a perverse design created by Berlusconi, what we are seeing is nothing less
than the combined and centralised attack of the Italian and international bourgeoisies
against the proletariat which, as such, needs to be confronted and defeated within the
context of an equally centralised and decided class struggle. This is the exact opposite
of the "reformist strategy", which reduces this struggle to nothing more than a
springboard from which to launch new "alliances" with extra- and
anti-proletarian classes and parties in view of hypothetic "alternative"
governments … which will nevertheless continue to respect the laws of the market, the
public accounts (of the bourgeoisie), the urgency of "effective book balancing"
and "fair sacrifices for all".
OCI was founded little more than ten years ago, but our political and organisational origins go back much further and reflect the never-interrupted class battle of genuine communists.
Our origins lie with the Italian and international tradition of the
Communist left that led the Party of Livorno and the International, and was then
crushed by triumphant Stalinism as a result of the exhaustion of the revolutionary wave of
the 1920’s. It was subsequently further fragmented into tiny groups that had no
influence over the masses, and then further eroded by internal dissent and deviations that
were either opportunist (particularly in the case of the "Trotskyists") or
sectarian in the worse sense of the term (as happened to many of the so-called
"Bordighist" groups and sub-groups).
Stalin proclaimed the theory of "socialism in a single country", claiming that
the USSR could "construct socialism" by itself while remaining the bulwark of
the international revolution. With the withdrawal of the movement, this watchword sounded
attractive to a European proletariat forced to bow down under the yoke of "democratic
restabilisation" or (even worse) fascism. It was said that "Stalin is
coming!" but, in the meantime – and as the left constantly pointed out –
this approach meant destroying the unity of the international communist movement
and submitting it to the needs of the Soviet State and, by definition, this process could
only lead to a new form of "State capitalism". Furthermore, despite pious
Stalinist hopes, and against all of its promises, the end result was the drowning of
Soviet "socialism" and its separation from the metropolitan
"communist" parties, each of which acted in the name of its "own
interests" and its "own national autonomy": i.e. their own
capitalism.
The "Berlin wall" (and all of the other pseudo-socialist walls) have recently
fallen, but the wall of authentic communism was clearly already weakened by the
participation of the USSR in the Second (imperialist) World War as an ally of the American
"democratic" brigands and their consorts, and in Italy by the class
collaboration in the war of "resistance" side by side with the worst arsenals of
our own bourgeoisie and on the tailcoats of the great imperialist powers.
What was it that Stalinist leadership led the workers’ movement into?
In the USSR ("the motherland of socialism"), it led to an
explicit recognition of the capitalist nature of its socio-economic structure and its
"savage" adjustment to the needs of "modernisation" (at the hands of
the nomenklatura of its "communist" party and State, and not by means of
"external counter-revolutionary agents"!). In Italy, it led to the equally
explicit abandoning of even merely verbal links with communism by the old Italian
Communist Party (PCI), and the full acknowledgement of the "eternal" laws of
the market, "national interests" and the bloc of the "progressive"
classes (from wage-earners to the great "productive" bourgeoisie) – the
posthumous recognition of a process that had already been completed.
In both one and the other case, the result has been a full adhesion to the needs of
capital (including imperialist drives outwards). The proletariat is simply called upon
to form ranks in response to the promise that such an environment will allow the
"progressives" to safeguard the "compatible" marginal aspects of the
social state.
Throughout all of these decades, although increasingly reduced in number and obliged to
face an infinity of internal crises, the residual communist forces have continued to raise
their voices against this liberal ("social-imperialist") drift and indicate the
future to come. But they have so far lacked any real weight because they have been unable
to equip themselves with a real communist party that goes beyond the ardent phases of the
social and political struggle: this is no accident, but the long-term result of the
scorching defeat of the 1920’s.
However, the reality of today is leading to a return to the "old" and
"forgotten" antagonistic perspective of revolutionary communism, and there is
nothing that the "false progressives" or the people nostalgic for the defunct
combative reformism of the "old PCI", can do to exorcise it. As the proletariat
and our comrades will immediately realise, the struggles of the last few months
demonstrate that the conflict in course is not between "savage" and
"socially regulating" variants of capitalism, but between capitalism and wage
labour – and it is precisely as a result of the development of this conflict that we
expect not only to see the strengthening of our own organisation, but also a general
reinforcement of the autonomous organisational capacities of the proletariat, of which
we are both a part and an acting organ.
This will necessarily mean the recovery on the part of the proletarian vanguard of the
analyses and perspectives developed throughout the previous course of the communist left:
these are not "ideas" distilled by a few individual brains "outside"
the movement, but the scientific anticipation – in militant contact with the working
class – of the battleground upon which it will have to fight. It is this that is the
fruit of the self-consistent and continuous work of generations, from Marx (and
before) onwards.
Is it we who are living in the past, or is it the others? We say the latter: i.e. capitalism is a historically superseded system that has long given the best of itself. Utopia is not communism but (more than ever) the "reformism" that has by now been definitively put into its place by the inexorable laws of putrescent imperialist capitalism.
Our organisation carries out the centralised tasks of verifying,
confirming and developing the cardinal theoretical and programmatic points of the
communism "of always". In doing so, we do all we can to establish ties with
similar forces in the rest of the world because we are well aware that the destiny of
communism and its party is international and internationalist.
The central element of the life of the organisation is the editing and distribution of
publications – a task that all of our militants are called upon to undertake. We hold
regular meetings (some restricted to militants, others open to sympathisers and the
"general public") with the aim of discussing in more detail the subjects dealt
with in our publications, and comparing our position with the positions held by the other
political forces present in the workers’ movement. Far from being
"intellectual", this is eminently practical work without which any type of
intervention would come to nothing: in addition to fighting seriously, the members of the
proletariat must study seriously in order to become conscious militants
capable of directing the struggle and the movement.
At the same time, our militants are committed to associating themselves with every aspect
of the everyday life and problems of the members of the proletariat by actively
participating in all of their struggles, unconditionally supporting them and never failing
to intervene on the basis of the total autonomy of their positions and organisation.
We do not see any of these struggles as "insignificant". None of them is to be
disdained simply because it is still directed by reformist organizations. We do not
"preach the good news" or speak of radiant futures detached from the present. We
are militants who are convinced that only a concrete material struggle will make it
possible to clarify the reality of the situation and develop the necessary party
political struggle.
We can take the example of the current struggle against Berlusconi’s budget. It is
obvious to us (but not at all to the masses) that its coming into effect as a result of
the work of uncontrasted "reformist" leaders would be a disaster for the present
(and above all the future) fate of the proletariat. This is not an inevitable outcome, but
it can only be avoided by radicalising the struggle itself (whatever it is and
regardless of who has declared it), by encouraging the confrontation of the
antagonist forces involved, and by favouring the appearance of at least the embryo of communist
political leadership. To this end, it is essential that the largest possible number of
enraged proletarians enter the field because only such a demonstration of strength can lay
the foundations for subsequent events: a decided and internally consistent opposition to
the bourgeois bloc and at least the beginnings of autonomous conditioning against
"reformist" sirens.
This is what we are working for, without sectarianism but also without any cowardice
– as is well known by the workers who have known us for longer and seen us more
closely.
It is now the time for whoever shares (or is in any way interested in) our positions to understand that we are not talking about mentally abstract "ideas" divorced from the material struggle on the ground, and to begin to take part in the activities deriving from them at all possible levels. This can begin by taking an active part in our discussions, and cooperating with our press by making comments, offering informative contributions, providing news coming from the working class, and so on: subsequently, they can ask to join directly in the work of the organisation as sympathisers and future militants.
We are not interested in "recruitment" campaigns. We are not
looking for fictitious "militants" who simply serve to swell our membership. We
want to develop real militants – and real militance requires collaborating not only
in the "practical" work indicated by the organisation, but also in the organic
whole of its theoretical, programmatic and political positions. These are the militants we
are looking for, but their acceptance will depend on their willingness to undertake such a
long process and our own sense of commitment. The important thing is to begin, and
we believe that there is no lack of opportunities for doing that.
We do not want to increase the numbers of our organisation "for its own sake".
Our real strength lies in the capacity of our organisation to bring together and
increasingly influence the reactivation of ever broader sectors of the masses. We are
perfectly aware that the road leading to the eradication of the opportunist infection that
has weakened us for decades is long and difficult, and therefore that we cannot expect any
immediate detachment of decisive segments of the proletariat from "reformist"
influences.
It is for this reason that we are absolutely not "sectarian", but believe in a united
front of the masses (and also condemn any attempt to preconstitute any other
type of trade union, political or other organisation). At the same time, we are absolutely
"sectarian" and "dogmatic" – as some like to call us – when
it comes to defending our theoretical, programmatic and political foundations.
Here, we are not prepared to cede one iota of the heritage transmitted to us by one and a
half centuries of Marxism because this is not something for us to protect "for
ourselves"; it is for, and belongs to the proletariat.
Our journal has gained a still restricted but regular readership, which
mainly consists of proletarians who see us constantly and unflinchingly at their side not
only in times of struggle, but also when there is no struggle or the idea of struggle is
rejected. But it also includes young non-proletarians who in any case suffer the
devastating effects of today’s society, and who we call upon to fight at the side of
the proletariat because it is only through the proletariat that any solution can be found
for the so-called "youth question"; we show them that communist commitment encapsulates
and solves in itself all of the problems that bourgeois ideology presents as
"specific" in order to divide the class front and make vain every attempt at
change (in terms of education, associations, their commitment to "pacifist" and
"voluntary work", "ecology", the drug question …). Furthermore,
it includes women who are sensitive to the problem of the "dual oppression"
suffered by female workers, as well as immigrants who have decided not to allow themselves
to be trapped in a ghetto (not even in that of the – profit making –
"charity" that they are sometimes "conceded"). Finally, we invest as
much of our energies and financial resources as we can in order to supply comrades in
other parts of the world with translations of our publications (so far available in
English, German, French, Serbo-Croat and Arabic).
We do not ask these readers to "join us at once", or to give us any kind of
"blank cheque". But we do ask them to help us to produce a journal that is
increasingly rich in "external" contributions, to explain to us the problems
they have to face, to make comments and criticisms, and to contact us directly. We also
ask them to make financial contributions towards a press that they are beginning to
appreciate. Whoever follows us with interest can no longer fail to realise that it is now time
for them to break out from their individual isolation or small "family" groups
– it is now time for them to work for a real organisation of communist militants
and to dedicate some of their own financial resources to the same end.
We do the impossible thanks to the spontaneous and total commitment of our members; we have no doubt that our communist "readers" will also do their part.
| FROM THE PROGRAMME OF THE ITALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY
|