Forty Years of Reconstituting the Class Party

(«communist program»; Nr. 9; May 2023)

Back to summaries



Forty years have passed since October 1982 when our old Party faced a series of shocks that eventually shattered it. We do not want to gloss over this dramatic event because we can learn from all the mistakes, missteps and deviations from the right line that contributed to the blowing apart of the Party organization, which in 1952, after the inevitable split, was reassembled on organically coherent and homogeneous theoretical, political, tactical, and organizational foundations. That is why we return to this subject, in order to defend the political struggle we waged at that time, so that, despite this heated crisis, it would be possible to reassemble forces that are homogeneous and in line with the whole corpus of class battles that characterized the Italian Communist Left and our party at that time.



During this explosive crisis of 1982–1984, the different groups of militants, into which the party had fragmented and who wanted to continue in political activity, took different paths. In France/Switzerland, a small group was formed from comrades in Paris, Strasbourg, Lyon and Lausanne, which continued to publish the newspaper Le proletaire. Contacts with comrades in Spain, Germany, Belgium and many other French sections were broken; contacts with the former centre in Milan were maintained until June 1983, but efforts at international reorganization were very weak and confused. In a coup by the self-proclaimed “Central Committee”, formed by the representatives of the most important Italian sections (Milan, Mestre, Naples, Rome, Catania), it was declared that the former centre had lost its functions and it was replaced by this Central Committee. Initially, the intention of the new party leadership was to reorganize the remaining forces while formally preserving the theoretical-programmatic corpus that had characterized the party; but at the same time it made a radical reversal of the political, tactical, and, of course, organizational line that had guided the party up to the general crisis.

The new political line consisted of challenging the previous political line, which was deemed unable to meet the requirements of the new situations that arose after the general crisis of world capitalism in 1975, with the emergence of new union-type organizations outside the traditional structures of trade unions such as the CGIL, CISL and UIL, and with new workers’ struggles waged at the local level and in isolation by unemployed, precarious labour and non-unionised workers. The new leadership of the party based its action primarily on intervention in these new workers’ bodies (factory committees, coordination, social circles, etc. ) and on formulating the party’s political propaganda in such a way as to make it more attractive and comprehensible to the masses, to make it simpler and based on less uncompromising attitudes and conduct, and to make it more open to taking on practical tasks on terrains that had not been entered into before (the struggle for housing, against illegal work, against repression, etc.). The passage from the neglect of the tasks that the party had always set itself in the field of the permanent appropriation of theory to the “discovery” of the cause of the party’s lagging behind and failure to influence the working masses, in a so-called “inherent defect” of the Italian Communist Left (consisting in an atavistic theoricism and an inability to “do politics”) was very rapid. For the new leadership, “doing politics” meant using all means, including practical and tactical ones, to increase in a short time its influence on the proletariat and, as a consequence, to expand the number of militants of the party. One of the means used to accelerate the process of influencing the masses was entering into new proletarian organs, which were born both out of the need of the most militant proletarians to organize outside the traditional trade unions, and out of their need to organize at the social level and territorially around issues related to housing, repression, the struggle against national armaments and the sending of Italian troops abroad, the struggle against nuclear energy, the support of anti-imperialist struggles in countries on the periphery of imperialism, etc., to take over their leadership and attach them to the party organization.

In reality, these areas of intervention had already been considered in the party during the 1970s, so they were not new to the militants; but the novelty layed in the practical approach and the objectives set for the activity of the party. That is to say, a practical approach conditioned by the objective of achieving immediate results and expanding the party’s numerical strength. The general evaluation which justified this “change of course” consisted of the following points: 1) the groups of proletarians organizing outside the traditional trade unions demonstrate that these trade union organizations are losing their influence on the proletariat, 2) the struggles of oppressed peoples such as the Palestinians, the Kurds, etc., are weakening the influence of the imperialist powers that oppress them, 3) the prolonged crisis of capitalism following the great world crisis of 1975 has not been overcome, as in previous periods, as demonstrated, for example, by the struggles of the Polish proletariat, and therefore this may be a favourable terrain for the resumption of the classist struggle of the proletariat as class and thus for its revolutionary struggle. It was therefore about overcoming the lag of the party in its function of guiding the most militant proletarian layers by accelerating its interventions among the masses with the intention of demonstrating that it has the capacity to become the guide of their struggles on the immediate terrain, and, with this transitory characteristic, that it has the capacity to become the guide of the future revolution.

This sudden “change of course” and “change of central leadership” was opposed both by militants in Italy – in fact a minority – who rightly rejected the thesis of an “inherent defect” of the current of the Communist Left of Italy and defended the theoretical-political integrity of the party held for thirty years, and also opposed the idea that by expanding practical interventions in proletarian struggles and base committees the party could contribute to accelerating the resumption of the class struggle, and were against the reorganization of the party through the self-election of a “central committee” replacing the former centre which defended the organizational criteria of organic centralism against democratic centralism; and by militants who did not accept this “change of course” and “change of central leadership” but expressed a complete loss of faith that the party could return to the right path, even with a small number of forces, after the shocks dealt to it by the general internal crisis in 1982 and the subsequent crisis in Italy in 1983, and therefore abandoned it and left politics. The newspaper title under which the party had been known for thirty years, not only in Italy, ”Il programma comunista”, fell into the hands of the new “central committee”, which also controlled the party treasury, and so the newspaper from July 1983 represented exclusively the new political line.

When we presented the newspaper title “Il programma comunista” among the old party publications on our website, we wrote:


«In the crisis of 1982–1984, the theoretical conception and the position taken throughout history by the Communist Left of Italy and the party that had represented it in formal party form for more than thirty years were evidently departed from, first by the so-called liquidators of 1982 according to whom the party “had failed” and therefore had to dissolve and merge with rebellious social movements, and then, in 1983–1984, by liquidators of a different kind: they pretended that by a “democratic” centralism they were remedying the “centralism” that was no longer functioning; and because even their “democratic” centralism did not offer “guarantees” of discipline and unity, they then came to the point of theorizing an “inherent defect” of the Italian Communist Left, which was to lie in the fact that it did not know how to “do politics”, that it did not know how to “politically lead” either the party or the masses (we refer here to the group that called itself “Combat”). To blame their own political inability to understand what the tasks of a class party actually were (in the revolutionary situation of the past, the counter-revolutionary situation of today, and the resumption of the class struggle in the future) on some particular hidden malady that was supposed to have attacked the Italian Communist Left seemed to them the best way out of the impasse which lead them in short time to self-dissolution. In the face of these concentrated attacks against the party and its theoretical and historical legacy, the group that in 1984 regained possession of the newspaper “Il programma comunista” through a legal action totally similar to the one waged against the party in 1952 by the group around Damen, was characterized not only by this shameful action but also by the total absence of political struggle within the party organization, which remained alive and active despite the explosive crisis of 1982; this group provided no theoretical, programmatic or political point of reference to the comrades in Italy and abroad who were completely disoriented by this dismemberment of the party. It resorted to sentimentality towards the party and to the legal action, entrusting to the bourgeois court the “decision” as to which political group had the “right” to be presented by the newspaper “Il programma comunista”. By virtue of bourgeois law and the control of the commercial property of the newspaper, this group claims to be recognized as the “continuator” of yesterday’s party, the International Communist Party, the party for which it did not wage any political struggle during the crisis that finally shattered it to pieces; the bourgeois court acted for it, and that is why the same words we wrote in 1952 about the group around Damen and bourgeois law apply: those who have used it will never be able to go back to the ground of the revolutionary party. In fact, for us, just as the newspaper “Battaglia Comunista”, together with the review “Prometeo”, were the voice of the party until 1952, so too was the newspaper “Il programma Comunista” the voice of the party, which represented it for more than thirty years, even internationally, until the end of 1983 when its publication was discontinued as a result of the legal actions of the group that to this day possesses its “proprietorship”».


Forty years on, it is worth recalling that since June 1983, when the aforementioned Central Committee was installed by a coup at the Party’s General Meeting, «a new internal political struggle broke out between some of the comrades who took part in the initiative to take back in court the newspaper Il Programma Comunista, and some other comrades who, opposing both the “new course” instituted through the self-proclaimed Central Committee and the judicial initiative of the latter group of comrades, tried to wrest as many comrades as possible from the influence of the multiple deviations that had affected the party and completely convulsed it. This last-mentioned group of comrades, fighting within what remained of the International Communist Party after the explosive crisis of 1982 and as long as it was given the practical possibility of being politically active in it – that is to say, until the end of 1984 – and fighting at the same time against the withdrawal of the two groups already mentioned to the interior of Italy’s borders, would bring into existence from May 1983 a new title, “Il Comunista”; and from February 1985, together with the Franco-Swiss comrades of “Le prolétaire”, they began the reconstitution of the party on the basis of the vital political balance of the crises that had affected it since its birth after the Second World War – a balance sheet that was firmly based on the theoretical, programmatic, political, tactical and organisational foundations that have always characterised the Communist Left of Italy and our party of yesterday, and with an internationalist and international vision that is equally vital for a party that wants to be communist and revolutionary.

At that time, we were reminding not only of the correct position taken by the party in 1952 when the group around Damen conducted a legal dispute in order to seize the title “Battaglia Comunista” but also of the fact that the formal functions imposed by bourgeois law (the “commercial ownership” of the press title and the editorial responsibility of the “editor-in-chief”, who must be a member of the professional journalistic organization Ordine dei gionalisti) did not imply for the comrades who were forced to perform them, a kind of political privilege within the Party, nor did it confer them a role as the prime and unquestioned representatives of the Party’s positions vis-à-vis the Party itself and externally. For the Party, these were and are merely bureaucratic functions that must be performed in order to legally publish the party press, nothing more. Indeed, the comrades who were formally the “commercial owners” and “responsible chief editors” of the party newspaper did not necessarily share the party’s positions. This was true both of the issues of “Il Programma Comunista” from 7 July 1983 to 11 January 1984 and of the later “Combat” from February to December 1984 (a paper whose line we never shared)».


Well, there were two basic positions that separated us from the group that had taken possession of the title “Il Programma Comunista”: the political struggle within the party to establish at international level a theoretically, programmatically and politically solid point of reference, and the work on the political balance sheet of the party’s crisis. We insisted on the fundamental necessity of these two positions; those who shared the opposite position, i.e. no political struggle within the party and no balance sheet of the crises, justified this by claiming that the party had fallen into the hands of a kind of clique of liquidators with whom there was no sense in waging a “political” struggle, but against whom it was simply necessary to launch a legal case in order to regain full control of the party’s historic paper; and that a balance sheet of the party’s crises was not necessary because, once the clique was removed, it was only a question of “resuming the course”, which had unfortunately been interrupted for a year and a half.

Moreover, the group that took possession of “Il Programma Comunista” closed itself within the borders of Italy with the idea of consolidating itself, above all, in their country, with the aim of following the same process of development that the comrades of the Communist Left of Italy had followed after the Second World War, and claimed to be the sole representatives of the theoretical-political and organizational continuity of the party. In fact, this approach – considering that this group was organized around an ancient representative of the party centre – was considered by the comrades of “Le prolétaire”, who were still active as sections of the party in France and Switzerland, as abandoning the foreign comrades to their fate. Something that a party which defined itself as international and claimed to represent even the organizational continuity of the old organization, could never have done. This closure within the borders of Italy, however, was part of their innate refusal to combat within the party positions that they considered to be a deviation from the line. All in all, it was natural that those who have entrusted to a bourgeois court the decision to be recognized as the “true” representatives of the International Communist Party would take such an approach.

The publication of “Il Comunista” at a very early stage, in 1983–1984, that is in the midst of the crisis of the Italian section of the party, was part of the party’s project, decided in a central meeting in 1982, to publish this new publication in order to provide the organization with a more specific political and interventionist paper, and to give the historical publication “Il Programma Comunista” the status of the theoretical party review in Italian, as it had already been in French, Spanish, German, English and Greek. For more on this issue, see the presentation of “Il Comunista” on the party’s website

From 1985 onwards, after another political struggle within what was left of the party in Italy (“Combat”), and after the re-establishment of links with the comrades of “Le Prolétaire”, “Il Comunista” represented the reconstitution of the party organization in Italy and clearly differentiated itself from both the new “Il Programma Comunista” and “Combat” groups, which represented the new liquidators of the party.


The cited presentation of our newspaper concluded as follows:


«Sure to continue a party work which is never bound to the lifetime of individual comrades, let alone to the lifetime of the leaders, but proceeds on the basis of the dialectical interconnection of the ever more acute contradictions of capitalist society and in the internationalist and international dimension of the class political struggle undertaken by the most conscious elements organizing themselves into a party, we, as Lenin put it in “What Is To Be Done?”, “are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all side by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh”.

We know well, as the Italian Communist Left and Lenin taught us, that this neighbouring marsh consists of conciliation between the classes, collaboration between the classes, democracy and all the gilts that the “democratic life” of this decaying society has invented. The crises that affected the International Communist Party – just as, on the other hand, the crises that affected much stronger and more robust parties such as the Bolshevik Party and the German Communist Party – were crises of “growth” and “degeneration” as happens in nature to every organic body. The strength of the class party, which combines “consciousness” (theory) and “will” (party action), lies in the defence, the struggle to maintain and reconquer the line that leads from Marx to Lenin, to the founding of the Communist International and the Communist Party of Italy, to fight against every opportunist degeneration – whatever such opportunism may be called –, against every demand for the enrichment of Marxism or the elaboration of new and more “innovative” theories, and against every concession to the individualist and personal character, that is, against every democratic and libertarian illusion.

The perspective of the proletarian and communist revolution is not for us an ideal that hovers elusively in the world of ideas and hopes, it is not a moral consolation in the face of an precarious and unsatisfactory individual life: it is a historical certainty to which dialectical materialism has taught us to conform our practical action in concrete everyday life, but within the framework of the historical course of development that binds us to the future society of the human species, to communism. Like every human group, we are part of a passing generation which the progressive development of the productive forces, though in its strong contradictions caused by the class divided society, organically binds to past and future generations. Our task is not only to struggle theoretically and politically, but also practically, for the revolutionary class par excellence, the proletariat, to reconquer its strength through the class struggle, so that this historical leap which humanity will necessarily make from mercantile and capitalist society to socialist society and finally to full communism will finally become a reality».


We can only strongly reiterate what we said then, and continue our work of reconnecting with the history of the Communist Left and reassimilating the enormous theoretical and political heritage of revolutionary communism, and in doing so hold firmly to the course already set out – as we recalled in What Distinguishes Our Party:


«The political continuity which goes from Marx and Engels to Lenin, to the foundation of the Communist International and the Communist Party of Italy; the class struggle of the Communist Left against the degeneration of the International, the struggle against the theory of “socialism in one country” and the Stalinist counter-revolution; the rejection of all popular fronts and national resistance blocs; the struggle against the principles and practice of bourgeois democracy, against intermediatism, interclassism and political and trade-union class collaboration, against any form of opportunism and nationalism; the difficult task of restoring the Marxist doctrine and the revolutionary organ par excellence – the class party – closely linked with the working class, and its daily struggle in opposition to capitalism and bourgeois oppression; the struggle against personal and electoral politics, against any form of indifferentism, of tailism, of movementism or the adventurist practice of “armed struggle”; the support of any proletarian struggle which breaks with social peace and rejects the discipline of interclassist collaborationism; the support of all efforts towards proletarian class reorganisation on the basis of economic associationism, with the perspective of a large scale resumption of the class struggle, proletarian internationalism and the revolutionary anticapitalist struggle


In the forty years that have passed since the explosive crisis of the old party, we have developed our work in such a way that, given the still very bleak situation of the class struggles, we were forced to give priority to publications and propaganda. While “Le prolétaire” continued to be published during the crisis of 1982–1984 (after a brief interruption due to the crisis that broke out at the international meeting in Paris in October 1982, issue 367 was published in December and then resumed regular publication), “Il Comunista” (after the first series published in 1983–1984) was published regularly from February 1985 as the Italian press organ of the party. The perspective we gave ourselves was to publish, as soon as forces and finances permitted, theoretical journals, in French “Programme Communiste” and in Spanish “El Programa Comunista”; by 1982 88 issues of the former and 40 issues of the latter had been published. “Programme Communiste” began to appear in May 1987 with issue 89, “El Programa Comunista” in September 1992 with issue 41. In February 2002, thank to our English-speaking comrades, we published the first issue of Proletarian, and in August of the same year we published a “Venezuela supplement”. In May 2010, we began publishing a “Supplement dedicated to Spain” which was replaced in December 2012 by El Proletario, thank to the work of the Spanish section, which was restored a few years ago. In February 2022, we resumed the publication of the English-language journal Communist Program, which will henceforth be published regularly every year or year and a half. As far as the Spanish language is concerned, the crisis that hit the Spanish section drove out of the Party practically all the comrades who, a few years later, came out with their own newspaper, to which they gave the name of the old Party newspaper “El Comunista”, as the press organ of the Partido Comunista Internacional, although they too had been liquidators of the Party on syndicalist and theoricist positions. When we decided to publish a Spanish-language periodical, in order to avoid further confusion due to the same name of the party, we opted for “El Proletario” as the name of the paper, to complement the already existing review “El Programa Comunista”.

The resumption of the class struggle is unfortunately still far off, but the economic and political contradictions of the imperialist powers are bringing even closer the point of social rupture which will inexorably put the great historical dilemma on the agenda: war or revolution. Since the end of the Second Imperialist World War, the imperialisms have been preparing themselves to withstand a third world war; the numerous world conferences and the flattering declarations of peace by all the chancellery of the world certainly cannot conceal this. The countless so-called local wars in which the most powerful imperialists in the world have always intervened directly or indirectly, from the Korean War in 1950 to the present Russian-Ukrainian war, have not been followed and will not be followed by a period of peace: capitalism, in its latest historical stage of development, imperialism, is doomed to keep itself alive and develop exclusively through wars, bourgeoisie against bourgeoisie, power against power, imperialist blocs against imperialist blocs, because its economy cyclically produces not only expansion and development, but above all crises, ever sharper, deeper and worldwide crises.

The only social class in this society which has the historical potential to put an end to the exploitation of man by man, to the destruction of the productive forces and the environment, to all kinds of oppression and war, is the proletarian class, the class of wage-labourers. This class has an enormous advantage over the other social classes: it is absolutely the most numerous, it is the class which produces through its work the economic and social wealth of every country, and it is the class which has historically the task of breaking all the social, economic and political shackles by which the bourgeois classes of every country control it. And it has one more fundamental characteristic: the proletarians, the wage-workers, are subjected to the same oppression, the same conditions of existence and life, regardless of the country in which they were born or in which country they work or to which they emigrate; it is objectively an international class, because there is no country in which it is not oppressed, exploited, duped, suppressed and massacred. But it has an equally strong disadvantage: without a firm, solid, conscious, disciplined and organized revolutionary leadership, the proletariat is a mere puppet in the hands of the puppet masters in office. The proletarians can rely on indisputable material reality: as an oppressed, exploited, massacred class in the workplaces and in the wars, it is driven to revolt against its status as a wage slave; in doing so, it exerts a strike force, an effort to organize itself on the immediate terrain and to mobilize solidarity to proletarians from other factories and other countries; but it is constantly restrained, diverted, defeated by the competition between proletarians, which the bourgeoisie feeds with full force, and is therefore blinded and usually unable to identify goals beyond the immediate struggle. A class-divided society is an extremely contradictory organism, and in the development of the productive forces, including wage labour, it pushes the ruling classes towards ever greater oppression and exploitation of workers in an attempt to combat the tendency of the falling rate of profit that chronically plagues the capitalist economy, and to overcome the crises of overproduction that are now occurring with increasing frequency. The bourgeoisie has no other means of confronting the crises of its economic and social system and of trying to overcome them than by creating the conditions for even more acute, even more destructive crises; and in order to deal with them it cannot but raise the level of the conflict between the classes from the purely economic and immediate plane to the political plane, thus bringing the proletariat back to intervene also on this political plane. Only that the proletariat still strongly influenced by inter-class collaboration and electoral politicking, carries out these interventions not any longer by the revolutionary means to which the proletarian and peasant masses were trained by the revolutionary and anti-feudal bourgeoisie in its first historical period for its class revolution, but by the political and propagandist means of an entirely conservative and reactionary democracy, which are directly provided to it by the imperialist bourgeoisie.

In the historical course of class struggles, every class-divided society has experienced the passing through an initial revolutionary period, the aim of which was to overthrow the old economic and social structure so that the productive forces already developed in the old society could be developed to the maximum, subsequently; a period of consolidation of the dominion of the new ruling class (the period of social reforms); and a reactionary period characterized by the maintenance of political and socio-economic power by a policy aimed at forcibly hindering the objective development of the productive forces within the relations of production and property relations which no longer correspond to the objective needs of the general development of society.

Capitalist imperialism corresponds to this last period, in which, after the fading out of the national-revolutionary upsurge of the emergent bourgeois classes in practically all corners of the world, national revolutions led by a national and revolutionary bourgeoisie capable of dragging the urban proletarian masses and the great masses of peasants behind it are no longer on the agenda, revolutions which inevitably clashed not only with the old powers of feudalism and despotism, but also and above all with the imperialist powers, i.e. the top representatives of capitalist development – as was the case after the First World War and especially after the Second World War.

This does not mean that all the countries of the world are developed in the same manner; on the contrary, the uneven world development of capitalism, precisely by virtue of imperialist development, tends to widen the disparities between the imperialist countries and the rest of the world, which in this way, despite the “decolonization” of the 1960s and 1970s, is subordinated by financial and military forces to the interests of the big imperialist countries and the big trusts that dominate the international market.

All that remains in perspective is the class struggle of the proletariat in each country against the bourgeois ruling classes, starting in its own homeland. And it is for this struggle, objectively international, that the class party, the revolutionary communist party, has been preparing and must prepare since the Manifesto of Marx and Engels was written in 1848. The historical period of wars and revolutions is not dictated by the will of oligarchic forces or great leaders; it is dictated by the material development of social contradictions and the maturation of the objective and subjective factors of the class and revolutionary struggle. It is in this perspective, and on the basis of the lessons of past revolutions, and especially counter-revolutions, that the party for which we work will have to meet its revolutionary task at the historical moment of the great social crisis that will inevitably arise – as it did in Europe in 1848, in Paris in 1871, in Russia in 1917 and in Europe in 1919/1920 – and thus the solution to this crisis could take the direction of the proletarian revolution and not bourgeois counter-revolution.

Of course, the explosive crisis that caused the old organization to fall apart inevitably reduced the militant forces of the party, reducing our group to a handful of militants. This was not the first time this had happened in the history of the proletarian party; it happened with the First International, which was destroyed by anarchist and immediatist opportunist tendencies, and then with the Second International, which was brought to collapse by reformist, social-democratic and chauvinist tendencies; this happened in spite of the great victory of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 and the formation of the Third International as a result of the anti-centralist, nationalist and, for the umpteenth time, chauvinist tendencies of the great European proletarian parties. However in spite of the victory of the bourgeois class, with its direct counter-revolution and also the “indirect” one that was Stalinism, the factors objectively favourable to the proletarian revolution has begun to revive at the international level; although they still do not manifest themselves in full, they still continue to operate and slowly dismantle the capitalist economic and social structure, little by little they are taking off the mask of the supposed socialism that was to be realized in Russia, in its satellite countries and in China, and also the mask of democracy, which has long since ceased to be liberal and has become more and more a fascist democracy.

This is in no way to say that the party’s activity has been facilitated; the intoxication with democratism and individualism within the proletariat caused by the ideology, propaganda and actions of the bourgeois classes is so strong that to reawaken the proletarians to the struggle for their existence on the class terrain – i.e. on the terrain where exclusively proletarian class interests are defended –, a great economic and social upheaval is needed, as a result of which will be reborn in the proletariat the will to fight against the ruling bourgeois class, recognised as its arch-enemy, the will to organise itself again independently not only of the ruling bourgeoisie but also of the petty bourgeoisie, and to seek leadership not only to win the struggles on the immediate terrain but also to fight and win on the general political terrain.

This leadership can be nothing other than the class party, the revolutionary communist party, which represents in the present the future of the proletarian struggles, which represents in the present the historical tasks of the proletarian class at the world level, because it possesses the theory of revolutionary communism, because it knows the overall historical course of the class struggles and, more particularly, of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, because it condenses the experience of the proletarian struggles and the struggles of the international communist movement and draws the necessary lessons from the defeats so as not to fall into the same errors again.

It is for this party that we work, outside and against all manoeuvring politics, outside and against all opportunist concessions, wielding theoretical-programmatic intransigence as the only weapon with which to pursue the correct political and tactical line in the situations that arise, to correctly evaluate the balance of forces and the tasks not only of the party but also of the proletarian class.



International Communist Party

Il comunista - le prolétaire - el proletario - proletarian - programme communiste - el programa comunista - Communist Program


Back to «proletarian»

Back to Archives

Back to Publication catalogue