Progress, Challenge, Difficulties
(abridged translation of German version of 23 Apr. 2008)
The following text gives an assessment of our activities in party building in the last years, more precisely since the foundation of KOMAK-ML in February 2002 or the Revolutionary Platform, resp., which was a coordination of their forerunner organisations. Then we aimed at unifying all revolutionary communist forces in Austria. For us it was clear from the beginning that the coming years would be very difficult because we were striving for unification from a weak position (and one part of our organisation – as well as the Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria, MLPÖ – declined unification in that concrete situation at all).
The past years have shown in practice that even the cautious hopes and expectations were not fulfilled in those fields where really the unification was at stake.
In these recent years we have expanded the activities of our organisation to several federal provinces, established international contacts, developed our programmatic fundaments as well as positions on important political issues etc. But the organisational bundling of forces could not be brought to a higher level of party building. It was no unification of three organisations on the same level of development and we have too carelessly passed over the problem that there existed only shallow accordance on several issues. Even after the unification no real two-line struggle was developed. Instead of this, when phrasing our positions retreating compromises were made – only for the reason of not endangering the process of growing together. That was an illusion. The theoretic deficits accumulated for more than half a century cannot simply be ignored or passed over. (...)
For this reason the 7th conference of KOMAK-ML at the end of 2007 stated the failure of the unification project and (as already planned for some time before) decided to change the name of the organisation. The new name expresses our intention in a clearer way: Initiative for the Construction of a Revolutionary Communist Party (abbr. in German: IA.RKP). (...)
1. Attempt on some Difficulties
In 2006 as komak-ml , we adopted the “Theses on the relation of class struggle and possibilities of party-building” . Many of theses theses already then had the character of appealing. Making an appeal towards ourselves as an organisation and to our own comrades for pulling oneselves together and holding out.
In our development of becoming a sound and to some extent solid group, organisation, party-building organisation fit for work, our main problem has been the forming of cadres.
We have been proceeding on the knowledge of scientific socialism and of the global communist movement that the working class neeeds a communist party to make the socialist revolution. This party is of necessity no “mass” party but a cadre party; it is the vanguard, has the task to lead, to advance equipped with stragtey and tactics, with a promgramme and a plan for the socialist revolution. In the first place the party wins the confidence of the masses of workers in struggle.
As communists we are conscious of the fact that the party is an inalienable instrument – if there is no communist party we must work for the building of it, at least do preparatory work for it.
Indeed the communist party is first of all a means and tool, not an end in itself. Before the times of revolution it is especially a tool for class-struggle, a means for advancing to revolution, starting it and seizing the political power.
In times of class struggle on a very low level there is the problem that the final purpose of the party (advancing as a vanguard) cannot take effect, we cannot directly test if we are doing correctly. We could at present not use the instrument in the sense of its real meaning even if we possessed one (i.e. we had built the party – what is not true). Sure the development of movement and necessary forms of organisation runs in a dialectic way. It’s evident: There are close connections between the historical status of social development and the concrete possibilities for party-building.
Just as it’s wrong to wait till the movement “is developing” and then is creating forms of organisation on its own and in passing-by, today we, however, are confronted with the task of party-building. The communist party does not at all come into being spontanuously. Neither does the working class develop revolutionary consciousness spontanuously.
So: For knowing if a hammer is suitable I must use it, before that I will not find out if it meets my requirements or not. Or the other way round: In a situation when there is no communist party and when the working class has no tool to get to revolution, and the class struggle takes place on a very low level, the question arises nearly by its own if and to what extent such an instrument suitable for a future, only imagined revolutionary situation can be developed already now. A tool that can neither be tested sufficiently nor refined and improved. It is the question if and to what extent party-building is now possible at all .
We think: It is possible, at least to develop concepts, to approach the form, the mode of function, the modes of using the necessary tool, our party, and there are experiences that we must check and that we can base on.
Heer and now, we are in the miserable situation that the international revolutionary communist movement is in an extremely poor state, that there is no communist party in Austria and that there are reasons we have to examine. We know that the historical development runs both evolutionary and revolutionary. Rapid changes are part of development. Knowing that a party is necessary we are trying our best for be prepared for such situations when rapid changes are taking place.
Certainly: Without theory and without programme our practice will be aimless and unsystematic. But also the theory must be confirmed, modified and further developed or altered and dropped.
Therefore it is necessary to examine again and again if our theory (and also our own attempts to develop the revolutionary theory) stands firm, comes up to the current state of the art or if it is full of phrases, not thoroughly reasoned out, actually a mere reproduction of old texts approved as correct but in reality nothing more than a copy. Repeating alleged irrefutabilities like a payer wheel has definitely nothing to do with creating theory. That’s no appeal for rejecting everything or for re-inventing the wheel anew. We know the rich treasure of experience and knowledge that we must acquire. That we must and can base on. That we must develop further. But today we are urged, well, obliged to eventually become aware of the depth of our defeat. It can’t be correct to rely on our dogmas. We must question them.
We have decided to use our ability of analysing and at the same time not to lose sight of our limited possibilities in achieving really useful results.
The current points at issue are serious and we must treat them seriously, the more we understand that also the latest attempts of party-building in the 1970ies were failures (in the sense that they have not brought us nearer to the socialist revolution in the foreseeable future). (...)
We insist on the position that also today it is possible to build a structure fit for work (an “apparatus”) based on a plan. And: Because of the past experience of struggles of the working class we have relatively concrete concepts on how this structure necessarily should be formed. At the same time we must be cautious and not forget that also the issue of structure is a question of practicability and advisability. (...)
Reliability is essential for every political union. Without reliability in the structure, democratic centralism can never ever be put into practice. Each comrade, however, is responsible for this. Not only the leadership and not at all a single person alone. Only if the bottom-up democracy works the necessary centralism can be fruitful. (...)
The durable winning of persons who are conscious of the complex necessities and who are ready for all of this (and even more) is without doubt one of the biggest problems for the construction of a revolutionary communist party. For the consequence is: Adjust all your life to being a revolutionary. (...)
In the course of the previous century the communist and workers movement saw a huge and triumphant rise. For a long time following, the high-altitude flights covered the reality that something was in the bad way. Today we as revolutionaries are standing in front of the ruins of this development. It’s a huge heap of debris and we need a lot of acumen and perspicacity to sort and clear away, to reject, repair and keep. Among others we must at all costs find out how such a serious defeat could happen.
For our current politics it is also important to find out which of the achieved results are durable and reliable, which ones were undesirable development and real errors that have made many comrades surrender before the great task – not only in Europe but nearly everywhere in the world – and have led many of them astray with reformism and particularism. The defeat of the working class is really comprehensive. Today we do not need corrections here and there but a new start! (...)
We are also aware of the outmoded touch of our demand. Comprehensive drafts are not in fashion. And it’s been like that for decades. Eclecticism is flourishing but the blossoms do not even smell pleasant. We do not want for get lost in struggles for partial demands. It’s got to be all or nothing! We have decided to take the plunge. We want to lay the foundation stones for a new party.
KOMAK-ML was one approach, not the first one, not the last one. Then three groups united with the intention to advance this project. Today we say: This unification was a failure. From various reasons. We do not take ourselves so serious that we think that all our experiences could be generalized. But some of them indeed, we think.
2. Revolutionary Line and Right Opportunism
In times of weakly developed class struggle and of political ebb-tide every communist group will have to concentrate on propaganda first.
For a small group of theoretically learned communists with some practical experience it’s not too difficult to align all their work on principled and theoretic statements and propagandistic activities. All those who have other concepts of political activities will be repelled (from the beginning or after a short time).
In the more “positive” variant the revolutionary communist theory is even further developed by studying classic writings and current bourgeois texts and is brought to the state of the art. So it can be used by other groups as a basis for revolutionary intervention in real class struggles taking place.
In the more “negative” variant only quotations from communist writings of past centuries are puzzled together and then finally proclaimed that already MELS etc. stated that only the proletarian revolution can bring along a real change.
Both extremes are variants of mere and pure propaganda activities by a group that feels attached to revolutionary communism – and both forms have been found also in Austria for decades, at least as tendencies.
As soon as such a group tries to “make politics”, i.e. intervene in real movements (with participation) of the working class, to obtain decisive influence various dangers emerge. When doing only propaganda work these dangers of “left” and right opportunism are in the background because there is no real argument with the activists of a movement and their practice. The concentration lies more or less on the “proclamation of knowledge”, may it be in publications or on banners and through slogans shouted.
The problem mostly starts with the wording of concrete demands and political statements on current occations and on arguing with the leading representatives of a certain movement, e.g. in an action unity meeting.
It must be the aim of intervention of a revolutionary communist group in real movements of the working class (and their allies) to unite parts of this movement under revolutionary slogans, i.e. to come into a position of taking a principled view of the current event and, beyond it, maintaining the perspective of the proletarian revolution (directly or indirectly).
In this current context it would be a leftist deviation to give the propoaganda for revolution so much special emphasis that that the concrete struggle and reason for the rally or march is totally neglected. In such a way not even the most class conscious elements can be drawn to communism in struggle . An example: A person who is to some extent interested in communism but personally concentrating on and engaging in the struggle against EU imperialism cannot be won for revolutionary communism if the Revolutionary Communists signal in their entire presentation (e.g. as a block of a march or in a leaflet): We don’t care about the partial struggle against EU, we want the dictatorship of the proletariat! Such a peformance harms party building in any case! But it’s a fact that repeatedly certain persons who cultivated such an attitude for a long time eventually switch over to the opposite extreme.
Through its petty bourgeois and labour aristocratic influence in Austria at present various forms of rightest opportunism dominate (nearly?) all movements and are much wider spread and more influential than leftist deviations. As the trends of radicalized petty bourgeoisie always affect also the working class movement and communist organisations right opportunism also penetrates revolutionary communist groups. In the current situation without an RCP, when the main link is the building of a revolutionary communist party, right opportunism appears most clearly in this very issue of party building: A Party would be absolutely necessary but today party building could not work in practice. The conditions were not ripe therefore various detours had to be made that lead to a Party (in the long run!) etc.
Often right opportunism grows from permanently chumming up with the low consciousness of the activists of “social movements” or the “average workers”. Instead of consciously and specificly addressing certain further advanced, class-conscious persons the right opportunist agitation and propaganda orientates on the “mass”. At the same time they complain about the lethargy of the masses and their inactivity – altoghether leading to an even shallower agit-prop far away from all communist concern. (...)
Simply spoken, all that is a rightist deviation where the perspective of the proletarian revolution – the purpose of our unification as a revolutionary communist party-buliding organisation – is no longer visible. (...)
3. Revisionist Pressure and Liquidatorism
(...) Today there are two main forms of revsisionism i.e. breaking with revolutionary communism, both of them leading to reformism even if the concerned people idignantly repudiate the reproach of reformism because subjectively they are longing for “the revolution”, wishing a totally different society.
The first form is “party bulding bottom-up and in small steps” , the other one is “particularism” .
In a situation where in a certain country there are no revolutionary communist groups it is the task of each person orientated on communism to form and strengthen a group that, as a nucleus for a Revolutionary Communist Party, tackles all tasks that must be made at any rate. In any case, but dependent on the number and abilities of the handfull of comrades the emphasis and biggest part of activities must serve the construction of the centre.
For that the publication and distribution of propagandistic leaflets (and, if possible, political statements on out-standing events) is necessary as well as giving the opportunity of contacting this centre.
For that extended and patient talks with sympathisers are necessary as well as participating in important mass actions of the working class and other sectors of the people.
For that systematic studies are necessary as well as the application and development of scientific communism on the concrete situation of the country and the elaboration of programmatic fundaments, as well as organizing study circles and debates on theory with concentration on persons politically close to the group.
For that contacts with revolutionary communist parties and organisations in other countries is necessary as well as with anti-imperialist organisations in countries where the own imperialism plays an important role in suppresing and exploiting the popular masses.
All these tasks can be tackled at any time also by a handfull of revolutionary communists, at least to a small extent. If all forces are organized and placed correctly in the long run in each of these fields mentioned above a bit of progress can be achieved without neglecting one of the other fields. It’s always important to bear in mind the aim of a really militant party and to focus on getting nearer to this aim, i.e. fulfilling the tasks better and better and in a more and more comprehensive way.
The advocates of “party-building bottom-up in small steps” also have the picture of a complete communist party in their mind. But they plan their activities as if this party aready existed. They indiscriminately publish their communist statements about various current events or take part in all sorts of action unities or try to construct “factory cells” or “front organisations” or re-publish statements of communist organisations of other countries etc. – as if there already existed a communist core (or even a party).
For them the systematic construction of the structure of the party-building organisation on the ideological, theoretical and organisational level is irrelevant and they can potter about as comunsts for many years without creating anything firm or durable. Drowning in the “daily practice of party-building” leads to petty bourgeois attitudes in politcal an organisational issues, leads to right opportunism and revisionism because the integral whole, i.e. the concrete task of creating a party-organisation is postponed further andn further. (...)
A special form of this practicistic attitude within a communsit organisation is expresses itself in the refusal of taking on responsibility, or sometimes not even working according to the plan and taking on partial tasks and independently seeing to it that they are realized. There are comrades who go as far as confining themselves to accepting tasks only under the responsibility of someone else, who resist any planned division of the forces of the organisation and accept only “auxiliary work”. With regard to the necessary development of cadres this is a dreadful attitude and in direct opposition to unfolding of democratic centralism. In the position of “simple militants” they demand “clear instructions” or coaching or teaching from the leadership of their cell or local committee. As soon as the are elected into leading functions they stress and urge “self-activity” and indpendence in the work of all comrades, “unfolding of the initiative of the basis” etc. In any case the sabotage the planned work and the systematic construction of the party within the frame of a compiled and permanently developed overall concept.
Another possibility of “making communist politics” without any lasting progress is particularism the exclusive concentration on a certain partial issue. (...)
A special form of this particularism combining “honest communist attitude” with liquidatorship is the fixation on the revolution in a foreign country. Even a very self-sacrificing and material and physical readiness for the revolutionary struggle in another country than the one where you live and work means liquidatorship. That’s because where you can really advance and change the things as a communist, where each of your activities –as far as they are done according to a useful general plan for party-building - mean a small step forward, there you make no or only very limited contributions, do not unite with the comrades who try to advance revolution in this country that is the centre of your life.
4. Problems in multinational party-building
If large groups of workers with revolutionary attitude are mainly orientated on foreign countries that is of course not only bad for the political development of the certain country they live in. Moreover it harms the development of the global revolutionary communist movement for as a revolutionary communist you can advance most where you can directly intervene in class struggle, where you live and work. Such forms of “revolutionary inactivity in one’s own country together with dedication to the revolutionary struggle in another one” does not only exist among migrant workers but also in general among people with revolutionary attitudes.
So revolutionary migrants coming to Austria are confronted with a situation where those who deal with class struggle in Austria are nearly all reformists of all sorts or worse while the few revolutionaries mainly occupy oneselves with Venezuela, Columbia, Kurdistan, Turkey, Basque country or other far away countries. In any case they don’t know much about the class situation in Austria and have no idea how the revolutionary movement in Austria should make progress.
It definitely makes sense and is necessary when developing the political line (or correcting it in a two-line struggle, resp.) to introduce the experiences of other communist organisations into debates. (…)
But there is also the danger that certain analyses and concrete experiences of other countries are put on the Austrian situation schematically and without any reflection. This harmful practice of simply adopting positions instead of using one’s own brains has been well-known in the communist movement for a long time. In small organisations this problem can as well appear in the form that migrants from the same country of origin have a firmer orientation on the positions of a party of their country of origin than on the agreed positoins of their own organisation. Apart from emotional connections this attitude is mainly derived from the fact that they have studied the situation in their country of origin much better (and for years and decades) than that of the country they have been working and living in for many years and decades. It is nevertheless a phenomenon bordering to self-deception and loss of reality if migrant workers have lived and worked in Austria for 10 or more years but still have no relation to class struggle in Austria. (…)
In the context of certain positions of the Three-World Theory, especially that the storm centres of world revolution are on the long run only to be found in neo-colonially dependent countries, a theory of revolution and of party-building with wrong tendencies has been developed. It goes as far as to the position of some revolutionary communist parties from neo-colonies openly stating that a revolution in developed imperialist countries were not possible in the foreseeable future. Therefore communists had to concentrate mainly on the support of revolutions in certain international storm centres of world revolution.
Derived from that position they deduce for party-building in developed countries that in any case less priority should be given to this than to the building of revolutionary anti-imperialist solidarity movements and respective organisations in as many imperialist countries as possible.
We think it’s a fundamentally wrong attitude to organize onself in any given country as a detachment of the world revolutionary movement in separation from the main tasks of class struggle in that certain country . In contrast to this we stress that it is the duty of of all communists to organize oneselves as part of the vanguard of the revolutionary movement of the certain country where there is the centre of their material life. That also means to concentrate on the preparation of the proletarian revolution in the certain country where one lives and works – irrespective of birth place and mother tongue.
We orientate on the construction of a revolutionary communist party with militants of various nations by unifying all communists who live and work in Austria in one single party-building organisation.
Of course, this makes it necessary to carry out agitation and propaganda also in the main languages of the migrant workers and possibly to use two working languages in the party cells or if need be even only one foreign language in a certain cell. (...)
5. Party-building in a situation of weakly developed class struggle and the importance of the youth organisation
Again and again people from working class, but also from petty bourgeois strata especially youth, come in to contradition with the concrete conditions and developments of imperialism. (...)
Especially youth from migrant families feel the hostility of the capitalist system against working class more clearly. (...)
So many of them come into contact with revolutionary communism.
Of the many working class people getting into opposition with certain appearances of capitalist system only very few deal with the teachings of scientific communism more carefully. (...)
In a political and organisational respect petty-bourgeois revisionism is much stronger in Austria than revolutionary communism; therefore most of the emerging small political groups soon get into the wake and gravity zone of organisations calling themselves marxist, revolutionary, socialist or communist, but in reality representing varieties of revisonism and reformism. The two main groups are the “Communist Party of Austria” (KPÖ) or currents related to it and trotzkyite organisations. (...)
It is well-known from the history of the revolutionary communist workers movement that the issue of winnig the “next generation” is decisive for the development of the movement and its organisations. At present in Austria as well as on a global scale, as far as we know, the leading cadres of the revolutionary communist parties and organisations are seriously overaged. With communists in their 50ies and 60ies however nowhere a revolution has been successfully made. The concentration of our organisation on the promotion, ecouragement and development of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Association is therefore a decisive duty of the whole organisation.
(trans.17Apr08)
IA.RKP
Initiative for the Construction of a Revolutionary Communist Party
(former komak-ml)
Since 1995 we have distributed leaflets adressing mainly class conscious worker and since 2001 we have published a newspaper now called ‘Proletarian Revolution’. Our aim is a society without classes, without suppression and exploitation. For reaching it the working class must build their own party, seize power, expropriate the owners of means of production and continue class struggle until all remnants of bourgeois order have disappeared. We stand in the tradition of the International Revolutionary Communist Movement that defended the Marxist-Leninist general line in the mid-1960ies and led to the building of new Communist Parties in dealing with the errors of CPSU and in sharp struggle against the roaders of bureaucrat state capitalism in the Soviet Union. We are Revolutionary Communists and therefore not organisanized in the “CP Austria” (KPÖ).
IA.RKP
Stiftg. 8, A-1070 Wien,
ia.rkp2017@yahoo.com,
www.oocities.org/ia.rkp2017,
(www.komak-ml.tk)