From Tridni Valka – Here we propose our English translation of a text initially published by comrades in Ecuador. Globally we agree with the text, especially we would like to emphasize strong affirmations putting forward: 1/ the proletarian and communist historical party against the conception of (bourgeois) political party; 2/ the correct definition of the militant tasks of revolutionary minorities in the current period of global counterrevolution but with “local” and not yet generalized class confrontations in many parts of the world; 3/ we also appreciate the critics towards activism and spontaneism versus strong programmatical reaffirmation and development… Nevertheless, the text should be more discussed for the issues related to communization, real subsumption, affirmation of the proletariat and transition period…
What is determinant for social revolution is the historical and global context, or better said, the nature of the period in which the class antagonism exists, not the consciousness, the will, or the activity of leftist organizations and individualities in this and any other country. In the history of global class antagonism, there are only two types of periods: counterrevolutionary period and revolutionary period. The present one is a counter-revolutionary period.1
Roughly speaking, the main characteristics of a counterrevolutionary period are: 1) that the bourgeoisie exercises its class domination in all aspects of society: from the economic to the ideological, so it is also on the offensive or attack in all aspects in order to maintain such domination; and, 2) that the proletariat can only wage defensive or reformist struggles (for demands) as a class of labor/capital and not as a revolutionary class. The balance of forces tilts thus in favor of the first class, and not the second one.
More clearly: in a counterrevolutionary period, the bourgeoisie is strong or ruling class and the proletariat is weak or dominated class.
This does not mean that during a counterrevolutionary period there are no revolts and insurrections. In fact, during the current counterrevolutionary period, specifically so far in the 21st century, there have been international revolts that have even threatened to alter or reverse the balance of forces between the classes: in particular, those of 2000, 2008, 2011 and 2019. (The historical and material causes of the defeat of the revolts and the strength of the counterrevolution in this century are subject of another article).
The system of capitalist domination, with the State at its head, has different tentacles. Of which, social democracy, reformism or the left of Capital, is one of the most important and strongest, because it is the capitalist counterrevolution that disguises itself as red and even black in the bosom of the exploited and oppressed so that their protests are democratically put under the bushel – fighting against this or that law, against this or that government, for this or that right, etc. – and do not attack the roots of the system: the social dictatorship of value in process or, in simpler words, having to work to pay and pay to live, thanks to what the rich and powerful are what they are at the expense of our class of increasingly precarious and impoverished wage slaves. As long as it stays that way, nothing fundamental will change.
Therefore, in a counterrevolutionary period like the one we are living, all left activism (marches, sit-ins, assemblies, symbolic actions, etc.) is reformist and does not even tickle Capital and the State. Slogans like “confronting the bourgeois and imperialist onslaught”, “not giving up the streets”, “strengthening the unity processes of the popular sectors”, “accumulating forces”, “preparing the popular offensive”, etc., brandished by the militants of some local leftist organizations, are convincing but false reasons for seeking to reproduce the Capital-State or the bourgeois-democratic order in another form (“defending public services”, the “rights of the people”, their dream of a “popular government”, the “redistribution of wealth”, etc.) and, therefore, the counterrevolution disguised in red and black, even if they have good intentions or are not aware of it, and even if their discourse and their action appear “radical”.
This is so because Capital is an impersonal social relation and, therefore, immensely more powerful than the personalities, wills, ideologies and political activities of leftist organizations and individualities. Moreover, Capital subsumes or encompasses, dominates and reproduces within itself the “people”, the working class, its leftist organizations and its democratic protests.
In this sense, left activism is also opportunist, because the political organizations behind it take advantage of the conjuncture imposed by the ruling class as an opportunity to jump on stage, to propagate their political ideology (the social-democratic program disguised as “Marxism” and even “anarchism”), to recruit more people and thus have more power than other political organizations. Thus, they reproduce the logic of the mafias or business rackets that compete with each other in order to accumulate more capital, power and territory, but “from below and from the left”.
Although sometimes it is not even that anymore: leftist activism ends up being, obsessively and compulsively, action for action’s sake in order to appear more rebellious and even more “revolutionary” than others in social networks. A miserable show of struggle against capitalism, ironically and pathetically and finally turned into commodity and image by this same society of the spectacle. Something that, by the way, is very typical of the leftist petty bourgeoisie: the appearance, the pose, the theatrics. In such a way, leftist activism reproduces the competition and spectacle of the capitalist society against which it claims to be fighting in the streets.
Far away and contrary to all that, the only thing that would really and mortally hit the bourgeoisie would be for the anonymous and self-organized proletariat to expropriate and massively communize all production and distribution, so that what is produced should be produced solely to satisfy collective needs directly and free of charge. By attacking and destroying by force, at the same time, the repressive and bureaucratic apparatus of the State. All this can only be upheld by a revolutionary power of an anti-State and international character, because the social revolution is crushed when it does not impose itself on the counterrevolution nor internationalizes itself. In short: communization, insurrection and world Commune.
If the global revolt of 2019 shook the world bourgeoisie, it was because it constituted a breaking point that reopened the historical possibility of social revolution. That is why it reacted so violently and shrewdly in all its forms and levels to date, namely: brutal State repression to crush the revolts, counter-insurrectional use of the pandemic, imperialist war (in Ukraine and Palestine), narco-terrorism, neo-fascism, “alt-right” and post-modern left or “woke” activism alike, elections, etc. Just remembering 2019, the world bourgeoisie is once again trembling with fear. Since then, its strategy is the preventive counterrevolution, because it seeks to prevent at all costs a new global revolt that could become a world revolution. Meanwhile, under the present counterrevolutionary period where the balance of forces is unfavorable for the proletariat, all left activism is reformist, opportunist and spectacular.
For all these strong reasons, and for no other, we as revolutionary proletarians or communists, today we keep our distance from activism and instead we focus with seriousness and commitment to theoretical activity; that is, to the production and dissemination of revolutionary theory for revolutionary practice.
Now, this theoretical activity that we communists uphold is not “intellectualism” or “purism”, as we are often “criticized” by left-wing activists. It is a form and a moment of class antagonism and, therefore, of revolutionary practice. Yes, theory is in reality theoretical practice. In the materialist conception of history and human praxis – in the full extension of the latter – theoretical practice means the process of production of new knowledge that, in the heat of the development of productive forces and social struggles, seeks not only to interpret but to transform social reality. Therefore, communist theoretical practice is the production of critical and revolutionary theory which, being closely linked to class antagonism, seeks communist revolution.
More precisely: making use of the fundamental categories of the critique of political economy, communist theoretical practice today is the production of concrete analyses of the current capitalist conditions and, above all, of the concrete proletarian struggles in order to contribute to their self-clarification and radicalization or, better said, to contribute to produce the revolutionary rupture within them. Based on this, the communist strategy and tactics for the 21st century can be elaborated. Therein lies its necessity and its importance or, if preferred, its raison d’être and its meaning, today.
In the same perspective, it can also be affirmed that to produce and spread communist theory or to maintain and develop the revolutionary positions of the proletariat against capitalism, against the ideology of the ruling class and, in particular, against Social Democracy within the proletariat itself, even if in a very minority way and against the current, is a practice whose objective is to reappropriate, preserve and sharpen “the weapons of criticism” for when capitalism in crisis and class antagonism will open a period of social revolution in which situations will arise where they will be massively substituted by “the criticism of weapons”: the world proletarian insurrection for communism.
Indeed, in those revolutionary situations typical of a revolutionary period, the revolutionary theory and class consciousness become material forces or practical weapons in the hands of the proletarian masses fed up with being proletarians and who go on the offensive against Capital, the State and class society until destroying and overcoming them. Because “only a mass communist revolution can produce a mass communist consciousness” (Marx, The German Ideology). Communist theory foresees such a revolutionary situation and subjectively prepares the proletariat for it.
In short: during a counterrevolutionary period like the present one, communist theoretical practice is not only communist resistance, but activity of strategic foresight and preparation for the communist revolution.
Obviously, it will not be revolutionary theory and propaganda that will trigger the revolution, but the objective and subjective conditions created by capitalism in crisis itself and class antagonism so that the proletariat can no longer and no longer wants to live as such and, then, feels the revolution as an immediate human need to be satisfied. Likewise, to abolish and overcome Capital, the State and class society, mass self-organization, antagonistic solidarity and revolutionary violence of the proletariat in the process of self-abolition as a class are necessary.
However, revolutionary theory and propaganda are also necessary, even indispensable as critical-practical weapons of the community of revolutionary proletarians, alongside our best weapons, which are solidarity and mutual support. Because if some proletarians around the world are today devoting themselves to the communist theory and propaganda, it is because they are fed up with the life they suffer under capitalism and because they are driven by the passion for communism. As Marx wrote, “criticism is not a passion of the head, but the head of passion”. That is why we affirm that communist theoretical practice is not only communist resistance, but strategic and passionate foresight and preparation for the communist revolution.
This does not mean that we communists should “wait until all conditions are met for revolutionary struggle” and, therefore, that we do not participate in the struggles for the demands of our proletarian class during the present period. We did it – above all, in the revolts of the last years, fighting in the streets, “where things are heating up” – and we will do so to the extent of our limited possibilities. But, always with this criterion and this perspective, the communist perspective; that is to say, unveiling and pointing out the roots, the limits and the power of the current proletarian struggles and, consequently, maintaining and holding up the revolutionary positions of the proletariat, without compromising or negotiating with the bourgeois State and Social Democracy of any color. The communist perspective is an antagonist perspective.
Furthermore, we communists produce and spread theory in the heat of concrete struggles and accompany them critically in this way, seeking to contribute to produce the revolutionary rupture within them, as so many proletarians in struggle. Because communist theory is not only a form and a moment of class antagonism, but also a product and a factor of the latter. Because the revolutionary rupture is the nucleus of the communist struggle; its organizing principle and, at the same time, its method. And, fundamentally, because the struggles for demands prepare the terrain for the revolutionary struggle; not gradually at all, but by means of rupture and qualitative leap with themselves, with their own limits.
The main limit of the struggles of the proletariat in the present times is its own condition as aclass of labor/capital. Because under the real subsumption or real domination of capital, labor and capital or proletariat and capital are inseparable. This class relation today is in crisis (high rates of unemployment, underemployment, informal economy), but it continues to function and uphold capitalist society in a catastrophic way. And because being proletarians is not a source of pride. It is a social and historical condemnation that must be abolished in order to be truly free, or rather, to be a real, universal and richly diverse community of freely associated individuals who create and fully live their lives as such.
Therefore, the core of communization or communist revolution in the present times is not the affirmation and perpetuation of the proletariat – not even as a ruling class – but the self-abolition of the proletariat as a class of labor/capital. The proletariat is revolutionary or it is nothing. And it is only revolutionary when it struggles to cease to be so. In itself, the self-abolition of the proletariat implies the abolition of labor – understanding that labor is the capitalist mercantile alienation and exploitation of productive human activity –, of capital and of the bourgeoisie. In short, the nucleus of communization is the abolition of the class relation that establishes and crosses all capitalist society, through the production of communist relations between individuals.
Even if it will take several generations to achieve this, the material conditions produced by capitalism itself during the last decades determine that the communist revolution, whose core is the abolition of labor, is more possible today than ever before in history. For example, the technological development currently achieved, once it has been communized, would make it possible to reduce “work” to the minimum necessary and to have free time for the development of all human potentialities and relations.
For its part, the history of the revolutions of the last two centuries demonstrates that we proletarians can indeed make the revolution with our own heads and hands, without the need of those who bring the consciousness or saviors as the Leninist parties believe. And vice versa: it also shows that, if we do not do it in an autonomous and anti-State way, those same who bring the consciousness and saviors will end up being the new ruling class disguised as red, degenerating the proletarian revolution into Leninist counterrevolution.
This does not mean falling into spontaneism, let it be clear. Self-organizing as a community of struggle for social revolution – what Marx and other historical comrades have always called Historical Party –, we proletarians can self-emancipate in all aspects and produce communism to destroy and overcome capitalism.
Communism is not a utopia, nor an ideology, and certainly not that State capitalism misnamed “communism” that existed in the USSR and its satellite countries. “Communism is the real movement that abolishes the present state of things” (Marx, The German Ideology) as well as the new classless and stateless society, without market or national borders, which results from such a revolutionary movement.
Communism is that revolutionary rupture and leap that takes place within the proletarian struggles themselves, even more so in a context of crisis of the class relation such as the present one. Communism is the rupture of the capitalist conditions of existence through the production of new social relations between individuals. Non-mercantile and non-hierarchical relations. Relations based on mutual aid among equals and real freedom, because they have become liberated from value, commodity, private property, work, division of labor, capital, money, social classes, the State, nationalities, races, genders, the division between town and country, the separation between humanity, technology and nature, etc.
Therefore, in the heat of the deepening and extension of class antagonism, only the immanent and immediate production of communism – without a “transition period” – can destroy and leave capitalism behind. The communist revolution does not admit half measures. For he who makes revolutions halfwayisdigging his own grave.
So, the challenge for the communists of the 21st century is not “to wait until all the conditions are met for revolutionary struggle”, but rather to contribute to produce the revolutionary rupture in the heart of the current struggles for demands, far from activism and always against both reformism and opportunism. Far also from spontaneism, because, as we said before, for self-emancipation self-organization is necessary. In fact, self-organization is the first act of the revolution. Thus, the challenge is to contribute to produce the revolutionary rupture, in every possible way, with intransigence and patience at the same time.
How, with what strategy? Not only by producing and spreading communist theory in the heat of concrete struggles, but also by making the community of struggle against capitalism – that is self-organizing anonymous and fed-up proletarians – the anticipation of the communist society of the future within the capitalist society of the present. Trying to live and expand communism as a mycelium, that is, as a mushroom network in the cracks of the global capitalist catastrophe until it is a new world. Producing communism in the heat of the deepening and extension of class antagonism in order to abolish class society. Even if it takes generations to achieve this, the challenge for communists in the 21st century is communization.
Proletarios Hartos de Serlo
[Proletarians Fed Up with Being Proletarians]
Quito, August 2025
English translation: The Friends of the Class War
1 In reality, there are three types of world-historical period of class antagonism. The third is what a few decades ago the Négation Group called the period of revolutionary resurgence or what today the Barbaria Group calls the bridge period, whose main characteristic is the epochal transition from a counter-revolutionary period to a revolutionary period; a true change of epoch. According to Barbaria, as a result of the world revolt of 2019, the current period is a bridge period or a bridge epoch between the world counterrevolution and the world revolution. However, it is still dominated by the characteristics of the counterrevolution. For this reason, and for the purposes of this article, we affirm that the present period is a counterrevolutionary period. We leave open the comrade discussion on this matter; but to develop it at another time and place, that is to say, in another article.
AnarCom Network 