From the viewpoint of proletarian socialist revolution the last century has shown that the centre of gravity of revolution has moved to the countries of the periphery while no successes have been recorded in the West.

There are varied inextricably interwoven reasons for that fact that cannot be explained in it whole complexity due to the limited frame. However one element can be stated without doubt: in an entire historic cycle the imperialist bourgeoisie was able to establish and strategically strengthen its control over the Western societies. This began with the phenomenon of the workers’ aristocracy described by Lenin, a stratum that was not conceivable for the seizure of power even during the time of Weimarisation, thus a time of sharp class antagonism strongly inspired by the Russian revolution. Then fascism physically exterminated the revolutionary vanguard. Later on social democracy re-conciliated the proletariat with capitalism by generalising the status of the workers’ aristocracy to the big majority of the working class in long 50 years. Eventually that gave way to neo-liberalism and Americanism in which any class antagonism has vanished. Today the proletariat is simply no more present, has dissolved, has vanish as an antagonist subject in the imperialist West!

No surrender

But the basic contradiction of capitalist society did not change in principle. It only changed geographically and socially – namely to a contradiction between the imperialist bourgeoisie and the poor popular masses of the periphery, the proletariat, the peasantry and the urban poor. Therefore the centre of gravity of the revolution has shifted irreversibly there.

At the same time the last century teaches us that the encirclement and the destruction of imperialism from outside is impossible, for imperialism has powerful allies in the local bourgeoisies. And even where those could be overthrown an overwhelming dependence on the world economy controlled by imperialism remained which – combined with constant military pressure – finally led to the collapse of the socialist construction.

The successful socialist construction is only possible with the most complete victory over imperialism, which can only be achieved if the revolutionary masses of the periphery link themselves to the antagonist forces of the West itself.

Therefore the continuation, or better, the resumption of the revolutionary struggle in the West – even if it might by only an auxiliary force in the frame of the world revolutionary process – is of essential importance. It is neo-liberalism itself that is creating the condition for that by excluding the new proletariat from the social compromise.

The period of the New World Order

Whoever wants to define the crucial elements of revolutionary policy must take into account that the drive from outside by the liberation struggle of the “Third World”, which is the most important force to step up the revolutionary movement in the West, was significantly weakened as well.

Although the capitulation and the disordered withdrawal which characterised the late 80ies and the 90ies (e.g. the implosion of the Soviet Union and the “peace processes” in the Middle East and Latin America) did not prevent hard and tough defence like that of Iraq and Yugoslavia, those struggles can never exert the attraction and mobilising power on the West like the Vietnamese and other liberation struggles in the past. Its aim is not socialism and thus overall human emancipation, but only the defence of the status quo ante. Even the tremendous achievement of a strategic stalemate in Colombia does not alter this fact, as today there is no real perspective of a victory of the guerrilla.

Today we therefore must base our policy on the assumption that the revolution in the West has become temporarily impossible. Those communists who cannot recognise that, have no chance to survive. This discernment has tremendous consequences but means in no way that the revolutionary struggle has become impossible. It only means that it must assume new forms, adapted to these circumstances.

Against economism

We have stated that the attacks of neo-liberalism lead to the development of a new proletariat which once again has nothing to loose than its fetters. But the pauperisation does not lead directly and linearly to the constitution of this new proletariat as a political subject. The best example for the contrary are the US themselves. In the home country of neo-liberalism where this process is doubtlessly the most advanced and where the bourgeois public has already taken notice of the potential danger named “working poor” there is no significant evidence that this layer will constitute the heart of the proletariat as a political class.

As neo-liberalism means a general Americanisation, the American phenomenon of de-politisation of the labouring masses is carried to Europe. Individualism and consumerism is most strongly spread among precarious and marginalized workers who one would assume to be most inclined to collective struggle because of their plight.

Up to now it was therefore rather the old working class that has mounted resistance against its downgrading, however not by counterpoising itself against the system as such but by carrying the spiral of neo-liberalism further ahead by embracing left liberalism.

The re-constitution of the proletariat in the West is a stony, winding and long path – and we are only right at its beginning. But we do not have to think of a staged model leading from the elementary social struggle to the politisation. This very model let already flourish German reformism in the 19th century. The social and political struggle are dialectically interwoven while the political element plays the decisive role. The defensive struggles of single staffs are hardly be led in the frame of the neo-liberal model of production in which the majority of the workers are unskilled and therefore easy to replace. To succeed in elementary social demands, a generalised political action is required.

Political action

Which form will the resistance against neo-liberalism take? One thing we can assume for sure: It will not be a communist movement, because communism is perceived as a political conception that has failed historically.

The anti-imperialist resistance in the “Third World” gives a premonition, a model: it is the withdrawal to nationalist, religious and cultural ideas which are often enriched by conceptions of social justice (and sometimes even social equality). Why this should be different in the West at least for one wing of the resistance? If socialism is perceived as having failed the defence must make use of other, older ideas and concepts.

Culture and nation

Neo-liberalism has imposed on humanity with tremendous force – from the metropolises of Europe to the most remote corners of the earth – the American way of life that is characterised by tremendous individualism. Every other form of culture which has been shaped by class struggle and contains collectivist elements even if covered and deformed must vanish. McDonald’s and Coca-Cola crushes everything.

Neo-liberalism is talking about the “global village” and of the historic outdatedness of nations. Actually globalisations means global dominance of one single nation in economic, political, military and cultural respect, namely the United States of America.

The bourgeoisies of Europe and Japan have subordinated themselves under the rule of the USA and have become ardent partisans of globalisation against its own population.

Therefore the resistance of the victims of globalisation, those expelled and pressed down by neo-liberalism will inevitably express itself in the defence of the cultural identity and national sovereignty.

From anti-liberalism to democracy and equality

Anti-liberal resistance, which will undoubtedly come up, is already announcing itself through personalities such as Le Pen or Haider. It is not by accident that [that] resistance, unlike in the countries of the so-called “third World”, tends towards the right. History has already shown that social discontent in the imperialist countries can be channelled in the form of fascism in favour of imperialist expansion in case communism is discredited as a historical alternative to capitalism.

Today, however, there are no considerable fascist movements against liberalism. The bourgeoisie, correctly feeling that its leadership is secure, does not need them. Haider & Co are only playing with social populism for in fact they are firmly attached to the neo-liberal bourgeoisie. Nevertheless in these parties and movements an anti-liberal aspect does exist, which in the course of severe crisis of the neo-liberal system could possibly develop into a fascist movement.

Although that danger does not yet exist, the historical left, the old workers’ movement is forming a block with the dominant “anti-fascist”, pro-American liberal bourgeoisie whose leading political force has become social-democracy itself. In fact, this block between the left and liberalism as well as the integration of the left into the state is another important aspect of the formation and the development of right-wing populism.

It is of big importance to gather the plebeian parts of the anti-liberal resistance on a Jacobin basis and to direct them in an intransigent way against the capitalist system connecting the defence of culture and national sovereignty to the idea of people’s democracy, the idea of the rule of all those who struggle against the anti-popular bourgeoisie and finally with the demand for social equality. Only in this way the struggle will be able to assume an antagonistic character.

As a matter of fact, these elements can be found in both the French and the German national traditions. They have to be taken up and further developed. In the same way as the fact that the French right has taken up and reshaped the heritage of the 1789 revolution and its national idea could not eliminate its progressive elements, it is the same for the German 1848 revolution, even if it was used by the Nazis. It may be true that the defeat of 1848 has weakened this tradition, whose personification is best represented by Marx himself, in a stronger way than this happened with the victory of 1789. In any case, it has not been forgotten.

Communism is a possible interpretation of this Jacobin programme, under circumstances of a consequent continuation of this struggle it is even its only possible realisation. Our task is the development and the transformation of this struggle into a communist one.

Immigration, multi-cultural ideology and imperialism

Although the anti-liberal mass movements in the imperialist epoch contained elements of social defence, sometimes even strong ones, that tended towards conflict with the bourgeoisie, it was possible to canalise them, with the help of fascism, in favour of imperialism. Thus, these movements could be transformed into alliances with the bourgeoisie. Today’s right-wing social populism is growing in a similar way. Their two essential instruments, which are connected with each other, are:

· On one hand, imperialist aggression towards outside, which is promising to the masses the conservation and the development of their social position as well as the rule and superiority over the whole world. This is valid for both the Third Reich and the New World Order although today it appears in a new, completely reshaped ideology, namely that of humanitarian imperialism, imperialism of human rights. Against this, only radical opposition and intransigent struggle culminating in the destruction of the NATO is possible.

· On the other hand there is aggression towards inside, against those who are socially excluded, above all against immigrants. These two groups organically coincide. Today propaganda against foreigners and racism are maybe the most important factor of the rising of right-wing social populism.

We have to face the undeniable fact that the growing plebeian resistance against liberalism is inseparably connected to the recollection of the Nation. This, however, is organically linked to the racist exclusion of work immigrants from the same Nation. This tendency can generally be explained through the racist nature of the imperialist society and in particular through the defeat of internationalist socialism.

Which position do we have to take while facing this inseparable amalgamation of progressive elements against the bourgeoisie and reactionary ones in favour of it? Does the Nation serve as the bourgeoisie’s central instrument as it did before and during Second World War? Is the term “Nation” therefore necessarily reactionary as the anti-national currents proclaim? Or is it possible, under the circumstances of globalisation and the subordination of all imperialist bourgeoisies under that of the United States, to make the “Nation” an instrument of resistance against this rule baptized “New World Order”?

The ruling left-wing liberalism responds affirming globalisation – its answer is the multi-cultural society. But what does this multi-cultural, multi-national society mean, which claims to oppose to open racism? It is nothing else than the model of the American society expanded onto the whole world, where different nationalities are being snatched and uprooted from their traditional culture, not in order to melt into something superior, but in order to descent into individualism.

In spite of formal equality, social stratification, poverty and richness keep correlating with national, cultural and racial origin. Official anti-discrimination laws are contrasted by a deeply rooted racism. Herded together in ghettos, those national groups nevertheless loose their collective identity and are assimilated into a neo-liberal culture while tradition degenerates into mere folklore.

The multi-cultural society whether it is shaped according to the American model or according to European left-wing liberal and reformist ideas is not more democratic, more internationalist or more progressive than a society organised in a nation state. In fact, the concept of multi-cultural society serves imperialism by negating any form of collective intervention in history, even that of national inspiration, but on the contrary favouring (ethnic) communalism, which is one of the ideological base elements of neo-liberalism.

Under the conditions of the New World Order dominated by the United States only, but supported by the bourgeoisies of all central imperialist countries, it seems more possible even in Europe to direct the concept of “Nation” against imperialism, in some ways similar to what is happening in the “Third World”.

National defence can be connected with social defence against the bourgeoisie’s neo-liberal attacks launched under the aegis of globalisation. In this way it is possible to transform the imperialist conception of the nation as the unity of all social classes into the conception of a social nation, where the bourgeoisie has to be excluded while the people stand in opposition to the bourgeoisie. The Nation is being filled with social equality. In fact, we are dealing with the recollection of the French revolutionary idea of “Nation”.

Following this conception the struggle for national sovereignty becomes a struggle for people’s sovereignty. The people pushes towards an active democracy directed against the bourgeoisie’s rule.

However, which role do labour immigrants play being considered by the right to be harmful for the nation? We have to take a position because the populist right is claiming immigration to be the major cause of neo-liberal misery thus being able to distract social discontent from bourgeoisie towards the immigrants.

Mass immigration is a phenomenon which is inseparably linked to imperialism. On one hand imperialism destroys the living conditions in the subordinated countries obliging the impoverished to flee. On the other hand imperialism needs cheap manpower in the centres attracting a steady influx of migrants. As long as imperialism exists there will be immigration.

As stated by a part of the anti-imperialist immigrants, they as well consider immigration as a necessary evil caused by imperialist exploitation. In fact, they do not desire to assimilate but to return to their countries of origin, to their cultural roots.

Consequently, one axis of our demands has to be focused on he right to return through the abolition of the social causes of immigration – namely imperialist subjection. The struggle for return under humane conditions is at the same time a struggle for liberation of the own nation against imperialism, which can temporarily be led from abroad, but needs the conscious affiliation to the nation and culture of origin as well as the participation in the original country’s national life even if living abroad.

The host country’s anti-capitalist movement has to accept that current of immigrants as representatives of separate nations and has to conclude an anti-imperialist alliance with them.

The inclusive nation

A substantial part of the immigrants, especially those belonging to the second and third generation, actually desires to stay the more as there is no foreseeable prospect to get rid of the imperialist joke which has driven them to migrate. However, we refuse both assimilation, which often ends up in complete lack of roots and hyper-adaptation, as well as the formation of ghettos, which serve right-wing populism to attack and to distract attention from the real causes of the neo-liberal misery.

As immigrants are subject to the most severe and savage exploitation, they constitute strategic allies in the battle against capital. We therefore have to struggle for their full civil, social and political rights including the acquisition of dual citizenship.

But this is not all. The simple assimilation into the imperialist nations implies the acceptance of imperialist class society. Therefore we regard it as reactionary. We reject integration into multi-cultural and multi-ethnic capitalism according to the US model. Immigrants must be granted collective national rights. Why those collective rights are denied to Turks, Arabs or Serbs while small autochthonous minorities enjoy them at least formally? The inclusive nation needs to be federative. It has to grant to those national minorities that it has been imported in order to exploit them the right to form national political corporate bodies that form part of the parliament. This does in no way automatically lead to territorial claims which are not feasibly in a urban and industrial society with a inextricably nationally mixed population, let alone in a future socialist society.

Citizenship must be separated from nationality. Many nationalities can exist within the frame of a federative inclusive nation.

Only on the base of thoroughly implemented equal right a fruitful co-existence of different nationalities will be possible. This means that those rights do not remain merely formal ones but include collective social and national ones. Only if the poor classes of the different nationalities fight jointly against the bourgeoisie the way to the free unfolding of the nationalities without oppression is paved in the benefit of the entire nation.

The concept of the inclusive nation does not want to overcome the nation. It strives for its development in the frame of the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggle. Although a victorious struggle against imperialism can only be waged internationally by a global alliance, the organisational form even of successful revolutions remains national. Thus the struggle acquires an inter-national form. The struggle against imperialism first of all does not mean overcoming the formation of world society in nations, but its thorough implementation on the basis of equality. This constitutes the most important prerequisite conflicts between nations and nationalities and their abolition into a socialist world society – the exact form of which cannot be predicted yet.

Not a universal principle

However, the decisive motive power of history keeps being the struggle for social justice, for social equality and – inextricably linked to the latter – the political self-determination and sovereignty of the masses.

The nation and the struggle for the national self-determination is an element entwined with it in different and contradictory ways but in the last instance subordinated to it. Under specific historic circumstances the struggle for the national self-determination and that for social equality coincide. Under different conditions they are diametrically opposed to each other.

While in the Russian Revolution of 1917 the right of national self-determination conceded by the Bolsheviks gave extraordinary momentum to the social revolution, in the social counter-revolution of 1989 the very same right had been powerfully used against the remnants of the revolution.

On the Balkans and in other regions of the world, where the penetration of capitalism has hindered the nation building to come to an end or impeded it at all, the relations are even more intricate. Imperialism is using some nationalities (like the Albanians) or ethnic groups against each often, often in changing alliances in order to keep them weak and fragmented. Only the unification against imperialism – regardless of its form – allows throwing off its yoke. Social and national self-determination is only possible on then base of a federation creating a nation consisting of several cultures and nationalities, the said inclusive nation, in which mutual tolerance – whose main precondition is social equality – only opens the road for the development of its the single components.

Methods of struggle

As much as our today’s struggle cannot – after a historic defeat – assume communist forms and even anti-capitalist form often only in an implicit way, as much it must carry a completely intransigent and antagonistic character facing the bourgeoisie and its state. The last century and the neo-liberal counter-reforms of the last decade after the collapse of the collectivist states as an historic alternative have shown that capitalist imperialism is absolutely not reformable. A new society based upon social equality and democratic people’s power can only be erected by the full and complete destruction of the imperialist states and their world system.

The antagonistic character of our struggle implies in no way a general offensive against the bourgeoisie which we would today doubtlessly loose. On the contrary we are right now in the most complete strategic defence. However that does not mean passivity, but tactical offensives on those questions which target the most appalling contradictions by basing ourselves on those social forces, among those our antagonistic demands met most resonance even if it is only a minority of society.

Being on the defensive we must use legal spaces and must try not to let ourselves illegalise without sticking slavishly to the frame of legality. Actions by the vanguard which surpass this frame and are understood and accepted by the new proletariat are perfectly useful and do not necessarily lead to total clandestinity.

The Jacobin liberation movement must build a capillary social net including the new proletariat and its allies. It is not only aiming for political organisation which today meets tremendous problems, but for the creation of cultural organisations which spread a collectivist culture and model of live opposed to neo-liberalism.

Even if the carrier of the project of social liberation must be the new proletariat around which the people coagulates itself against the bourgeoisie, its formation and constitution is unthinkable without parts of the intelligentsia, which is today to a far reaching extent in the service of neo-liberalism. Thereby the mass media has assumed a decisive role. The media is under the tough control of the bourgeoisie, but a Jacobin project must attempt to win sympathising intelligentsia for the construction of our own media like news papers, radio, television, cinema, etc. It is obvious that the influence of such media depends on the strength of the liberation movement, nevertheless its construction is impossible without such a media front.

People-New proletariat, Liberation movement-Party

For an entire period, namely that of the New World Order und neo-liberalism during which the bourgeoisie is firmly in the saddle at least in the West, the main form of struggle and organisation for the communists is the Jacobin liberation front.

It serves to constitute the people in contradiction to the bourgeoisie. The lost class antagonism should be plated once again into the Western society on a Jacobin phase. The core of the people is the new proletariat, which build itself in the process of this struggle as a political revolutionary class.

The liberation movement does not render a Leninist core obsolete at all. On the contrary it is of utmost importance for the orientation and development of such a front. It is motive power and precondition for the constitution of the new proletariat as a class and the new arising of the communist movement.