Proletarians, prepare for war. Get ready to march under the national flag and the banners of finance capitalism. This is what the bourgeoisie of the European garden wants to instill in our class. Therefore, along with the increase in military expenditure and the plans for war-oriented reindustrialization, it is also preparing for the fight on the cultural battleground. Hence the remilitarization of social life we have experienced over the last few months: families are to prepare survival kits for the first 72 hours of a catastrophe, companies and schools must have their own protocols in case of war emergency, debates about military service are taking place, etc. “Europe must prepare for war”, says von der Leyen in the name of the bourgeoisie. Regardless of whether the conflict in Ukraine comes to an end, war is here to stay, because the bourgeoisie increasingly perceives military means as necessary—and desirable—to escape the predicament of the historical crisis in which the Western imperialist bloc finds itself. The president of the European Commission lectures us again: “The era of the peace dividend is long gone”. The causes of the crisis of Atlanticist imperialism are deep-seated, as demonstrated by the tariff war unleashed by Washington a few weeks ago. These measures are nothing more than a desperate attempt by the old imperialist power to patch the model of accumulation established during the golden age of unipolar domination—as evidenced by J.D. Vance’s amnesiac cries about the results of the same globalization that was led by the American elites themselves—, throw a bone to the dwindling mass base of imperialism—the tariffs have been received favorably by multiple American unions—, discipline its allies, and prepare for the imminent war against the emerging imperialist power: China.
That is why, despite their secondary discrepancies about the most appropriate pace and methods for the restructuring of the Atlanticist bloc, the factions in which the bourgeoisie of “our” imperialist bloc is currently divided can only propose different paths that still lead to the same destination: world war. And this, even though modern economism cannot see it, signifies the real possibility for communism as a civilizational alternative. The fact that, today, the problems inherent to bourgeois society transcend the limits of the state, are fundamentally expressed in the sphere of geopolitical relations—at a global, international scale—and revolve more and more often around the question of war, which is one of the fields where (as Mao said) man’s conscious dynamic role is most strongly displayed, confirms that the objective conditions for the revolution are fully in place. In fact, imperialism itself is the reactionary answer to the problems that are intrinsic to communism, such as its universal vocation and the importance of consciousness as a determining factor for the entire work of emancipation. Of course, under imperialism, the greater political, social, and economic interconnectedness that humanity experiences today—which is the premise of proletarian internationalism—is handled in national terms, and its spontaneous product is chauvinist and supremacist selfishness. So long as the limits of the questions imposed by imperialism are not surpassed, this is as far as the problems of the conscious direction of civilization can reach: how to defeat and outlive the other imperialist bandit so as to be able to plunder the rest of the world.
This teaches us that the historical work towards making communism a viable option again for our class—and for the survival of the species, considering the future that imperialists have in store for us—must not fall below this bar. The ideological and political reconstitution of communism is an international (and internationalist) and conscious endeavor. This is due to both its nature, as the Summation of the October Cycle that is indispensable to bringing the vanguard theory back up to par necessarily encompasses all the international revolutionary experiences of the past century, and its scale, because this task is the same for all proletarians in every corner of the world. None of this means denying that each proletarian detachment should act differently depending on the concrete conditions of the state in which it operates. On the contrary, the joint international effort to establish this superior starting point is precisely what constitutes the only guarantee that these detachments will be able to correctly approach and connect with the specific circumstances of class struggle without giving up on class independence, since the problems they must organize around and the principles that must sustain them are the universal problems and principles proper to the World Proletarian Revolution.
If all this sounds implausible today, that is only because the revolution has been completely erased from the collective imagination of the working class—fragmented by the closure of the October Cycle and educated in the possibilist pragmatism and the restricted legal, social and national frameworks of opportunism and revisionism for decades. We can already see where this path leads: to making the proletariat a mere object whose only options are the role of a helpless victim in the face of the barbarity of imperialism and the disgrace of being its brutalized accomplice. That is why the Line of Reconstitution has repeatedly insisted that, in order to be able to act again as a class that is independent from the bourgeoisie on every level, the proletariat must begin by reforging its own revolutionary world outlook. This is the only basis from which it is possible to start thinking differently from the bourgeoisie, and the only school where the proletariat can prepare itself for the reconstitution of the Communist Party. Reaching this higher form that the proletariat assumes once it has merged with scientific socialism is the only way that our class can settle the score with the imperialists, applying the truly consistent proletarian internationalism.