Manifesto — Programme

Communist Party of Spain (reconstituted)
December, 1998



1. The laws and motor forces of social development
1.1 The contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production
1.2 The capitalist process of production
1.3 The classes and the class struggle
1.4 Imperialism, last stage in the development of capitalism

2. Peculiarities of capitalism and of class struggle in Spain
2.1 The establishment of capitalist relations of production
2.2 The fascist uprising and the people's revolution
2.3 A monopolist development linked to State terrorism
2.4 The carrillist treason

3. The new general context of the class struggle
3.1 The reconstruction of the Party
3.2 The political reform of the regime
3.3 Economic and social consequences of the crisis
3.4 The new road of Spanish imperialism

4. Programme

5. Political line
5.1 The main objective of the political action of the Party
5.2 Strengthening the independent organization of the working class
5.3 Organizing the people's resistance movement
5.4 The struggle of resistance
5.5 Ensuring the political leadership of the guerrilla movement
5.6 The struggle against the national oppression
5.7 The struggle against imperialism and the danger of war
5.8 Making the revolution in our country and contributing to its triumph in the entire world

6. General programme of the Party for the transition to communism
6.1 Historical need of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat
6.2 The economic policy in the period of transition
6.3 Transformation and integral development of man

The programme, in order to be effective, must not only be a means of ideological cohesion of the most conscious part of the proletariat, but it must also constitute a scientific and coherent synthesis of the way to follow in order to reach the revolutionary objectives in each specific historic stage.


Without a revolutionary theory the revolutionary movement cannot exist. These words by Lenin highlight the need of the Party programme as an indispensable means without which it is not possible to organize the proletariat nor to orientate it in order to make its revolution in a conscious way.

The programme, in order to be effective, must not only be a means of ideological cohesion of the most conscious part of the proletariat, but it must also constitute a scientific and coherent synthesis of the way to follow in order to reach the revolutionary objectives in each specific historic stage.

The theory of Marxism does not merely explain the social reality, but it is orientated to transform it. From here arises the active -and often decisive- role that theory plays. The objective historic conditions (economic, social, politic, etc.) on their own do not bring about the triumph of revolution. In order to achieve the revolutionary victory the action of the revolutionary forces, the subjective factor, is also required.

There is a constant interrelation between the subjective and objective factors of a situation: when the subjective agrees with the objective world, revolution steps forwards; when the subjective disagrees with the objective or is in open contradiction with it, then revolution stagnates or even steps backwards. This highlights, once more, the decisive importance of the subjective factor; mainly, the just Marxist-Leninist line for the triumph of the revolution.

Nowadays, when the working-class and communist movement goes through one of the most serious crisis of its history, the need of the programme becomes more urgent than ever. The counter-revolution in the former Soviet Union and in the rest of the ex-socialist countries has clearly revealed the revisionist betrayal and the complete failure of its practices and theories. These two facts will have to influence favourably on the process of reorganization of the communist movement. However, the bourgeois reaction, in its renewed anti-communist campaign, presents the bankruptcy of revisionism, that is to say, the complete failure of its ideology and policy for the working class, as the defeat of communism. For the exploiting class it is, above all, a question of discrediting Marxism-Leninism, of denying its validity and its transforming capacity; but also of continuing to cover up the work of its agents which is destined to spread confusion and disorganization among the workers. Due to all this, nowadays, the creation of the organization and the elaboration of the programme must constitute the main concerns for any true communist and for the class-conscious workers.

When dealing with this important task, we have to take into account the fact that the programme does not merely criticize the ideas and the outdated world of the bourgeoisie, that its main mission is to serve the working-class movement, orientating it in its daily combats, and at the same time, allowing the Party to enter in touch with it. For this reason, we can affirm that communism is the union of socialism with the working-class movement; that its task consists in introducing the communist ideas into the spontaneous movement of the workers, in linking this movement to the politic struggle of organized resistance that will lead to socialism; in other words, it is a question of melting in a single thing the spontaneous movement of the ample working-class and people's masses and the activity of the revolutionary party.

1. The laws and motor forces of social development

1.1 The contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production

History is only made by the peoples. But, what determines their motivations? Which are the objective conditions of the production of the material life that create the basis of all the human activity and which is the law of development of these conditions? Historic materialism answers to all this showing it as a natural, regular and objective historic process; showing, at the same time, the subjective factors of the history of man, the conscience and the experience of his struggles, his revolutionary organization, will and decision; that is to say, everything that plays an important role in the course and outcome of the events in society.

The theory of historic materialism and the Marxist economy study the fundamental contradiction of the relationship between the productive forces (the means of production and the people that use them) and the relations of production (the way in which people associate themselves in the production, appropriation and interchange of products). These constitute the economic basis of society, from which a given politic, juridic and ideological superstructure derives.

Marx discovered the contradiction which is established between the productive forces and the relations of production in the process of production of the material life and showed the way in which, once they reach a given point in their development, both clash together, breaking into pieces the superstructure built upon them. This is generally expressed through the crisis and the outbreak of social revolutions. In this way develop the different societies or ways of production that follow one each other throughout history.

From the application of this approach to the bourgeois society arose Marx and Engels' economic theory and scientific socialism. The criticism and the study in depth of the classic bourgeois economy allowed Marx to discover the law of the surplus value, which serves as basis for the existence of capitalism. Marx reveals the social relationship of exploitation which is hidden in capital itself and proves its temporary character.

Marx and Engels incorporated to this analysis the most important experiences of the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie; they purged the conception of communism of the utopian and petty-bourgeois ideas and formulated the theory of the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, laying in this way the scientific foundations of the revolutionary strategy of the working class.

1.2 The capitalist process of production

The circulation of goods is the starting point for the transformation of money into capital, which only appears when the mercantile production reaches a certain development. The capitalist makes an investment with the only aim of increasing his initial capital. This increase is called surplus value. But in order to obtain surplus value the capitalist must find a merchandise whose utility is to create value. This merchandise does exist, it is the workforce -or the working capacity- of the worker.

The workforce is the sum of the physical and psychical faculties that a person puts into action when producing usage values, goods of any kind. Under capitalism, the workforce takes, for the worker himself, the form of a merchandise that belongs to him, and therefore, his own work acquires the form of wage-earning workforce. The value of the workforce, like the value of any merchandise, is determined by the work-time which is socially necessary for its production. Therefore, the value of the workforce is the value of the means of life necessary to maintain the working individual (in his normal state of living and working) and to maintain his family; that is to say, to ensure the reproduction of the merchandise workforce.

Once the worker sells his workforce for a given period of time, the capitalist becomes its owner and consumes it in the labour place. This consumption of the usage value of the workforce in the production of goods is, at the same time, a process of creation of value, a process of appreciation or of extraction of surplus value. The capitalist, insofar as he prolongs the journey beyond the time needed by the worker to reproduce in the final merchandise a value equivalent to the one he received, is obtaining from the worker a work that he is not paying for; he is extracting a surplus value, exploiting the worker and increasing the value of his capital. This is known as capitalist process of production.

This process of exploitation is the basis upon which the bourgeois society is built and what originates the irreconcilable class struggle between the proletarians, dispossessed of everything but their workforce, and the capitalists, owners of the means of production and life.

Under capitalism the proletarian is juridically free; he is not bound to the land nor to any company; he is free in the sense that he can work in the factory of one or other capitalist, but he is not free as regards the bourgeois class as a whole. Deprived of the means of production, he is compelled to sell his workforce and therefore to bear the yoke of exploitation.

With the big mechanized industry as its basis, an acceleration in the process of socialization of work by capital takes place. The interdependence among the different branches of production and the different national markets is accentuated. Wage-earning work becomes the core of production. The army of unemployed becomes permanent and the technical progress, instead of liberating man from the most laborious part of work, is transformed -under capitalism- into a monster that intensifies exploitation and sucks his blood.

The capitalist relations of production mean historically an incentive for the economic development. The search for the maximum profit and the profit motive impel the bourgeoisie to increase the production, to improve the machinery and the technology in industry and agriculture. However, these relationships did not only give place to a level of development never reached in the previous societies, but they also allowed the creation of such colossal productive forces that they escape from the control of the capitalists, leading the whole system towards the edge of its grave.

For this reason, periodical overproduction crisis break out lasting many years, affecting entire countries and continents and causing enormous ravages. These catastrophes become more widespread and intense as the capitalist system of production develops.

The cause of the crisis lies in the relations of production, which no longer correspond to the development reached by the productive forces and have become a burden for their new development. In this way the deepest contradiction of the capitalist system of production becomes evident: the contradiction between the social character of production and the capitalist private form of appropriation. This contradiction provokes the crisis and the unemployment, originates the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and constitutes the economic basis for the socialist revolution.

1.3 The classes and the class struggle

The classes have not always existed nor will they exist forever. There were no classes in primitive society. The appearance of the classes is bound to a given historic phase of the development of production. The division of labour within the primitive society was the origin of the classes. This division implies the separation of the producers who are occupied in different kinds of production and the exchange among them of the fruits of their labour. With the social division of labour and with the interchange, the private property of the means of production is developed, substituting the communal property. As a result of all this, the classes appear in society.

The classes are linked among them by certain economic relationships which allow ones to appropriate the labour of the others. All those relationships make up the class structure of society and constitute the economic and material basis of the class struggle. Nobody can stay aside from one or other class, nor can he avoid taking sides as soon as he understands the mutual relationship existing among them. The class interest is not determined by the conscience of a class, but by the position and the role played by that class in the system of production. This contradiction among the classes is what turns their struggle into the motive power of the development of the societies which are divided into antagonistic classes.

The class struggle makes the State arise as an instrument used by the dominant classes in order to keep the exploitation on the oppressed ones. Lenin proved that the State arises when, where and to the extent that the class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled (1). The State becomes a means of power of the economically most powerful class; in this way, that class acquires new means to subdue and exploit the oppressed one.

The relations among the classes and their struggles are not limited to the sphere of the economic life. The class division impregnates the whole life of the classist society, from top to bottom, and affects all the system of social relationships, becoming also evident in the field of the superstructure, in politics, ideology and, in general, in the whole spiritual life. The key of the structure of the political power lies in the very relationship of force that the owners of the means of production establish to submit to exploitation those who lack them. For that reason, the struggle against exploitation has a fundamentally political character, it is a struggle for political power.

In the time of capitalism, at a world scale, the entire society is progressively dividing itself into two big enemy classes that clash together: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. At the beginning, this struggle takes the form of an economic struggle, that is to say, it is not yet the struggle of the whole working class against the bourgeoisie, but the struggle of a fraction or group of workers against a single capitalist in one or other factory. Therefore, this form of struggle does not affect the basis of the system of exploitation. Its aim is not to suppress exploitation but to lessen it, to improve the material situation and the labour conditions. This first form of struggle plays an important role in the organization and political education of the proletariat, but at the same time it reveals its limited character. It will be only later on, when the vanguard representatives of the working class become conscious of that limitation and unite their forces to start the struggle, not against an isolated employer but against the whole capitalist class and the government that supports that class, when their struggle becomes progressively more resolute and organized, until it acquires a superior character of struggle, the form of the revolutionary political struggle.

Among all the classes that confront the bourgeoisie, only the proletariat is the truly revolutionary class. The others degenerate progressively and disappear with the development of the big industry; the proletariat, on the other hand, is its most peculiar product. The middle layers -the small industrialist, the small businessman, the craftsman and the peasant- all of them fight against the bourgeoisie to save their existence as such middle classes from bankruptcy. Therefore, they are not revolutionary but conservative (2). The proletariat is the most revolutionary class because it is the bearer of a new and superior system of production, the communist system of production; besides it is, among all people's layers, the most conscious and organized one. The proletariat can only emancipate itself abolishing the private property on the means of production in general, ending in this way with all the forms of exploitation of man by man. The appearance of the classes was the outcome of the spontaneous development of society and it is linked to the appearance of the labour division and private property; on the contrary, the suppression of the classes can only be the result of the conscious struggle of the proletariat, which leads to the establishment of its political dominion and to socialism, a necessary transitory stage towards the disappearance of all class differences.

1.4 Imperialism, last stage in the development of capitalism

At the beginning of the 20th century capitalism reached the last stage of its development, the monopolist stage, and transformed itself into imperialism. Imperialism appears as a consequence of the enormous development of production and of the big accumulation and concentration of capital, which gives place to the appearance of the monopolies. Other characteristic features of imperialism are: the predominance of the finance capital, which is the result of the melting of the bank capital and the industrial one; the exportation of capital; the formation of international associations or consortiums that share the world market among them; the territorial distribution of the world among the big capitalist powers and the start of the struggle among them for its redistribution.

The management of the capitalist monopolies consolidates the dominion of the finance oligarchy over the ample majority of the population and accentuates the parasitic, militarist and police features of the bourgeois regime.

In the last decades the monopolies have joined their force to the power of the bourgeois State. State monopolist capitalism has appeared in this way. The monopolist State ensures the material conditions of production, safeguards the legal system that regulates the relations of production and exchange and, specially, the conflicts between workers and capitalists. As a tool of the class in power, the State resorts to the open political oppression against the workers and for that it uses, whenever necessary, the military and terrorist means. The monopolist State also guarantees the external expansion of the national capital and the interests of the foreign investors in its own territory. In this way, in the imperialist countries, the State is one of the most important means used to increase the capitalist profits.

The imperialists intensify the exploitation of the workers in their own countries as well as that of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries. In this way appear the colonial wars and the struggle among the imperialist States for the booty sharing. The world has already been shared; but the unequal development of the different imperialist countries raises the need of a new sharing according to the economic force of each one.

The exportation of capital to the developed capitalist countries and the interweaving of the international capital, stand out nowadays as the most important tendencies of imperialism. Such interweaving serves as basis to the formation of the international monopolist associations which share the world among them. In this way a contradiction has appeared between the big monopolies, which have a world character due to the extension of their transactions, and the national States.

Collective colonialism has spread. Imperialism maintains aggressive wars against entire peoples, tries to impose by force the territorial sharing and regimes and forms of government to its taste, with the peculiarity that, very often, several imperialist powers take part simultaneously in such wars of aggression.

However, the continuous struggle for a new distribution of the capitalist market and the spheres of influence according to strength, according to capital, goes on. The interests of the imperialists of the different countries and their rivalries are stronger than the tendencies dictated by the aspiration to apply a common strategy; therefore, humanity is faced to the dilemma of marching towards socialism or suffering for years, or even decades, the armed confrontation among the big powers for the artificial maintenance of capitalism through the colonies, the monopolies, the privileges and the oppression of any kind.

Production reaches its maximum degree of socialization under the dominion of monopolies. However, the appropriation is still private, since the means of production are in the hands of a reduced number of individuals. In this stage the fundamental contradiction of the system -the one confronting the social productive forces with the individual appropriation- becomes much more open and acute and poses the urgent need of destroying the system based upon the private property on the means of production.

Lenin pointed out that State monopolist capitalism constitutes the most complete material preparation for socialism and he insisted several times on the fact that the preparation of the material premises of socialism is not equivalent to the transition to socialism, that the socialist revolution is an obligatory dividing line between monopolist capitalism and socialism. The closeness of such capitalism -said Lenin- must constitute, for the true representatives of the proletariat, an argument in favour of the proximity, the ease, the viability and the urgency of the socialist revolution, but in no way an argument to keep an attitude of tolerance in front of those who deny this revolution and beautify capitalism, like all reformists do (3).

In the imperialist stage all the contradictions of the system are extremely sharpened. The chronic crisis, the increase of unemployment, of misery and of all social blights, the growing fascistization of the bourgeois forms of power, etc., trigger the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the seizure of political power. At the same time, there is a sharpening of the contradictions that confront the different States and monopolist groups for the sharing of the markets, the sources of raw materials and the areas of influence. This rivalry provoked the imperialist World War I in 1914. The war led to the first great socialist revolution in History, which took place in Russia in October 1917. With it, the phase of transition from a kind of society to another one starts at a world level. After the Soviet revolution and the defeat of Nazi-fascism during World War II, took place a series of people's democratic, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolutions led by the proletariat and based on the workers' and peasants' alliance.

More recently, as a result of the culmination of the counter-revolution in most of the countries of the socialist field, and after a short period in which the capitalist new world order seemed to become eternal, the struggle against imperialism has taken a new boost with the active incorporation of a great part of the working class of those countries, liberated from the passivity to which revisionism had led it. Ample proletarian masses join nowadays the struggle for the re-establishment of socialism, what weakens capitalism even more and ruins the pretension of the bourgeoisie of presenting its system as the only viable and everlasting one.

Everything mentioned above confirms the historical meaning of the October revolution and, in the end, the truth and justness of the Marxist-Leninist conception and of its theory of revolution, conceived as a long and complex world historic process in which both advances and steps backwards take place within a general ascending tendency, with which the new social relations and the class that represents them will end up by imposing themselves. In fact, as Lenin pointed out, is it possible to find in History a single example of a new way of production that would have been established at once, without having suffered a long series of defeats, mistakes and setbacks? (4).

2. Peculiarities of capitalism and of class struggle in Spain

2. 1.The establishment of capitalist relations of production

The weak and late development of capitalism in our country did not allow the bourgeoisie to carry out a revolutionary rupture with the ancien regime. The alliance between the most influent bourgeois sectors and the landowning aristocracy imposed -already from the 19th century- an evolutionary via of progressive reform and adaptation of the outdated structures inherited from the past to the capitalist economic, political and cultural transformations. This circumstance explains the fact that, at the beginning of the 20th century, Spain -notwithstanding the feudal remnants- was already an extraordinarily modern country as regards the dominion and control of the finance capital over the most important branches of the economic activity.

The expulsion of the Spanish colonisers from Cuba and the Philippines at the end of the 19th century and the subsequent repatriation of their capitals to the metropolis, together with the great businesses that the bourgeoisie of our country -protecting itself in neutrality- carried out during imperialist World War I, brought about an enormous concentration of capital. This explains the fact that, during the period of Primo de Rivera's Dictatorship (1923-29) there was an acceleration in the economic development as well as in the process of merging of the bank with the industry, which gave place to the formation of the finance capitalism and the appearance of the first forms of State monopolist capitalism. However, this did not make disappear the contradiction between the exigencies of the capitalist development and the feudal remnants in the politic regime and in the economic structure. On the contrary, this contradiction -as well as the others that converged in Spain derived from the world economic crisis of capitalism (1929)- became much more sharpened, until they culminated in 1931 in the overthrowing of the monarchy and the proclamation of the II Republic, on which the people trusted to improve their living conditions, to solve the problem of the land, to end with the national oppression and with many other problems that overwhelmed them.

But the bourgeoisie was not capable of fulfilling this democratic programme on its own. The entrance of capitalism into the last stage of its development (the monopolist and imperialist one) and the beginning of the world proletarian revolution made impossible the old-type bourgeois revolution. The bourgeoisie had to count necessarily with the working class that, on the other hand, was too strong to accept its leadership. This is going to be the history of the Republic until February 16th, 1936: refusal of the landowning and finance oligarchy to any democratic transformation; hesitations of the democratic bourgeoisie when it came to undertake the revolutionary transformations; failure of the socialdemocracy in its aim at controlling and suffocating the people's struggle and progressive assumption of the leadership of the revolutionary process by the Communist Party.

Apart from this, another important problem appeared for the bourgeoisie: to overcome the industrial and agricultural backwardness of Spain with respect to other countries. This could only be achieved by means of an intense accumulation of capital, on the basis of the subjugation and over-exploitation of the working class and the plundering of the peasantry. But the triumph of the People's Bloc in the elections of 16th February and the measures that it started to take in view of the revolutionary spirit of the masses had become an insurmountable obstacle for the achievement of the plans of the oligarchy since, among other things, it came to put an end to its hopes of taking power again through the parliamentary via. Therefore, it became essential to crush the Republic, to crush the revolutionary movement and to establish a fascist regime. And this is going to be the objective pursued by the oligarchy with the military uprising of July 18th, 1939.

2.2 The fascist uprising and the people's revolution

The struggle against the fascist uprising triggered a true people's revolution. The State foundations came down in the republican zone; the people took the power in their hands. The political, economic and social life of the country underwent deep transformations: the civil authorities were substituted by People's Committees, the repressive corps were dismantled and People's Courts were formed. The People's Army was formed on the basis of the militias. The companies abandoned by their owners, the railways and the bank were confiscated; the land was shared among the agricultural workers and the poor peasants, etc. The Party understood from the beginning that it was not possible to raise the socialist revolution as an immediate question. The economic backwardness of the country, the division within the working class and the international situation (characterized by a relation of forces unfavourable for the revolutionary movement) made necessary a stage of People's Democratic Revolution. The most important thing in that moment was to win the war to fascism and to ensure the political hegemony of the proletariat at the head of the democratic people's forces.

However, the leadership of the Party, under the influence of the Komintern, made many mistakes of appreciation of the general situation as well as in the application of the People's Front tactics since they tended to abide to the republican Government instead of supporting the people's unity from an independent politic and military position. These mistakes contributed to the demoralization of the masses and made more disastrous and lasting the effects of the defeat.

In the end, the Communist Party of Spain, which was the political force that had fought more intensely for the People's Front, found itself expelled from its organizations and unable to confront the coup of Casado; this impeded it to keep up the struggle in the new conditions generated by the collapse of the Republic and to lead the revolution when the favourable conditions for that were created after the end of World War II.

2.3 A monopolist development linked to State terrorism

At the end of the war, the intense accumulation of capital and the accelerated industrialization are the objectives set by the finance oligarchy in order to overcome the backwardness that keeps it in inferior conditions with respect to the bourgeoisies of other countries, to enrich even more and to avert the danger of revolution in the future. The Spanish reaction is going to use the fascist State as the main means for the subjection and exploitation of the working masses, but it is also going to use the State as an essential means of its economic policy.

For this, its main concern was to annihilate any resistance: it suppressed the liberties and political rights; imposed the yoke of oppression to the nationalities; destroyed the worker trade unions and democratic political parties; banned the strikes and the use of any means of legal and peaceful defence of the workers against the abuses and the oppression of capital. A brutal repression fell over the masses after the end of the war: between 1939 and 1944 around 200.000 antifascists were shot dead; most of them were workers and peasants.

After the end of World War II, once the Nazi-fascist forces had been defeated in 1945, the Spanish State became isolated from the international accords, although it counted with the understanding and the support of the capitalists of the entire world, specially of Yankee imperialism. On the other hand, the Spanish economy had not only been devastated, but, besides, was still mainly agricultural. For this reason, the economic plans designed by the monopolists could only be carried out on the basis of the exhaustion of the countryside and the most inhuman forms of over-exploitation of the proletariat, given the scarce modernization of the industry. Such were the principles that guided the so-called autarkic economic policy maintained till the end of the 1950s. Such policy allowed the oligarchy to carry out an intense accumulation of capital, raising at the same time an important part of the staple industry and transforming, with the economic support of the State, the big large estates into modern capitalist agricultural exploitations.

During the years when the Development Plans were carried out (1964-1975) the whole of Spain was gradually transformed: the modernization of the countryside, the industrial centres, the massive migrations to the cities, the appearance of big working-class neighbourhoods, the general rising of the standard of living and consumption, etc., form a scenery, a way of living and a mentality different to that of the Spain of the 1930s. Immigration had an important effect: in 1968 the National Institute of Immigration amounted to 1.222.000 the number of Spanish workers living in Europe; more than half of them had left the country with a contract of employment during the years of the Spanish economic miracle.

The economic liberalization opened doors to the different forms of penetration of foreign capital in Spain. However, thanks to the consignment of foreign currency provided by immigration and tourism, the oligarchy was able to increase the internal production importing advanced means of production without falling into the dependence on foreign finance capital for that reason.

The economic accumulation and concentration had led to a tight interweaving among the State, the finance capital and the companies; four groups control the economic power: the bank, the public sector, the foreign capital and the families linked to the medium-size companies and to the agricultural exploitations. From all of them, the finance capital has kept its character as the dominant group within the Spanish economy.

The industrial development allowed a quick growth of the industrial proletariat and its concentration in the big cities; in 1975 the industrial proletariat amounted to 38% of the working population, becoming the largest class of the population. In the case of Catalonia and the Basque Country such phenomenon had a special incidence: the continuous flow of immigrant workers to those nationalities gave way, in the 60s and 70s, to the appearance of a new proletariat made up of workers of the different peoples of the State.

During the same period the number of workers of the service sector, also increased (33% of the total working population); in this sector, there was an increase of the number of wage earners due to the considerable growth of the tourist industry and the creation of big department stores, big road transport companies, etc.; on the other hand, during this time of economic growth, innumerable small businesses proliferated contributing to the constitution of a new middle and petty urban bourgeoisie. In agriculture, stockbreeding and fishing took place a spectacular reduction of the working population which reached only 29% in 1970.

2.4 The carrillist treason

Fascism succeeded in crushing the trade-union organizations and the democratic parties but not the Party of the working class. All the repression concentrated against the Party was not capable of destroying it. The PCE continued the struggle in the factories, mines, cities and the countryside. The big bourgeoisie knows by experience that, as long as the Communist Party -forged in the most resolute struggle for people's democracy and socialism- exists, the fascist domination is never assured and the masses can one day unite and end up with the tyranny of capital.

The hardest blow -the one that destroyed the Party- did not come from repression but from the sap work carried out within it by the carrillist revisionism. From the end of 1944, Carrillo and his caucus took progressively the control of the main reins of the organization machine of the Party, of its means of propaganda and of the leadership of the guerrilla. In order to achieve it and to carry out their task, they systematically used calumny, intrigue, expulsions, denunciations and the assassination of the militants who -in one way or other- opposed to their capitulationist line.

The guerrilla, which the carrillists pretended to support due to the pressure of the majority of the Party, of the advanced workers and of other antifascist fighters, was used by them with reformist aims, as a platform to get hold of the leadership and as an alibi to hide their liquidationist plans. Hence, when it was necessary to promote the guerrilla they never gave it the material support that it required and that could be supplied. Hence also, when it was necessary to take the decision of withdrawing it, with the aim of resuming and orientating it upon new basis, they ended with it in the way they did: secretly; without any political analysis; with lies; fomenting distrust and personal rivalries among the guerrilla men and abandoning them to their luck in most of the cases, when not assassinating or denunciating those who refused to lay down arms in such a way.

This counter-revolutionary task was possible due to the very weakness, lacks and mistakes dragged on by the Party from the previous stage, which were never analysed in depth nor, therefore, corrected. In this way, although the general line of the Party was essentially just and it became the main architect of the antifascist resistance, the persistence in the serious mistakes made during the war was sharpened, till they became the political line of the Party. This explains the adoption of a more and more distorted and right-wing version of the People's Front tactics: the so-called National Union or Antifranquist National Front policies. In them, the objective of ending with the power of the finance-landowning oligarchy and its fascist system of dominion was merely reduced to overthrowing Franco and establishing a bourgeois parliamentary democracy.

To all this we must add other factors such as the scattering of the leadership, the null attention paid to the development of the revolutionary theory and to the formulation of a political line adequate to the new conditions of Spain and the progressive abandoning of the Leninist principles of working and organization. In this way were created the conditions that allowed opportunism to prosper in the ranks of the Party and to wait for the opportune moment to take the leadership and culminate its destructive task, while the old leaders -gripped by dogmatism and the conciliatory habits- were not able to prevent it. That moment came in 1956 with the holding of the XX Congress of the CPSU in which the revisionist theses of Khrushchev and his followers were imposed. Without this support it would have been really difficult for Carrillo and his group to finish off their task. From this moment, the policy of resistance of the PCE was openly transformed into collaboration with the big finance capitalists and the hierarchy of the Church; into pacifism and disorganization of the masses; into the support of the fascist trade-union policy. To sum up, into the so-called National Reconciliation policy.

3. The new general context of the class struggle

3.1 The reconstruction of the Party

Around the middle of the 1960s a powerful youth movement of a clear anti-imperialist character appears in the capitalist countries with a higher degree of economic development. By then, within all those countries were already felt all the symptoms of the new stage of the general crisis of the system, which had been brewing after the short period of economic growth of the postwar. The theories about the so-called post-industrial society -from which the economic crisis and the class struggle would disappear to give way to a general harmony and welfare, to a consumer society and to a continuous economic development- fell down as a house of cards; in this way, the criticism to the capitalist system became again a burning question of the moment. The capitalist system of exploitation showed clearly the exhaustion of its possibilities of expansion and entered a new crisis from which it will not be able to recover.

This movement of criticism to capitalism was stimulated by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China and by the Marxist-Leninist criticism made by the CP of China and the communists of other countries to the revisionist theses about the peaceful and parliamentary transition to socialism, the State of all the people, the economic emulation between socialism and capitalism, etc.

By the end of the decade two new and important events which shook the life of the entire world joined the previous ones: the heroic struggle of resistance of the Vietnamese people against the US aggression and the mass movement, of a revolutionary character, which broke out in Paris and other French cities in May 1968.

The world economic capitalist crisis had also an important effect in Spain in a moment when the plans of industrial development had reached their highest point; the regime entered fully its political crisis and, seeing how the land lay, started the openness manoeuvre with which it looked for a way out of the crisis. The people's and working-class movement had already got over the effects of the defeat undergone in 1939 and of the long years of all-out fascist terror; and, since the carrillist reconciliation policy and its slogans for a peaceful national strike had failed, it started to channel its efforts into the via of resistance and armed struggle.

This general context gave way to the appearance of the new organized working-class movement in Spain. The Organization of Marxist-Leninists of Spain (OMLE) was one of the first communist organizations born in that period (1968). From it, the revolutionary Party of the working class -whose need was already being felt for some time- will be progressively reconstructed.

The events that took place vertiginously in the country and the controversy started about them within the very Organization made necessary the calling of the Reconstitutive Congress of the Party. Of course, for it to take place other conditions of organization and ideological type were also required. It was essential that the Organization were ready to assume the role and the responsibility of the Party. Such conditions did also exist; so, in June 1975 it was possible to hold the Reconstitutive Congress.

With this meeting, the labour carried out by the OMLE for a period of more than seven years was culminated. During this period the organization, politic and ideological foundations necessary for the building of the Party were laid. In a moment of a maximum aggravation of the political crisis of the regime, as well as of sharpening of all the contradictions and social tensions, the Congress constituted a platform that allowed the newly-born PCE(r) to play an important role in the political life, specially in the denounce of the Reform.

3.2 The political reform of the regime

In 1975, when Franco disappeared from the political scenery and the Bourbonic monarchy was established, following the succession plans established by the dictator, the old forms of fascist domination were already being demolished by the mass struggle for the last years. It was clear that the regime could not stand up any longer maintaining its openly fascist character. On the other hand, the maintenance of these forms hindered more each time the accomplishment of the plans of the Spanish dominant class towards its complete economic and military integration into the imperialist bloc. This is how the political reform elbows its way in the middle of the division of the political caucuses and the finance groups.

The apparent political monolithism of the regime had to make concessions in view of the uncontainable advance of the people's movement. Particularly the working class, which had always marched in the first ranks, conquered progressively one position after another to the regime: the right of strike, the freedom of speech and meeting, etc., were imposed by the struggle. The repression and the all-out State terrorism were also courageously combated by the resistance and the guerrilla. The big capital and its Government faced a really difficult situation which impeded them to continue controlling the masses. Therefore, they had to change a little the forms of domination in order to be able to keep their privileges untouched and to reinforce their political and economic power.

Nevertheless, that change had to take into account the new reality created by the democratic movement. Therefore, they did not have any chance but to legalize everything that had been conquered by the workers with the aim of limiting and controlling it. At the same time, the oligarchy proceeded to integrate in its regime the carrillists and other elements of their same sort who, for a long time, had been giving many proofs of collaboration and servility. With this latter measure, the State born out of the fascist military uprising of July 18th, 1936 acquired a certain note of legitimacy.

The final outcome of this political manoeuvre was expressed in the so-called Democratic Constitution, which guarantees the monarchy, the capitalist system of exploitation and the oppression upon the nationalities. With all that, the dominant class succeeded in creating some illusions and in keeping the workers confounded; but it has not been able, as it pretended, to spread its social basis. The continuous cuts of the social freedoms and rights of the workers, the intensification of exploitation, the denial of the national rights, the State terrorism, the political assassinations, the practice of torture to the arrested and the jailed, the generalized corruption among the oligarchs and the political leaders, etc., have ended up by revealing the true fascist and imperialist nature of the regime and by discrediting at the eyes of the masses the socialfascist parties that serve and support it.

Nowadays, the finance oligarchy is struggling to overcome big contradictions and internal feuds, seeing, besides, its margin of political manoeuvre reduced to the minimum. This fact has demonstrated the depth of the crisis of the ruling system in Spain and the need of radical changes.

We cannot deny that the Spanish oligarchy has introduced some changes in its regime of political domination; but this was done in order to reinforce the very fascist and exploiting State. The division of powers, the crude forgery of parliamentarianism, the establishment of autonomous regions and other changes of the political system introduced by the reform have not been able, however, to conceal the monopolist, centralist and terrorist character of the State. Fascism is the political, legal, ideological, etc. superstructure corresponding to the monopolist system of exploitation established in Spain in 1939. Both of them have developed together and fascism is still today the form of power since the former cannot exist without the latter.

The political reform has demonstrated that in the monopolist stage of capitalism it is not possible to step back to the political system of liberties and to the bourgeois parliamentarianism which are proper of free-market capitalism. The need of a police system which corresponds to the economic control of the monopolies makes the capitalist system tend, in the present stage, towards fascism, militarism and the all-out reaction in general, which heads the bourgeois society for a deep revolutionary crisis.

3.3 Economic and social consequences of the crisis

Once the political reform was started, with the incorporation to the international market required by the industrial and economic development, the Spanish big bourgeoisie was forced to carry out at the same time the industrial, agricultural and finance restructuring which, on the other hand, could not be delayed due to the entrance of world capitalism in the new stage of its general crisis and to the intensification of the international economic competence. But from the very beginning, the restructuring found the stubborn resistance of the working class and other people's sectors that were afraid of losing their jobs, small businesses, etc. Besides, those plans affected also some oligarchic clans which resisted to lose their positions within the economic and social life of the country in favour of others who were in a better position.

This situation is the background for the fierce struggles among the different finance groups of our country and for the complex web of opposed -both Spanish and foreign- interests which appeared at the moment of the incorporation of Spain to the EEC in 1986. It is clear that the only means that the oligarchy has in order to continue the accumulation of capital consists of increasing the exploitation and its capacity of competing in the international markets. However, these plans of securing a place in the capitalist competence and a certain degree of independence with respect to the multinational corporations are hindered by the vast (and each time greater) technological imbalance as regards the first imperialist powers; this limits enormously the manoeuvre capacity of the oligarchy in its economic policy impelling it to take radical measures of restructuring and concentration and to sacrifice many companies and industrial branches for it. As a consequence of this, many workers and many other toilers of the city and the countryside have seen themselves thrown to the gutter of unemployment, precariousness and poverty, in an accelerated proletarianization process that affects ample sectors. Nevertheless, the economic crisis has not brought about any qualitative change in the composition and the structure of the social classes in Spain, although some important changes have taken place in the past years that are necessary to highlight.

The working population of all the territories that form the State, that is to say, the people in age of working who have a job or are looking for it, is nowadays formed by around 16 million people; from them eleven million are wage-earners. The biggest part of the working population is, therefore, the workers who work for others, the dependent workers. The most important social phenomenon that is taking place in the last years is the growth of the wage-earning work, which is a sign of the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a minority and of the plundering of a growing majority that is compelled to sell its workforce. In Spain an accelerated process of proletarianization of the society is taking place; the country is each time more proletarized, with a mass that only has its workforce and other, each time more reduced, that accumulates all the means of production and living. One of the effects of the capitalist accumulation is precisely the constant and absolute growth of the proletariat, which becomes excessive for the needs of the increasing reproduction of capital and goes to unemployment, to the reserve.

From all the social classes the one that has grown the most has been the working class, which has doubled its number in the last 30 years; in the meanwhile, the petty bourgeoisie has been reduced in one third. Actually, the so-called middle class is an exiguous minority; the biggest part of the non-wage-earners are self-employed, freelance workers, small peasants, fishermen, farmers, shopkeepers, liberal professionals and salesmen who -each time in a bigger number- have to become employees of the monopolies. The reduction of the non-wage-earner population has been mainly due to the bankruptcy suffered by hundreds of thousands of small peasants who have been compelled to leave the countryside. As for the mass of workers and employees (hotel and catering businesses, bank, civil servants...), they see nowadays how their situation becomes worse and tends to be similar more each time to that of the working class: temporary contracts, firings, etc. The increase in the number of the civil servants has also influenced the quick growth of the service sector.

As the old middle classes have progressively disappeared, it has appeared within the wage-earning mass, a sector of privileged which can be equalled to the petty bourgeoisie, due both to its functions -due to the delegation of powers given to it by the bourgeoisie- and to the mixed character of its incomes and its standards of living.

3.4 The new road of Spanish imperialism

Once the political reform had been carried out and after the first restructuring boost of the economy given by the felipists*, the big finance bourgeoisie has addressed its efforts to spread its economic and political influence to other countries with the aim of participating each time more intensely in the imperialist struggle for the sharing of markets, raw material sources and spheres of influence. Keeping this aim in mind, the Spanish State, in accordance with its medium size, is using -as it had never done before- important and growing resources to facilitate the exportation of capital.

The basis of this new economic expansion of the Spanish imperialism, together with an increase of the diplomatic, military, cultural and propaganda activity of the State beyond its borders, is undoubtedly found in the high degree of monopolist accumulation and concentration reached, what allows it to carry out the exportation of capital to the more backward countries where it obtains a higher profit rate.

In this sense, the Spanish finance capital, with the purpose of compensating its economic weakness and also due to political reasons, is centring its activity on those areas where it finds better conditions to compete, as it is the case of the Latin American countries, its former colonies; in some of them, it starts to occupy important positions struggling with the Yankee capitalists and with those of other countries. But the interest of the Spanish imperialism in the Maghreb is not lesser, due not only to economic considerations but also to geo-strategic ones.

The role of the Spanish State is not limited to the field of the exportation of capital but, all in all, it pursues the aim of subduing those countries making them dependent, sometimes sharing them with other imperialist States. Hence, the Spanish Government tries to become the interlocutor between the European Union and Latin America, asserting its historic links; it has also intensified its diplomatic activity in Northern Africa. Hence also, taking advantage of its participation in the NATO and the WEU (West European Union), the Spanish State has not wasted any opportunity of deploying its military forces there where its strongest imperialist partners get their hands on, with the aim of doing merits, taking its cut and, at the same time, getting the public opinion used to this kind of operations that announce more devastating and bloody conflicts.

However, in spite of its pretensions of greatness and of plundering, the Spanish imperialism cannot play but a subordinate and very secondary role among the imperialist powers; and this, given its bigger weakness, will become accentuated more each time with the sharpening of the world crisis of capitalism.

home CPS José Díaz suite


(1) Lenin: State and revolution.
(2) K. Marx: Manifesto of the Communist Party.
(3) Lenin: State and revolution.
(4) Lenin: A great initiative.
(*) Reactionary coup in March 1939 in which the bourgeois republicans, the anarchists and the socialists betrayed the People's Front alliance and surrendered to the fascists [Translator's note].
(**) Felipists: related to Felipe González, who was Prime Minister and head of the socialfascist party which was in government in Spain from 1982 to 1996 [Translator's note].