Unión Proletaria (Spain)
What conditions and what method for unity?
Concern is growing over the rise of the right and the far right, which we have once again confirmed electorally in Argentina, in Chile, and in Extremadura, and militarily with the Yankee attack on Venezuela, kidnapping its president Nicolás Maduro. This rise of reaction appears to be a general phenomenon, as it affects a wide diversity of countries.
Proletarians and Oppressed Peoples, Unite Against Imperialism!
However, this tide is characteristic only of countries aligned with the West, no matter how much the propagandists of the false left may disagree with this assertion, placing in the same basket those forces confronting the West merely because they are nationalist and conservative (Russia, China, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the military juntas of the Sahel, etc.). In their eagerness to uphold “progressive” imperialism, these confusionists replace scientific analysis with superficial analogies in order to disorient well-intentioned progressives. They conceal that there are two opposing versions of nationalism and conservatism, just as enslaving violence and liberating violence are opposed: in nations that combat foreign oppression, conservative nationalism serves to safeguard their identity and customs against continuous foreign aggression; by contrast, in oppressor nations, it serves to reinforce or recover domination over others when “modern” Anglo-Saxon cosmopolitanism has lost effectiveness. From that moment on, the ruling classes of the dominant countries need to foster a particular type of conservative nationalism—chauvinist, supremacist, racist, elitist, neoliberal, aporophobic, rabidly anti-communist and, ultimately, fascist—both in their own countries and in the subjected countries, in order to turn their populations into cannon fodder for wars of plunder.
This does not mean that the defensive nationalism and conservatism of oppressed countries eliminate the root of the problem, but they do deserve the full support of sincere advocates of social progress. Those who deny this, such as the social democrats and the “leftists,” collaborate voluntarily or involuntarily with imperialism and its far-right poison, no matter how many “democratic,” “progressive,” or “proletarian” pretexts they invoke to differentiate themselves from it. The nationalism of an oppressed nation expresses a democratic necessity which, like all such necessities, does not by itself lead to socialism, but which must be assumed in order to reach it. In the past, this was the case in confronting the remnants of feudalism; today, in the decadent stage of capitalism, it is the case in confronting imperialism in any of its manifestations[1].
The tendency toward right-wing political drift among Western populations and the tendency toward defensive nationalism among oppressed peoples share two principal but distinct causes that reinforce one another: a working class on the defensive and an imperialist bourgeoisie on the offensive.
How to Move from the Defensive to the Offensive
The retreat of the working class is due to economic motives and, above all, political ones: the revisionist liquidation of many communist parties such as the PCE, the defeat of the European socialist camp, and the consequent hegemony of social democracy over the labor movement, while the means of influence and domination of the bourgeoisie grow exponentially.
In short, the vacuum that communists have left within the working class milieu for decades has been filled by the bourgeoisie and by its most camouflaged and perfidious instrument: social democracy. In Spain, in the absence of a unified communist force, the PSOE succeeded in dragging the entire petty-bourgeois left into the formation of a government that has fulfilled very little of the little it promised and has transformed a broad sector of the once combative labor movement into a postmodern electorate that follows NATO and the European Union. Its policy favorable to big capital and to its arms sector has increased inequalities and has turned the most impoverished exploited strata into easy prey for reactionary demagogues who attempt to capitalize on their despair. In the end, although the PSOE and its allies call for blocking the far right out of narrowly electoral interests, they decisively collaborate in leading workers toward fascism and war[2].
That being said, the strategy for changing essential reality and the tactic that makes it possible are not identical. If they were—if there were no difference, that is, no contradiction, between strategy and tactics—humanity would not have needed these two concepts, but only one, in order to pursue its aims[3].
Almost a decade ago, the combative masses succeeded in bringing down the government of the Partido Popular that spearheaded the offensive of finance capital. But they did not know how to do anything else to halt it other than to place their trust in the bourgeois left (PSOE) and the petty-bourgeois left (Unidas Podemos). At that moment, Unión Proletaria proposed to other communist organizations that we jointly and publicly express our respect for the political will of these masses, in order to prepare them to change course from the disastrous path toward which social democracy was leading them. How? By overseeing the actions of their government together with them, warning of the betrayal it was preparing, while at the same time mobilizing them in favor of the reforms they were demanding and against the resistance that the oligarchy was opposing to those reforms, with the ultimate aim that they would discard bourgeois reformism in favor of the revolutionary path. The objective, therefore, was to win them over in order to build with them—or with an important and decisive part of them—a revolutionary force. Unfortunately, the necessity of approaching the question from the standpoint of dialectical materialism was not understood, and it was not possible to gather a sufficient organized force to put this tactic into action.
Today, we must reverse the betrayal that has already been consummated (above all since the government’s participation in the militaristic hysteria against Russia), starting from a greater isolation of revolutionaries in relation to the bulk of the population. For this, negative criticism of the government is indispensable, but even more so is the positive proposal of measures and objectives that satisfy the needs of the impoverished working majority, in the short term and also in the long term, through the broadest alliances, though clearly delimited.
Many communists continue mistakenly to trust that a spontaneous popular explosion will turn the tables. It cannot be ruled out that a revolt may occur, and it would undoubtedly be a very positive factor for the revolution. But history attests that, especially in dominant countries, the bourgeoisie has the capacity to divert the development of class contradictions toward secondary objectives and even toward chauvinism against other nationalities: if it succeeded in Germany a century ago, it is not surprising that it has been able to take advantage of the gravest crisis of the international workers’ movement to subject Ukraine to the fascist ideology of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych. The central task of communists must not consist in waiting for the masses to place themselves at the vanguard, but in resuming our fundamental mission: to arm ourselves with the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism, to concretize it in a revolutionary policy suited to our particular conditions, and to bring it to the masses.
Developing a Mass Force in the Imperialist Metropolises
We will return to this question, but first let us examine the other cause of the political rightward shift of the West: the desperate offensive of a declining imperialism. I will not dwell on the economic basis of this decline: overproduction and overaccumulation of capital, the decrease in the general rate of profit, relative stagnation caused by monopolism, industrial relocation, militarization of production, astronomical debt[4], resistance of the oppressed to growing exploitation, competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis emerging economies where capital does not dominate, etc. However, this structural deterioration of U.S. imperialism and its allies/vassals must not lead us to forget that it is still far more powerful than the oppressed countries[5], even though this correlation of forces tends to invert, both because of their dynamism and because of its own decline. This tendency drives it toward ever greater aggressiveness and recklessness, bringing humanity to the threshold of a thermonuclear hecatomb.
Faced with these prospects, democratic and socialist forces must strengthen ourselves and tighten our unity with strategic prudence and patience. Our enemies are using the mass media they own and control (television, radio, press, internet, education, religions, etc.) to indoctrinate and recruit a portion of the population as a political army lined up toward fascism and war. They know they cannot win over the majority, but they do aim to intimidate it, divide it, and impose themselves upon it. From Western countries, we can prevent this only if we do not panic and if, in parallel, we form a political mass army for revolution, from the proletarian vanguard toward the rest of the working class and the people.
Both for the sake of democracy and socialism, and for the very survival of humanity, we must not leave alone the countries that resist the imperialists, nor wait for them to resolve everything by themselves. On the contrary, we have the obligation to develop a mass anti-imperialist force that halts the aggressor beasts from within their own lair (which, incidentally, will favor the more progressive tendencies within independent nations). This task has common characteristics and others specific to each place. Although this international cause benefits from advice and criticism from all geographic origins, what is primary for us is to concretize it in the territory of the Spanish State.
The force capable of neutralizing and, not to mention, defeating imperialism in our country must have a mass character. Any alternative to this, however heroic it may be, is more harmful than beneficial. And the masses are formed through the practical unity of individuals. Therefore, one must struggle for unity and against what causes division.
We need the broadest unity of the people against the various manifestations of oppression caused by the domination of monopoly and finance capital, both within and beyond our borders. But the people are not homogeneous; they are composed of social classes with different material interests. Of all of them, the working class is the only one that carries out socially developed production and emerges from it completely dispossessed of the fruits of its labor except for the bare minimum necessary to live. For this reason, it is objectively the class with the greatest interest in uprooting every form of oppression produced by imperialist society. To understand this, workers must develop their unity through the three forms that their class struggle takes: economic struggle against their employers; political struggle for democracy and socialism; and theoretical struggle, through the interrelation between its more conscious and less conscious strata—that is, between communists and workers subjected to bourgeois ideology. In short, we must develop popular unity, workers’ unity, and the unity of communists in such a way that they strengthen one another.
I will focus on the problem of communist unity, decisive for the growth of workers’ unity and popular unity. All communists are aware of the need to advance in our unity in order to link ourselves closely, effectively, and correctly with the mass workers’ movement—that is, in order to build a communist party. And we do not cease trying, whether through the union of various communist organizations or through the growth of one of them. However, experience in Spain does not seem encouraging: not only do unifications end up fracturing, but organizations that manage to grow tend to suffer splits from which they emerge weakened. These failures can be avoided, as demonstrated by the success of communists in other countries or at other times, provided that we treat contradictions according to their most concrete nature.
In capitalist society, the antagonism between capitalists and workers is highly influential, but the contradictions among working-class and popular sectors are not antagonistic. Even the inevitable infiltration of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois positions into communist organizations does not necessarily have to result in a split: it can also be resolved by neutralizing or expelling such elements. The ideological and political influence of the ruling class may lead any militant to adopt erroneous positions that harm communist unity. But as long as these are not very serious errors that endanger the general Marxist-Leninist position, they can be corrected through a non-antagonistic method, provided that the person is allowed to explain themselves reasonably, that they are criticized appropriately (in accordance with dialectical materialism), and that the discussion is resolved democratically, with the minority submitting to the decision of the majority.
In order to advance communist unity, from the experience of Unión Proletaria, we consider it necessary: 1) to establish the insurmountable “red lines,” that is, to distinguish between unacceptable political positions and those disagreements that do not prevent the general joint action required by the concrete situation; and 2) to agree on the method for deploying joint action, while addressing this latter type of disagreement.
Proposal for a Principal Axis to Unite Communist Organizations
It is non-negotiable to base unity on Marxism-Leninism, the struggle of the working class, the socialist revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. In this sense, there must be commitment and effort to avoid everything that distances us from this foundation: revisionism and dogmatism, reformism and “leftism,” liberalism and sectarianism, spontaneism and intellectualism, etc.
Among the current Marxist-Leninist organizations, there is fairly broad agreement on the most general ideological formulations, while differences arise when it comes to concretizing them. In fact, such differences also exist within each organization. But when communists are separated into multiple organizations, it becomes more difficult to understand and debate these differences, which exacerbates the tendency toward division.
There are different categories of disagreements, depending on their present importance and urgency. For example, those concerning the evaluation of the historical experience of socialist construction do not prevent broad unity of action among communist organizations in capitalist countries. Those, for instance, referring to the social nature of present-day China restrict that unity of action somewhat more, because those groups that consider it capitalist are reluctant to defend it and to make use of its practical achievements as support for socialist propaganda (which is a pity, because it has managed to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty in a short time without militarily aggressing other countries in order to plunder them—something incompatible with the logic and history of capitalism). Nevertheless, even this disagreement does not prevent the principal unity of action, as we shall see below.
It is necessary to prioritize unity among communist organizations whose positions augur greater development of debate and joint action. With others, relations can only be more occasional, so long as they cling to their sectarian prejudices. But what is the concrete limitation and the pertinent “red line”?
The general guide for determining this is provided by The Communist Manifesto: “The theoretical propositions of the communists are in no way based on ideas or principles invented or discovered by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.”[6]
It is the living social movement—the embodiment of the historical and strategic in the present—that determines the action of communists and, therefore, their unity. Agreement regarding the principal contradiction and the principal objective is the basis for advancing toward communist unity[7].
Although the fundamental contradiction of capitalism opposes the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and although its solution is the socialist revolution, the principal contradiction and objective are its necessary mediation, determined by the concrete character—monopolistic, imperialist—of contemporary capitalism. At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the present world was born from the moment when capitalist monopolies developed to such an extent that they dominated the markets of Europe and North America. All history since then has been that of collusion and struggle among the financial oligarchies of this geographic area to dominate the world, as well as that of the struggle of oppressed classes and peoples to shake off this domination. Thanks to their struggle, some oppressed nations have become powerful countries, without ceasing to be exploited, harassed, encircled, and attacked by the imperialist powers. Although they may contain capitalist relations of production and even capitalist monopolies within them (which in not all cases dominate their society and state), they continue to be oppressed, and their national liberation struggle contributes to breaking the global imperialist collusion that is the principal obstacle to revolutions, both democratic-national and socialist-proletarian.
That their status as oppressed nations remains in force was demonstrated by the recent history of Russia after its return to capitalism. With this transformation, the new Russian bourgeoisie hoped to receive treatment similar to that accorded among the oligarchies of the United States, the European Union, and Japan. However, this was not the case. They did not treat it as an equal or second-class partner, but as prey to be plundered and even dismembered, like any other “third world” country: NATO rejected the Russian Federation’s application for membership, expanded to its borders, and fueled hostility against it (Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, Donbas, Latvia, etc.). It was empirically proven that Russia, like China, forms part of the so-called “third world,” that is, of the countries oppressed by the imperialist powers constituted as such at the culmination of capitalism’s progressive stage. The relation of oppression between the two “worlds” resulting from monopoly capitalism—as the word “monopoly” itself indicates—prevails over and imposes itself upon the successes achieved by an oppressed country in unequal capitalist development[8]. It is precisely the development successes of oppressed countries (above all the USSR and China) that have forced the financial oligarchies of those old powers to collude until now against them, instead of once again waging war among themselves for new divisions of the world in proportion to their respective strengths.
Consequently, communist unity can only bear fruit by understanding that this—and not something else—is the contemporary reality of the class struggle: that is, by directing all partial struggles toward the principal objective of developing the unity of all forces oppressed by the imperialists, guided by the summary suggested in The Communist Manifesto: “The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement… In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.”[9]
Hence, it is not possible to count for communist unity on organizations that are enemies of those who combat the imperialists, organizations that treat Russia and China—the largest forces in the anti-imperialist camp—as the opposite of what they are. Criticism and vigilance are legitimate and necessary, and it is even admissible to question the socialist character of China, but communist unity would be paralyzed and destroyed if it attempted to incorporate sectarian organizations that, in Trotskyist fashion, confuse friends and enemies, sowing discord within the anti-imperialist camp.
The working class needs to reconstitute its Communist Party by bringing together all Marxist-Leninists willing to strengthen unity for the overthrow of the imperialists and to promote within that unity the path of the world proletarian revolution, as advocated by the World Anti-imperialist Platform.
Proposal of a Method to Unite Communist Organizations
The urgency of this task is determined not only by the present suffering of the masses, but even more by the qualitatively greater pain that the desperate actions of an imperialist camp decomposing from its very economic base have in store for us. In this conjuncture, it would be most appropriate for all communist organizations committed to this task to convene a congress that would unify us into a single party governed by democratic centralism, in order to intervene among the masses according to our political agreements.
Unfortunately, recent experience attests that our theoretical and practical differences—caused by the crisis of the socialist camp and amplified by the prolonged decline and dispersion of the workers’ and communist movement—still prevent this.
Consequently, we consider it necessary and possible to open an intermediate path[10] between the current division and future organic unification:
1. A unity of action around the principal struggle against imperialism (and beyond, as possible), that is permanent and not merely occasional.
2. This front or federation of a growing number of communist organizations would conclude agreements unanimously in frequent meetings of plenipotentiary representatives of each organization.
3. Each organization would commit to strengthening this unity and loyally fulfilling the agreements, while retaining its total independence of action in all other matters[11].
4. The united activity would include attention to the initiatives of mass movements and their organizations, but would not be limited to waiting for them.
5. On the contrary, it would proceed from joint Marxist-Leninist formation, from the elaboration of a first draft of a political program, and from a plan of agitation and propaganda to mobilize the masses for its realization.
6. This plan would have as its central axis a regular and frequent press (understood in a broad sense as a set of means of dissemination) that would present the agreed orientations and would also give space to discussion of differing opinions, especially regarding the most burning questions. The need for alternative journalism of counter-information has been understood by many revolutionary intellectuals who have carried out commendable work in this direction. Learning from them, communists must gather and centralize these efforts from a strictly Marxist-Leninist point of view, around the realization of the anti-imperialist and socialist program.
7. Although one must begin with tasks of clarification and political definition on the basis of the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism, it is of capital importance to avoid allowing communist activity to become enclosed within a ghetto of the most advanced sector of the working class. On the contrary, one must go out to meet the entire population, not only with propaganda (many ideas for a few), but with agitation (few ideas for many), making maximum use of legal possibilities.
8. Since the implementation of agreements would commit militants from all organizations, it would be possible to begin developing a division of labor and specialization among them, thus optimizing the use of available forces to carry previously agreed positions to more territories, more workplaces, more educational centers, more partial mass fronts, etc.
9. Over time, communists who have been separated and confronted for too many years would come to know and understand one another better, would develop mutual trust, and would grow accustomed to being sometimes in the majority and sometimes in the minority, until we could unify within a single party under the rules of democratic centralism.
This proposal is what Unión Proletaria wishes to share with the other communist organizations. Realism and prudence do not exclude—they also require—agility and courage in the face of the grave events that are approaching.
Notes
[1] See the section “On the relationship between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism” in the article
[2] https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/actividades/paginas/2025/181125-sanchez-acuerdos-ucrania-zelenski.aspx#:~:text=Para%20continuar%20apoyando%20a%20Ucrania,Ucrania%20y%20acelerar%20su%20reconstrucci%C3%B3n.
[3] If we pay attention to what Stalin explains in Foundations of Leninism, on strategy and tactics (https://www.marxists.org/espanol/stalin/1920s/fundam/fundam7.htm), we will observe that the “Direction of the main blow: isolate petty-bourgeois democracy, isolate the parties of the Second International, which are the principal support of the policy of compromise with imperialism” does not appear among tactical requirements, but among strategic objectives. Consequently, it must be fulfilled through the tactic that makes it possible, whose principles Stalin elaborates immediately afterward not solely from the needs of the masses, but from the degree to which they understand them. And it is precisely this understanding that absolutely determines communist intervention among the masses—the only truly revolutionary one.
[4] The public debt of the United States already exceeds 38.5 trillion dollars, more than two trillion more than a year ago. Of these, 8 trillion will mature in 2026 and will have to be “paid” to creditors, either by printing more greenbacks and provoking inflation or by refinancing it with guarantees over others’ wealth, such as Venezuelan oil and others.
[5] The Gross Domestic Product of the United States in 1990 was four times greater than that of China and Russia combined. In 2025, this difference has narrowed, but that of the North American country is still nearly 50% higher. And that of the U.S. together with its military allies amounts to more than double that of the BRICS (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_PIB_(nominal)_en_1990 and https://www.worldometers.info/es/pib/pib-por-pais/).
The U.S. dollar accounts for 88% of international foreign exchange transactions, 58% of international currency reserves (euro 20%, pound 5%, yen 5%, yuan 2%), and 54% of world trade (https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/whats-behind-the-u-s-dollars-dominance-and-why-it-matters/#:~:text=Introduction,and%2054%25%20of%20global%20trade).
The military budget of the United States exceeds by more than twice that of China and Russia combined. That of the U.S. and its military allies triples that of China, Russia, and their non-military allies (https://www.bankinter.com/blog/economia/paises-gasto-defensa and https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/yb25_summary_es.pdf). And as for military bases in foreign countries, there are nearly 1,000 versus only a few dozen.
[6] https://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1840s/48-manif.htm, Chapter II.
[7] “Every question ‘runs in a vicious circle’ because political life as a whole is an endless chain consisting of an infinite number of links. The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain.” (Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, Chapter V)
[8] One may speculate about the prospect that, after the defeat of the current imperialist powers, the presently oppressed powers might themselves become imperialist, since capitalism exists within them. But, first, this is an untimely hypothesis and therefore devoid of political value when we are still far from being able to sing victory over the current oppressors. Second, it presupposes that such victory could be achieved without a qualitative development of the international workers’ and communist movement, which reveals a lack of confidence in the masses and in revolutionary theory more characteristic of a sectarian than of a Marxist. And third, it fatally condemns the new emerging powers to this destiny without concretely investigating their history and their relations with other countries, solely because they do not fit into a superficial, narrow, and dogmatic understanding of Marxism.
[9] https://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1840s/48-manif.htm, Chapter IV.
[10] That “intermediate path” actually consists of the process through which different communist organizations unite into a single party. It is not an idea foreign to historical experience, but such a process has occurred in many cases, one of the most notable being that of the Russian Marxists. Police repression had sharpened ideological dispersion among them after the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (1898). It was necessary to traverse a process of overcoming political divergences in order to hold a Second Congress that consolidated the party (1903). This process began with Lenin’s plan, together with a group of revolutionary Marxists deported to Siberia, to publish a newspaper—Iskra—organizing practical activity free of revisionist tendencies. In order to carry out this plan, they first united with like-minded organizations inside Russia and later allied with the “Emancipation of Labor” group formed by the most orthodox exiles. The diffusion of Iskra attracted an increasing number of organizations (and individuals, among them Trotsky) to Marxist positions, becoming a majority by the opening of the Second Congress.
[11] Lenin said that “To discuss the problem, to express and hear different opinions, to learn the view of the majority of organized Marxists, to record this view in a resolution and honestly to carry out that resolution—that is what is called unity in all parts of the world and among all sensible people. And this unity is infinitely valuable and important for the working class.” (On Unity)