The revolutionary movement in the world, which encompasses the forces fighting against imperialism, colonialism, and for the destruction of capitalism, began to emerge from its strategic defensive position by the end of the twentieth century. This process is manifested in the strengthening of numerous revolutionary parties across the world and the intensification of armed struggle as a form of class conflict. The cause of this strengthening lay in the new crisis that the entire capitalist world found itself in, along with all its internal contradictions. The involvement of broader masses in politics, combined with the increasingly dire conditions in which they found themselves, led to the search for a way out in the face of worsening living conditions. From an ideological standpoint, the complete defeat and collapse of revisionism opened space for the emergence of new forces—truly revolutionary and untainted by opportunism. However, this initial momentum was halted in recent years.
Why?
The crisis of capitalism has, in our view, become fundamental and permanent, rather than cyclical. This crisis is manifested in ever more severe forms through which the entire capitalist world seeks an exit through the already tried and historically lawful recipe of militarization and war. The replacement of “peaceful” capitalist struggle (which has never truly been peaceful) with armed struggle openly dismantles the previous formal international order, where growing contradictions can no longer be “swept under the rug” and where no laws or institutions (which the bourgeois world solemnly swears by) are valid anymore. We are now entering a time when political and economic, and in fact, class relations are openly resolved through force alone. The force of one imperialist alliance against another, force within the alliances themselves, where the share of future spoils is determined by the strength of capital, the strength of armies, and the strength of individual bourgeoisie on every front.
In the end, it is the combined force and power of all oppressed, disenfranchised, and exploited peoples that stand in opposition. The rejection of established forms of liberal, parliamentary democracy (and that too at an astonishing speed) only shows that the imperialist bourgeoisie is facing war, and that for them and their compradors, there is no other means of governance but force.
Against this historical blow, the revolutionary movement, on a global scale, has been unable to respond adequately with its current strength. These divisions are even more clearly reflected in the various currents that still dominate the movement. While one current remains entrenched in the “past,” in its futile debates about defending Marxism-Leninism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc., the other has openly drifted into the waters of reformism and petty-bourgeois anarchism. While the first current plunged into dogmatism and sectarianism (another form of opportunism) and gave up the struggle for class war by all means, the second current abandoned all the fundamental goals of the movement that would have made it revolutionary. One became nothing more than a shell without substance, while the other became mere plankton and decoration in the general chaos of the modern world, an inseparable part of the confusion, incapable of imposing itself as the vanguard to the masses, abandoning the very concept of a vanguard, bowing before the spontaneous forces and considering it their strength.
Both currents represent the left and right deviations of our movement and embody the “harder” and “softer” bourgeois forces within the revolutionary movement. History, in its course, has ruthlessly erased such tendencies in the movement during both pre-revolutionary and revolutionary epochs, with no small amount of struggle from revolutionary organizations themselves. This very task now lies before the revolutionaries of the Balkans.
The third, smallest part of the movement, which does not deviate from the fundamental understandings of scientific and revolutionary theory, seeks a historical response to the current new, yet truly old, social circumstances. It is precisely this part of the movement that is exposed to the most brutal attacks from the class enemy, which results in significant losses within the movement and prevents it from developing its power in the mass movements more rapidly.
We would be naive to ignore that the current greatest obstacle to the movement itself is the contradiction of the Third World War among imperialists and their temporary, or “more permanent,” alliances. The intensity of the conflict for which the imperialists are prepared, and which is far from being exhausted, hinders the further development of the revolutionary subject to the level where it could pose the simple, yet fundamental question of every revolution—the question of power—to the masses.
Through the two world wars, the imperialist bourgeoisie has gained experience in the waves of revolutions, both within the imperialist countries and in the colonies. Its forces are still practically intact and ready to confront the rebellious masses. They will strive to avoid this confrontation, to bribe, corrupt, deceive, and cripple the revolutionary movement—and this is already happening. Until these forces are sufficiently exhausted through internal conflict, until their armies, security apparatus, and the entire system are defeated, and only then when the rebellious masses rise, will the revolution be able to achieve victory. This does not mean abandoning the struggle, on the contrary, it means the need for even greater and more comprehensive preparation on all fronts: ideological, political, and organizational.
The imperialist bourgeoisie is aware of the potential of the revolutionary movement, and we would add that it is more aware than many “revolutionary” organizations or parties. This is precisely why their attention is constantly focused on the masses themselves and their capacity for organization, on their potential to strike blows. For this reason, the global bourgeoisie profits from the general confusion within the movement, from the disconnection and disintegration of everything “honorable” that could offer its role in the struggle of the disenfranchised. Should we go further than the damage that ideological confusion brings to the Balkan peoples (and without demarcation, there can be no unification) that prevails among the “revolutionaries”? How many opportunities are missed because fundamental questions—questions of organization, goals, and tactics—are bypassed?
Has the question ever been asked, over more than three decades within the broader movement, and honestly answered, why does nearly every revolutionary organization resemble a revolutionary circle or even a group of friends?
Without leadership, without a sufficiently powerful subject that can lead, without resolving the fundamental questions that weigh heavily on the masses in the Balkans, without established answers and a clearly defined path, without revolutionary unity between theory and practice, the Balkan masses will remain condemned to perpetual cycles of appearance and disappearance.
One must openly ask: Is it possible to lead the class struggle without a conspiratorial, strictly centralized organization? Does mass work and movement negate the need for such an organization, or does it seek and strengthen it? Is a handful of professional revolutionaries a greater political threat to any regime than hundreds of thousands of people without a clear goal, without a clear tactic, and without a clear organization?
We also reject any objections that this negates front-line work and the power of conscious masses. Without grounding in scientific socialism, without a concrete answer to why we are fighting, we cannot be anything but opportunists and actors under a red cloak.
Such an organization and movement, which advocates for the highest goals ever set before humanity by history, cannot be composed of people consumed by any form of pettiness or individualism. It cannot be composed of people obsessed with consumerist ideology and modern, hedonistic views of life. It has long been said—communists are people of a special mold, people who distinguished themselves not only through their fighting spirit in the trenches of class struggle but also through an impeccable ethics that inspired and demanded the best from the masses. Communist ethics is not merely “revolutionary rhetoric,” but a weapon with which bourgeois pusillanimity, hypocrisy, and individualism are defeated. The long-standing dominance of petty-bourgeois elements and their morals in the movement has represented a significant obstacle to organizing all progressive forces.
However, without an organization that behaves like an island in the sea of petty-bourgeois morals, revolutionaries (or those who consider themselves as such) remain at the level of academic or café discussions, without the possibility of real influence on society. In other words, as long as we do not view organizations as weapons against capitalism, as long as we do not use the weapon of organization to strike all enemies of the revolution, we cannot hope for any success. At the same time, it is not enough to claim to be a revolutionary or a revolutionary party; it is necessary to verify what is truly being done. Do not listen to slogans or blindly follow the programs and manifestos of this or that organization, but check the work in practice, verify whether that practice most effectively serves the goal of socialist revolution. The seriousness of any party is judged solely by its capacity for sincere self-criticism and learning from the mistakes made.
Revolutionaries in the Balkans now face new-old tasks, seeking new-old solutions without which the future appears, at the very least, grim. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice; without revolutionary practice, there can be no revolutionary organization. Without revolution and faith in revolution, the Balkan peoples will only have the choice of which imperial empire they will charge towards self-destruction.
