¿Por dónde volver a empezar?

Julián de Soria

Originally published in Mea Culpa / Where to Begin Again? in January 2025.

More than 120 years have passed since the Russian revolutionaries asked themselves What is to be done? What steps and what practical approach should they take to achieve their goals, the revolution?

They had to break with the past and, after a period of ideological reformulation or reconstitution, [1]embark on practical work that required a new organizational model, a new form of agitation, a new way of reaching and raising awareness among the people. [2].

In other words, Lenin broke with the social-democratic tradition and with many of Marx's precepts to equip his organization with the capacity for social transformation, rather than simply continuing as before: limited by theoretical discussions and a reformist economism that distanced the workers' movement from its goals of emancipation and the seizure of power.

Therefore, Lenin's contributions can only be considered a development of Marxism, not a revision. [3].

Creative Marxism prevailed over dogma, over dead-letter orthodoxy.

It is necessary to differentiate between the letter of the law and its essence, between assimilation and rote memorization. We must learn to apply theory in practice, in the material conditions in which we live. Furthermore, by contributing new elements and developments, we must understand that ideology is not static. [4].

Marxism cannot be understood as a religion based on dogmas, as a duel of fragmented, mutilated quotes deprived of the meaning the author intended, mechanically transported to the present moment without taking into account that material conditions change, and that Marxism must adapt to them and evolve. [5].

Doctrinaires are a cancer that has infected everything that remains of the communist movement, if it can still be called that, condemning it to a slow agony that grows more decadent, inoperative, and absurd each day. Anyone who fails to understand Marxism as a guide for action, for social transformation, and instead chooses to memorize meaningless and useless quotes, has fallen into doctrinaire and pseudo-religious positions that are profoundly anti-Marxist. [6].

Marxism is a guide for the analysis and transformation of society; it is the analysis of the concrete situation. Theorizing about nothing or falling into a pragmatism without theory only leads to futility and a waste of resources. It is necessary to interrelate both; they must be linked [7].

Lenin has been criticized for not being theoretical enough, ironically by people who achieved nothing and whose theories were forgotten; however, Lenin had a theory that was tested in practice and proved correct—that is, it triumphed, and his theses were shown to be the right ones at that historical moment. This is the difference between those who only talk and have no real value and those who did.

Lenin is the most influential thinker of the 20th century, despite his death in 1924. His political thought decisively influenced both the development of the USSR and political and revolutionary movements worldwide.

Even in the last years of his life, he began to revise his positions on the national question and borders, a process that would continue after his death [8]. Stalin, the communist leader who took socialism furthest and led the Soviet project after Lenin's death, was responsible for continuing this shift in position. He ultimately embraced revolutionary patriotism [9], developing a defense of the historical and cultural legacy and championing the family against the libertinism that was already prevalent in the West. [10].

Lenin succeeded in making the fundamental problems of the masses, the main problems of the revolution they were to lead, the fundamental problems of Marxism, making them an essential part of the proposals, documents, and thought of the party itself. This was pointed out even by Lenin's political rivals, at least for extended periods, such as Trotsky himself [11].

These are the tasks we must undertake, under conditions quite different from those faced by Lenin or Stalin.

There are still people in the pigsty that what remains of the communist movement—if you can even call it that—has become, who insist that nothing has changed since then or that everything has already been invented and just needs to be applied. And look where it's gotten them; they've spent decades maintaining erroneous positions that only lead them to a more lamentable situation year after year, far removed, of course, from the workers they claim to represent.

When a political movement fails to address the problems of those it claims to represent—in this case, the workers and all workers, including, of course, the self-employed—it becomes useless. The best thing that could happen is for these remaining remnants to dissolve and allow others with genuinely revolutionary positions to build something new.

Many things have changed since Lenin's time; we will focus on those that most affect us at an organizational, political, and activist level. We will leave the analysis of economic changes, and other changes within the production model itself, for a future article.

We are witnessing the complete destruction of what was once the communist movement. The vast majority of communist parties are in a state of structural collapse, utter marginalization, and ideological weakness or even nullity. What once made the powerful tremble now elicits laughter from those who know them, which I doubt is many.

Ideologically, the movement was already swollen from the coup d'état of the 20th Congress, but just when it seemed things couldn't get any worse, the French May '68 arrived, in which the new left settled old scores, becoming hegemonic.

The revolutionary subject shifted from the working class to a kind of amalgam of oppressed minorities, some invented, which began to set the agenda for left-wing organizations, including unions and communist parties.

They stripped away everything revolutionary and dangerous to the establishment, and behind an aesthetic, symbolism, and seemingly libertarian precepts [12], they concealed a reactionary nature, constituting a new ideology of finance capital that has raised the level of alienation and control to previously unimaginable limits.

Clouscard pointed out that this ideology, which we call “ideological postmodernism” [13], (others call it “woke thinking”), leads to “neo-fascism” [14]. what has become clear is that it leads to a single way of thinking, composed of a series of quasi-religious dogmas that must be obeyed or accepted.

With this thinking also arose the dictatorship of political correctness, used as a weapon against anyone who dares to dissent. They steamrolled the communist and labor movement, gradually co-opting their proposals and dogmas.

They soon succeeded in placing greater emphasis on bourgeois feminism, suicidal capitalist environmentalism, minority rights, and agendas defending foreign interests, such as Agenda 2030, than on class struggle or revolution in the platforms of these parties.

Both issues were relegated to mere rhetoric at best, as these parties implement anti-worker policies and positions, even going so far as to defend cosmopolitanism—or globalism, for the sake of clarity, though it's not exactly the same thing.

Incredibly, they have even gone so far as to defend the very same interests as the large supranational corporations that are devastating our countries. This represents the most serious of the ideological perversions into which they could degenerate.

If Lenin taught us anything, it's that we must destroy the old to build the new. The destruction of the embers of the old communist movement is a task that must be undertaken in order to build a new one that maintains a revolutionary essence and adapts to the needs of the historical moment.

Liberalism today has become a chimera, something idealistic and unrealizable that is talked about a lot but never acted upon; in other words, something useless to society that is theorized about extensively but never put into practice.

Unfortunately, communism plays the same role. It is our duty to change this, to transform it once again into a tool of struggle for the working class and the revolution—the real one, not the one of the self-proclaimed communists of Twitter.

We have an urgent need to reclaim our identity as patriotic communists, developing a new kind of agitation and an organizational model suited to the times, optimized, adapted, and professionalized.

Faced with national nihilism, already overcome in the USSR during Stalin's era, but revived by this decadent and postmodern communist movement, we must strive for a fusion between communism and patriotism, rejecting the adoption of nihilistic internationalist approaches that favor the actions of large supranational corporations and financial capital, and instead opting for a sovereign, patriotic, and therefore national struggle, bringing together the masses of workers fed up with the current situation.

The Communist Party must act based on plans—short, medium, and long term—and must distance itself from the blind following and spontaneity that define the current movement. Furthermore, it must prepare itself thoroughly so that when social contradictions intensify, it is ready to lead any spontaneous movement that may arise.

Revolutions cannot be predicted, but you can prepare for them and live up to the expectations of a truly revolutionary party.

It is necessary that this movement be equipped with an operational structure at both the public and semi-public levels [15], with the capacity to assert itself and achieve political, ideological, and cultural hegemony among the workers, not among that movement that is dead, that represents a struggle of little fish in a fishbowl.

We communists do not want to be the biggest fish in a glass enclosure; we want to go out into the open sea, into the ocean, to carry out the great social, that is to say, revolutionary, transformations.

A communist party cannot confine itself, like anarchists, to future revolutionary explosions; it must contribute to preparing the subjective conditions for the development of the revolution.

Another difficulty we face in building strength and reaching ordinary people—that is, the workers—is the criminalization of communism.

Historian Grover Furr speaks of the anti-Stalinist paradigm, according to which everything related to the history of the USSR is dominated by an anti-communist bias, especially everything related to Stalin and the period in which he led the Soviet regime. According to this paradigm, anything that goes against Stalin and this period is given an aura of certainty, while questioning anything in the official narrative is considered historical revisionism and is persecuted. [16].

Even agreeing with Furr, I believe that this phenomenon is not limited to historiography or that period of history. The absolute criminalization of communism is directed against revolutionary communism, distinct from globalist, revisionist, and postmodern communism.

A narrative has been constructed that links communism with woke, death, and poverty, employing a series of historically unprecedented scarecrow fallacies. We are faced with an anti-communist paradigm that isolates, criminalizes, and persecutes those who truly defend the class struggle, want to make a revolution, and do not focus on defending bourgeois revolutionary trends [17] such as feminism, transgenderism, or anti-racism. [18].

This new left has adopted communist traits, symbols, and rhetoric, of course stripping them of all their revolutionary essence, which contributes to the political and ideological ambiguity and confusion that dominates our society.

Overcoming this criminalization of communism requires implementing significant changes to adapt to the current context in which we must develop our struggle. We will not renounce anything, but we must be intelligent in how we reach people.

Our goal is not to reach the folklorists of communism, who largely hold postmodern or outright reactionary positions. Our objective is to reach the immense mass of depoliticised workers and bring them closer to the ranks of the revolution, even if that requires a change in tactics.

What matters is preserving the essence, not the aesthetics or terminology of past eras.

However much we might like Stalin, hanging a giant image of him from a tower or a bridge isn't a mass action; it's anti-mass. It was popular in the 1930s. Because of the criminalization of communism, it would be the most counterproductive thing we could do, and in fact, unfortunately, we did it for years.

It's crucial to break with old methods and develop new ones adapted to our current needs, given the absolute criminalization of communism, which is seen as a kind of evil ideology.

We must maintain the revolutionary essence of those who came before us by developing a practice that allows us to move forward as communists, not mechanically repeat methods they used in a very different context and betray the essence of what they wanted to achieve.

To all this, as if it weren't enough, we must add the general political fragmentation that exists, the lack of militant culture among the people who approach any political movement, and the absence of powerful networks and structures to develop political action.

This means that it is necessary to create certain structures that go beyond the refounding or reconstitution of the Communist Party itself. A political and electoral mass front is needed; a strong union; a political body to fulfill the functions that a newspaper can no longer perform (social media, research, production companies, publishing houses, modern media outlets, etc.); and cultural, social, youth, and political protest organizations that operate under the political, cultural, and ideological hegemony of the Communist Party.

Furthermore, as a result of policies promoting the woke or globalist ideology of governments, corporations, media, influencers, writers, actors, and other lackeys in the service of the system, a general identity crisis has been created, since any collective identity that could act as a check on the impositions of big capital has been attacked.

The two consciousnesses that have most united humankind in society for centuries are national and class consciousness. Therefore, these two consciousnesses have been the most fiercely attacked. The issue of the family deserves separate mention.

This has led to individuals becoming increasingly isolated, alienated, and focused on transgressive new forms of consumption, creating a veritable army of addicts to all sorts of things who rapidly consume everything they have been previously induced to consume.

The desire industry has been perfected to the point of exerting a lobotomy or acute idiocy on people; they no longer just tell us how or what to produce, but also how to consume, what to consume, and what kind of life we should lead. [19].

We live in postmodernity, a liquid society where everything moves quickly to accelerate consumption. The commodification of society is absolute. We have suffered dehumanization. The focus of our societies is no longer on humanity; now, the new god is consumption. The path toward posthumanism is well underway.

The digital and technological world is increasingly absorbing the individual, further contributing to their isolation, eroding their identity, and paving the way for the new world they want to impose on us.

Traditional agitational and even organizational methods are ineffective on their own. We need to adapt to the world we live in, knowing how to use modern means controlled by the enemy without letting ourselves be dragged into their positions and designs.

People are increasingly disaffected with politics, and have even less interest in socialism, the workers' struggle, or revolution; the exact opposite of what was happening when the Bolsheviks, at the beginning of the 20th century, asked themselves where to begin. [20].

We can see many communist groups opting for completely outdated mechanical formulas that were originally developed at a very different time in the class struggle.

The revolutionary struggle has become just another fad of the system, a revolutionary trend entirely geared towards maintaining the interests of the powerful and wearing down anyone who might intend to change anything. [21].

The revolutionary struggle implies the struggle for the transformation of society, not creating a capitalist urban tribe scene that only maintains a certain aesthetic of the revolution, but without any content that leads us to it. [22].

This article was born with the intention of putting on the table a necessity for Spanish communists—although those in other countries are also in dire need of it: opening a debate to stop repeating outdated formulas and models and to update ourselves, adapting to the new material conditions we have to live under.

It seeks to initiate a debate within our movement that leads to a reconstitution and ideological clarification, equipping us with the appropriate tools to develop effective work in favor of class struggle and socialist revolution.

Likewise, it intends to initiate a conference process that leads to a readaptation and evolution of methods of agitation, dissemination, and awareness-raising, prior to a restructuring of the organizational model that surpasses the old one, since this too is not up to the requirements of the struggle for revolution in the 21st century.

The communist movement is dead. It is time to bury those who maintain useless methods and ideological interpretations, and to build something again with revolutionary essence and the capacity for communists to effectively influence Spain and lead workers in the struggle for their emancipation.

With this text, we outline and present the beginning of the debate that will undoubtedly lead to profound changes. We leave for the near future the drafting of theses for the Spanish revolution, as a future program for the party, and another text on changing the organizational and agitational model.

With this intention, it is necessary to develop the fundamental starting points both to frame the debate and to begin working in the right direction prior to the conference process and, subsequently, the congress.

STARTING POINTS

The folkloric recognition of communism without revolutionary practice, and without an updated theory, is useless. If an ideology or political approach does not respond to the needs of the working class and all workers, it becomes inconsequential and is headed for extinction. [23].

I think it's right to defend the historical memory of the revolution, but focusing the performance of a communist party today on that is a waste of time. Due to the criminalization of communism, it has become an act that frightens the masses.

The goal is to reach them and raise their awareness, not to have a fixed stage set, terminology from another century, and proposals that are unrealizable under current material conditions.

We have maintained these kinds of positions for many years, and only when we began to rectify them has growth occurred and we have begun to have influence among large groups of workers.

We are heirs to the entire revolutionary and class struggle of those who came before us. We are the continuers of the patriotic communism that, in the USSR, brought the working class to its highest point in history.

We must learn from them, continue their legacy, maintain their essence, but not repeat their mistakes. We must be creative, not imitate what others achieved. We do not want to talk about how they made their revolution and feign an ineffective plagiarism doomed to failure. We want to make our own.

It is necessary to clarify the fundamental tasks of the revolution in Spain and to build up the necessary forces. We must have a new, capable, and professional structure with the strength and effectiveness required for the titanic battles we will face in the future.

It is vital to learn from the successes and failures of the revolutionary movement, taking what has proven valid and discarding the useless dead letter. We must be faithful to the essence, not to the dead letter.

We must flee from doctrinairism and embrace creative Marxism, which develops and adapts to the material conditions of the moment to achieve the tactical and strategic objectives of the working class.

We must solve the real problems of workers to bring them closer to our positions. Our practical work must be so professional, coherent, and firm that it speaks for us and allows us to draw workers into the ranks of patriotic and revolutionary communism.

Today, the totalitarian image [24] of communism is compounded by the deplorable image of communist parties, which are no longer merely revisionist and reformist, but have also embraced the new dominant ideology of finance capital: woke thinking or ideological postmodernism. They have allowed themselves to be dragged into the most anti-worker positions they have held to date.

To build a new communist movement, it is necessary to dismantle the defenders of these positions at all levels, as they contribute to the negative image and criminalization of any class-based, communist, and patriotic stance that attempts to build something revolutionary.

Therefore, we must break with anything that might link us to them at all levels, in order not to contribute to the current ideological and political confusion.

We identify ourselves as patriotic communists to differentiate ourselves from cosmopolitans or globalists who maintain related symbols or names.

Fundamental issues to which we must provide answers are immigration, Islamization, the national question, and the struggle for sovereignty. Addressing these problems has become a primary class and revolutionary issue.

We must, in addition to solving the problem, do so from a progressive and revolutionary position, in contrast to reactionary solutions that will only reinforce the domination of capital over workers.

Every era has primary and secondary contradictions, as well as events that cannot be ignored. Just as in the last century communists immersed themselves fully in anti-colonial and national liberation movements, achieving hegemony and winning over the masses in many of them, we must do the same with the phenomenon of migration, ethnic replacement, and the struggle against Islamization.

We must fight to hegemonize these struggles and do so from class-based, revolutionary, and patriotic positions. It is a struggle in which, previously, there was either no clear position or a suicidal approach to the current situation. Now we must engage in this crucial struggle and win over the masses to the fight for social transformation, but by carrying out a sincere, honest, and resolute struggle, never one driven by opportunism.

We want to solve this problem because it is fundamental to our national survival and to that of Spanish workers themselves. Whether some like it or not, the class struggle develops within the framework of a state, which in the case of Spain is a national framework.

Another historical necessity we must undertake is the renunciation of the right to self-determination in Spain, federalism, nihilistic internationalism, and all globalist influences derived from them.

We must commit to revolutionary patriotism, confronting the false patriotism of the powerful from class positions.

The revolution we must promote is patriotic and sovereignist, democratic, and based on an approach that allows us to accumulate strength. Without this process of accumulation and preparation of subjective conditions, it will not be possible to move to the next stage of the revolution: the conquest of power by the working class through a socialist revolution and the subsequent establishment of a socialist state.

As I have already said, the organizational model of the Communist Party must be modernized, adapted to changing times, and equipped with a strong structure capable of fighting the enemies of the revolution.

We must begin implementing drastic changes. Some of these we have already begun, forced by circumstances and political struggle, but we must deepen them after a rigorous process of debate that clarifies the path forward.

I hope that, before long, the theoretical proposal will be ready for a conference that will represent a significant qualitative shift for us.

Without a strong and adapted structure, with the capacity to respond and produce relevant work, we will not be able to overcome the criminalization of communism or other political, economic, and agitational problems.

Lenin spoke of the importance of a central newspaper to unite revolutionaries, foster debates, and—let us not deceive ourselves—raise awareness and impose a line on those who did not think like them. [25].

Today, the newspaper, as an instrument of agitation, awareness, centralization, organization, and ideological struggle, is useless. With digitalization, social media, liquidity, and the triumph of audiovisual content, newspapers are nothing more than dinosaurs on the verge of extinction. Not even digital newspapers can fulfill that function anymore.

It is true that large newspapers exist, but they belong to corporate interests. The newspapers of communist organizations are nothing more than online pamphlets or badly printed sheets of paper—ridiculous and lacking any standard—that speak about outdated issues and provide no answers to any urgent problem affecting workers or the tasks of revolution today.

Moreover, their audience is so small and their future prospects so limited that, surprisingly, they become more unknown and anonymous than useless—which is actually their defining characteristic.

If anyone believes that going to a factory in Spain—the few that remain—with pamphlets about protracted people's war on half a sheet of paper, or hanging images of Stalin from towers, constitutes a great mass action, then they suffer from some kind of cognitive problem or distortion of reality.

Curiously, most of these “agitators” are strange, socially dysfunctional people, poor doctrinarians—since they are not even competent at that—who spend many hours on Twitter feeding off one another's misery and are complete failures.

This happens because no one with a normal or functional life can approach these kinds of organizations. Only a trickle of rather peculiar individuals comes near them, which scares away the few who might otherwise be interested.

We need to equip ourselves with a modern medium that encompasses all the spaces in which we need to be present and that can fulfill the functions of that old newspaper Lenin spoke about. To achieve this, we must train and professionalize cadres capable of carrying out this kind of work.

We must create credible public profiles with political appeal so they can communicate political and ideological positions, approach workers, raise awareness, and draw them into the struggle.

Without professional revolutionaries who live for and through the struggle, it is impossible to build a structure with real capacity. [26].

We must be capable, through newspapers, audiovisual media, public figures on social networks, commentators, writers, columnists, and so on, of concentrating political discontent and directing it in line with revolutionary forces, incorporating it into them.

We must be capable of uniting people and imposing our principles against those who only seek to maintain the current political fragmentation for their own benefit. We need that central political and ideological organ, but the way of building it and reaching people must change drastically.

Without conquering ideological and cultural hegemony, we will never achieve anything significant; we will never accomplish revolutionary change.

Of course, this struggle for hegemony cannot be carried out solely through good work in everything previously mentioned. The struggle must also take place through cultural and historical associations, foundations, publishing houses, magazines, trade unions, among students, and within academic work itself, among many other means.

The importance of addressing problems related to the lack of national sovereignty, mass immigration, and other issues we must hegemonize has already been explained. Effective work on these issues grants prestige that allows us to reach the workers affected by them and circumvent the criminalization of communism.

This criminalization is so strong that attempting to present oneself in elections under supposedly communist symbols and slogans amounts to political suicide, at least in the short and medium term.

We communists do not hide our program. In fact, we constantly agitate around it. However, we must adapt to present conditions, knowing how to play our cards during an unprecedented historical retreat of revolutionary forces.

It is necessary to defend our positions and principles through influence and hegemony within broad political and mass fronts that respond to the needs of workers and Spaniards in general.

It is necessary to raise consciousness and adopt tactics that allow us to bring more people closer to patriotic communism, enabling a strong and capable structure.

At the present moment, broad masses can be rallied around our minimum program. For this reason, maintaining supposedly “communist” [27] positions merely leads to making a fool of oneself and failing again and again.

One is not more communist by repeating the word many times. One is communist by working for class struggle, revolution, and socialism. Everything else is nothing more than cheap and useless folklore.

The creation of a broad front committed to revolutionary patriotism is one of the fundamental tasks. It must lead the struggle over Spain’s pressing issues and win the masses over to the forces of revolution, opposing and disputing them with reactionary forces.

During the last five years, we focused our efforts on cadre training and on developing the front. Many criticized us for inactivity, even claiming that we had ceased to be communists and had dissolved the party.

They failed to realize that we act according to short-, medium-, and long-term plans and know how to measure the efforts we must undertake. They were mistaken. We were accumulating strength, preparing for this moment in which, with the embryo of the front now secured, we can once again resume our agitational and public activity with renewed energy after our process of refoundation.

The surprise for some people will be enormous.

Alongside the creation and consolidation of a broad front, we must build a class-based trade union movement with a revolutionary perspective aimed at accumulating strength and serving as a school of war for future battles.

This trade union movement must oppose government-backed unions, subsidized organizations that have a deplorable image among workers due to their servility toward the powerful.

The work of the union must be professionally impeccable and combative, courageous in the agitation and political and social struggle it undertakes. Its principal mission is to attract workers, contributing to the recovery of class consciousness in broad sectors. Only in this way will we be able to accumulate strength and reach much wider groups of people.

Just as elections have a utility—they open the possibility of accumulating strength and serve as a loudspeaker for our proposals and positions—they will not serve to take power, because change will have to be forced through political struggle developed in other spheres.

Something similar happens with economic struggle. Change will not occur through it alone, because it has a clearly reformist essence. However, it allows us to raise awareness, reach people, and accumulate strength for the truly decisive battles required to achieve social transformation.

Our objectives are clear. It is necessary to begin the debate as soon as possible and carry out all the relevant changes needed to equip ourselves with the tools required to stop merely talking about revolution and begin working to make it happen.

REFERENCES

[1] Reconstitución no en el sentido de ciertos grupos actuales que solo repiten de forma cíclica desvaríos teóricos inútiles y alejados de toda práctica revolucionaria.

[2] Vladimir I. Lenin, ¿Por dónde empezar? Fondo documental EHK, 1973. Acceso el 28 de enero de 2025. https://www.abertzalekomunista.net/images/Liburu_PDF/Internacionales/Lenin/1901-_Por_donde_empezar-K.pdf.

[3] En el sentido marxista de revisionismo.

[4] Comité Central del PC(B) de la URSS, Historia del Partido Comunista (Bolchevique) de la URSS. Moscú: Ediciones de Lenguas Extranjeras, 1939, pp. 440-441. Acceso el 8 de enero de 2025. https://pceml.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Historia-del-PCb-de-la-URSS.pdf.

[5] M. Rosental y P. Iudin, Diccionario filosófico marxista. Montevideo: Pueblos Unidos, 1946, pp. 440-441.

[6] Friedrich Engels, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge in Hoboken. Marxist Internet Archive, 1886. Acceso el 8 de enero de 2025. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm.

[7] Iósif Stalin, Fundamentos del leninismo. Omegalfa, 2019, p. 20.

[8] Un ejemplo de esto es la creación de la guardia fronteriza soviética en 1918 y el “Reglamento sobre la protección de las fronteras estatales de la URSS” de 1927.

[9] S. Titarenko, Patriotism and Internationalism. Londres: Soviet News, 1950.

[10] Roberto Vaquero, ¿Cómo reconstruir la izquierda revolucionaria en España? Combatividad, principios, organización y cultura. España: Círculo Rojo, 2020, pp. 26-35.

[11] León Trotski, Historia de la Revolución rusa. Madrid: Capitán Swing, 2017, p. 1073.

[12] Libertarios en el sentido que da al término Michel Y. Clouscard, no Javier Milei.

[13] Roberto Vaquero, Resistencia y lucha contra el posmodernismo. Madrid: Letrame, 2019, pp. 19-27.

[14] Michel Y. Clouscard, Neofascismo e ideología del deseo. Pamplona: Templando el Acero, 2019, pp. 66-67.

[15] Se usa esta terminología para evitar juicios absurdos, en vez de utilizar la que usaban los clásicos sobre el tipo y ámbito de trabajo del partido comunista.

[16] Grover Furr, Stalin esperando… la verdad. Pamplona: Templando el Acero, 2021, pp. 22-36.

[17] Que, por supuesto, no tienen nada de revolucionarias.

[18] Este “antirracismo” tampoco tiene nada que ver con ser antirracista; no es más que otra moda desarrollada para imponer el pensamiento único del sistema bajo relatos falsos.

[19] Michel Y. Clouscard, Neofascismo e ideología del deseo. Pamplona: Templando el Acero, 2019, pp. 124-152.

[20] Vladimir I. Lenin, ¿Por dónde empezar? Fondo documental EHK, 1973, pp. 5-6. Acceso el 28 de enero de 2025. https://www.abertzalekomunista.net/images/Liburu_PDF/Internacionales/Lenin/1901-_Por_donde_empezar-K.pdf.

[21] Michel Y. Clouscard, El capitalismo de la seducción. Ediciones Edithor, 2021, pp. 54-62.

[22] Roberto Vaquero, Por qué el obrero vota a la derecha. Madrid: La Esfera de los Libros, 2024, pp. 35-38.

[23] No hablemos ya de la toma del poder encabezando la revolución. Para estos grupos comunistas se ha convertido en un relato ajeno a cualquier posibilidad de práctica futura.

[24] Término inventado para pretender equiparar al comunismo y al fascismo, y que encarna un significado negativo a todos los niveles.

[25] Vladimir I. Lenin, Obras completas, tomo 7. Fondo documental EHK, 1981, pp. 17-18. Acceso el 28 de enero de 2025. https://www.abertzalekomunista.net/images/Liburu_PDF/Internacionales/Lenin/Obras_Completas_LENIN_TOMO_07-K.pdf.

[26] Vladimir I. Lenin, ¿Qué hacer? Moscú: Progreso, pp. 108-109.

[27] Posiciones infantiles, sistémicas y reformistas folclóricas.