International Communist Party

Balance sheet of a revolution / Bilan d'une révolution

Armed soldiers in 1917 Moscow carry a banner reading 'Communism'

As one of the major works of the communist left, Bilan d'une révolution covers the undistorted reality of the great and tragic October revolution, the various false interpretations that still surround it, as well as the development of the Russian economy up until the 1960s and, in much detail, its capitalist character.

Balance sheet of a revolution (Bilan d’une révolution) - Part III: The Soviet economy after October

Alexander N. Poskrjobyschew and Stalin

In its last chapter, the balance sheet of the 1917 revolution examines the development of the Russian economy from the New Economic Policy of the early 1920s, through Stalin’s struggles against the Marxist left and Marxist right of the Bolshevik Party, up to the late 1960s.

Balance sheet of a revolution (Bilan d’une révolution) - Part II: False lessons about the counter‑revolution in Russia

Leon Trotskt sitting at his desk

Much has been written about the Stalinist counter-revolution, most of it is wrong.
This chapter of Bilan takes on those false interpretations espoused by Anarchists, Social Democrats, Trotskyists, and the like, all while also examining the deep disconnect between Trotsky and his disciples.

Balance sheet of a revolution (Bilan d’une révolution) - Part I: The great lessons of October 1917

Soviet leaders, celebrating the second anniversary of the revolution in Moscow

A historical analysis and balance sheet of the October Revolution from the perspective of invariant communism, showing what lessons to learn from its victory and fall, and what foundation a future proletarian movement must base itself upon.

Immutable tablets of the communist theory of the party

Gustave Doré: Moses breaks the tablets of the law (credit:

Amadeo Bordiga’s 1960 article, translated here into English for the first time, which summarizes and then extends his earlier commentary on Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. Rejecting all notions of Marx’s profound or lasting indebtedness to Hegel, the author advocates for the return of the communist party (in the historical rather than formal sense) to the “tablets of stone” upon which it was founded already in 1844. These consist of the programmatic description of communist society, which will bridge the gap between man and nature by abolishing the individual and personality, and resolve the riddles and contrasts that have plagued philosophy for thousands of years.

The original content of the communist program is the obliteration of the individual as an economic subject, rights-holder, and agent of human history (Part II)

Día de Muertos in Janitzio (credit: México Destinos)

The second part of Amadeo Bordiga’s exposition of the features of communist society and of the revolutionary party that, in his estimation, is the only entity able to bring it into being. Critique of democracy, and of the “immediatist” conceptions of those who would like to see the party replaced by different forms of organization, is here tightly interlinked with a vision of society which will know nothing of classes or exchange and which will spatially and temporally integrate the entire human species into the Social Man, who will not even have any use for “freedom” in the conventional sense of the word.

"Vae victis", Germany!

A 1960 article by Amadeo Bordiga on the role which Germany played in the two world wars and which the author expected it to play in a future communist revolution, translated into English for the first time. The translation does not imply endorsement; the article is reproduced here for reference and to illustrate Bordiga’s uneasy internationalism, which was characterized by a firm rejection of support for either the US or the USSR, but also by a dismissive, if not sympathetic attitude toward Nazi Germany.

The original content of the communist program is the obliteration of the individual as an economic subject, rights-holder, and agent of human history (Part I)

Mikhail Okhitovich's disurbanist public home (credit: Fosco Lucarelli, Socks)

In this text, whose French translation appeared in Camatte’s book Bordiga et la Passion du Communisme and which is translated into English for the first time here, Amadeo Bordiga lays out a concrete vision of communist society as reconstructed from Marx’s fragmentary writings on the subject. Communist production, while following “a common and rational plan”, will as a joyful act constitute “its own reward”. However, to attain such a state of affairs, a revolutionary “dictatorship over consumption” will first be necessary according to Bordiga.

The revolutionary program of communist society eliminates all forms of ownership of land, the instruments of production and the products of labor - Partito Comunista Internazionale

In this 1957 text drafted for the Partito Comunista Internazionale, Amadeo Bordiga, with his usual acerbic wit, restates some of the “invariant” principles of Marxism, denounces the idea that communism means collective or individual “property” or “ownership”—terms he subjects to historical analysis as transitory juridical forms—argues in favor of social usufruct as the concept most adequate for the future classless society, ridicules the “metaphysical and idealist” error of the “immediatists” who hold that “socialism is a struggle for the individual liberation of the worker” and, just to rub it in, condemns drinkers and smokers as “usufructuary traitors” against the health of the species.

Bordiga and the passion for communism – Jacques Camatte

Jacques Camatte’s 1972 essay on Amadeo Bordiga, discussing the Italian Marxist’s notorious “invariance”, his “hermeneutics” of “the precise connection between the proletariat and theory”, his “prophetic vision” of the communist future, his identification of the party with the class, his disdain for the cult of personality, his “anti-gradualism”, the impact of the publication of the Grundrisse and the Economic Manuscripts of 1844 on his thought, his precocious environmentalism, his anti-individualism, and his failure to recognize the significance of May ’68, pointing out that despite all his contradictions and limitations “his works are full of starting points for new research”.