Defend the No! No Nice Treaty! Nice Means More Union!

Three times, we Danes have voted no. Nevertheless, the government and the yes-parties are working intensely to defy the content of the no vote, paving the way for more Union with the upcoming Nice Treaty.

For the Nice Summit in December, the decision on the introduction of majority voting is being prepared. This means away with the right of veto and accepting interference in the fiscal and social policies of every single country. Also, there is scheduled more power to Germany and France due to the fact that they get more votes as the minor countries get fewer, and due to the accept of them running at full speed, making more Union in order to demand later that the rest of the EU follows them. The accept of interfering in the internal affairs of every single EU member state through the adoption of a Union charter is also on the agenda in Nice.

To the Union politicians, promises exist to be broken. Today, all parties of the Folketing (the national parliament) are involved in Denmark’s adjustment to the EU: The Socialist People’s Party is supporting the Nice mandate of the government, the Unity List (Red-Greens) is supporting the state budget for 2001, adapted to the demands of the EU, and Danish People’s Party will support a future openly bourgeois Union government.

Fundamentally speaking, the no of the September 28 referendum was a no to the Union slide – a no to more Union. It was a no to the abolition of the veto and the transition to majority decisions, a no to Union harmonization, also of fiscal, social and domestic policies.

It was a no to the “United States of Europe” with its own state, government, currency and military, and which is still under way, even though the Danish workers and the majority of the population do not want it.

All popular forces must support that Denmark does not vote for a new Union treaty in Nice because the Danish people has voted against more Union.

The Denmark of the future: Outside the EU

It is attempted to pack away the whole Union development by describing it with phrases like “the peace project” and “the incorporation of the Eastern European countries into the EU for the sake of the populations living in these countries”.

But to the European working class, the reality of the EU has been a strengthening of the monopolies at the expense of the workers. It has meant privatisation, increased rate of work and the dismantling of collective rights and the welfare society.

Within the next years there will come more Union, more centralisation. There exist plans for changing the treaties to a real federal constitution within five years. Then the United States of Europe will be a reality, a state suppressing the social rights and democracy, a state with its own military, tax collection and EU nationalism, trying to play the role as superpower towards the rest of the world.

Therefore, we are already now seeing the Union supporters preparing for the crucial referendum that shall put an end to all the provisos and finally integrate Denmark into both the euro, the Union army and the Union state.

If Denmark shall be able to refuse more Union, there is only one answer: We must get out of the EU! Denmark cannot put the brake on the Union roulette, but it can say yes to become an independent country again.

What do we win outside the EU? We win the right to welfare and the possibility of negotiating solidarily and equally with the peoples in Eastern Europe and in the developing countries. We win the freedom of saying no to lots of stupid and disagreeable EU rules and the possibility of fighting for workers’ rights. We win the possibility of getting democracy and the right of making equal agreements on trade, culture and peace with our neighbouring countries, with the European as well as the poor countries. We win the freedom from the endless Union screw and regain the national independence.

It is not at all unrealistic, and in the course of time other EU countries will undoubtedly accompany us.

In October, an opinion poll showed that 46 percent of the voters are fundamentally against the EU-membership. This many would vote no, if there were a referendum on the Danish EU-membership now.

A referendum on the EU-membership can be won!

To all no-voters, the position must be clear: If the government defies the no of the September 28 referendum and signs the Nice Treaty, all no-forces must unite in demanding a referendum on that treaty.

No to more Union – the Nice Treaty must be dropped!

Stopping the Union can only become reality when Denmark is out of the EU.

Copenhagen, October 24, 2000

Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark (APK)

Kommunistisk Politik, No. 22, October 28, 2000


The Danish No to the Euro – a Victory for the Working Class and the People

The referendum about Danish adoption of the Euro and removal of the national currency, the krone, ended in a resounding victory for the No. It was a No to the dissolution of Denmark as an independent currency nation – a major symbol of one of the constituting factors of a nation.

And it was a definite No also to closer integration into the European Union and its course towards a supranational state in whatever form, a No to any kind of “United States of Europe”.

With 53.1 pct. voting No and 46.9 pct. voting yes and a record-like turnout of 87 percent of all voters, this was an even more clear-cut decision than the No to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

The Danish bourgeoisie and its social supporters almost to a man recommended a Yes-vote. The social democratic led coalition government and the official opposition of the main conservative and liberal parties led a co-ordinated campaign in favour of a yes. The state propaganda was in favour of a yes. The employers’ organisations and the entire social democratic leadership of the trade unions (with the exception of a few minor trade unions) carried out a co-ordinated campaign for the Euro. The Yes-side controlled the mass media and spent millions of kroner (five times as much as the No-side) on advertisements and propaganda for a Yes.

The Yes-campaign was a horrendous mix of threats, promises, false “guaranties”, insults and intimidations of the No-side. They threatened that the Danes in case of a No would lose their home, work and bread!

In spite of this the result was an overwhelming No, reflecting the true interests of the Danish working class and people. Being the project of big capital, of monopoly capital, to advance profits and create a new imperialist European superpower, competing with the USA, less than one third of the population, with the working class as its core, has any objective interest in this project. On the contrary: “United Europe” is against the interests of the workers and the people. In the period of Danish membership, which has included adaptation of the convergence demands of the Maastricht Treaty, the Danes have seen a growth in mass unemployment, privatisation of great parts of the public sector, reduced social welfare and constant attacks on the hard-won rights of the workers. Schools, educational centres, kindergartens and health services have been cut back to a lower standard. The so-called Nordic welfare-model has been changed beyond recognition.

The EU sanctions against Austria, that showed the interference in the autonomy of a sovereign nation, also assisted the NO-campaign in a small country like Denmark that has always fought the domination of greater neighbouring powers like Germany, the main force in the Union of the monopolies. Of big importance for the strong NO were also the crises of the Euro, the demonstration of the weakness of this currency and its factual devaluation.

This is speeding up the process of building the Union State and stimulates so-called reforms to harmonise social legislation, finances, taxes, labour market and so on. In advance the Danes voted against the upcoming Nice-treaty, that is going to remove the unanimity principal in favour of majority decisions, and the expected “reforms”.

The referendum confirmed all the existing Danish “exceptions” (of which non-participation in the Euro and the third phase of the Economic Monetary Union was one) to the Maastricht Treaty, including the not joining of the “European army”, that is going to be ready in 2003. Had the rulers won this election, there would have been held a new referendum in a short time to remove the three other exceptions.

Pursuing their own class interests the bourgeois media presents the result of the referendum as a victory of the Right, and as a nationalist and chauvinist No. This is a major distortion. All the parties to the left of Social Democracy, including small revisionist parties, have constant advocated a No. The small so-called Christian Peoples’ Party, a small party of the “Centre”, which had a couple of ministers in the previous bourgeois government of Poul Schlüter, which preceded the present government of Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, also advocated a No. The populist right-wing party Danish Peoples’ Party with less than ten percent of the voters was presented as the leading advocate of a No, which is a total falsification. In the political sense, a great range of forces represents the No, covering the entire political spectrum. Among the major political forces are the two Danish No-movements – the Peoples’ Movement against the European Union (created as a broad social and political front organisation already before Danish entry into EU in 1972) and the June Movement, which are represented in the European parliament with 25 percent of the Danish votes, but not running for representation in the Danish parliament. They are supported by the Danish left and a great percentage of those voters that oppose the pro-Union stands of their parties. It is a fact that more than half of the social democratic voters voted against the massive recommendation of a yes by the party and its leadership. The NO-movements rallied support behind the slogan: “Hold på kronen – Nej til Unionen”, rhyming in Danish: “Uphold the krone, No to the Union!”

The No, then, was the voice of the majority of the Danish workers, and of the popular social forces. A No from the working people in the cities and the countryside. Only in a few rich areas there were a majority of Yes-votes. All the big cities, the peninsula Jutland, traditional yes-territory, and the islands, Zealand with Copenhagen, and Funen with Odense, voted No.

The APK campaigned for a NO with the slogans: “If the workers vote No, Denmark shall vote No!” and “Stop the monopolies, the bureaucrats and the EU-politicians!”.

In fact the latter – the rulers – got a slap in the face by the people. Their unionist policies have been rejected. This is an important victory for the people in one battle – but the struggle around Danish membership of the European Union is far from finished. The krone is still closely tied to the Euro. The aim of the consistent opposition to the EU is to remove all ties to the Union, getting Denmark out of it.

Copenhagen, September 29, 2000

Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark (APK)


Communiqué of the Founding Congress of Arbejderpartiet Kommunisterne (Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark)

Dear comrades,

From the Founding Congress of Arbejderpartiet Kommunisterne (APK) (Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark), we greet the parties and organizations of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.

We are happy to announce, that the Founding Congress was successfully completed, achieving all the tasks set.

With the creation of the Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark, the foundations of the working class communist party of the 21st century have been laid in our country. It is determined to lead the struggle of the working class and its allies to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, establish the power of the working class and create a modern socialist society without exploitation and suppression.

The founding of the Party marks the conclusion of three years of concrete preparations to unite the Danish communists on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and on a concrete programme of struggle, drawing a clear line of demarcation to modern revisionism of all kinds and opportunism of every hue. The party preparing communist organization Oktober (October), which emerged from the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist) (DKP/ML) after its 7th Congress in 1997 and following revisionist degeneration, played a major role in the preparations for the Party and was dissolved with its founding. All the assets of October were handed over to the Party.

The Founding Congress listened to and adopted the Report to the Congress, “The Communist Party is the Party of the Working Class”, as well as it discussed and adopted its programme of action, “United Struggle against the Capital”, and the party statutes.

A major advance of the Congress was the adaptation of “THE MANIFESTO FOR A SOCIALIST DENMARK”, the programme of principle, which in the coming period will be widely distributed among communist sympathizers, revolutionaries and progressive people around the country. It constitutes the concrete platform of unification of the communist and revolutionary forces of today in our country.

The Party will continue the publication of the fortnightly journal Kommunistisk Politik (Communist Policy) as its central organ, and publish the magazine Orientering (Orientations) as its theoretical journal.

From its first day, the Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark will be found on the barricades of the class struggle of the working class and its allies against the offensive of the capital. Thus, it will make its contributions so that the working class and the Danish people will vote against Danish participation in the Euro and the third phase of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) at the September 28th referendum.

The Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark is part of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement that was created and developed in the struggle against modern revisionism, basing itself on the immortal teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. It will join the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations, considering this conference to be an indispensable tool of enhancing unity and collaboration of the Marxist-Leninist communists in the world.

The Founding Congress solemnly declares that Arbejderpartiet Kommunisterne, as the Danish section of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, will strive to fulfil all its internationalist obligations on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

The Congress greets all the fraternal Marxist-Leninist communist parties and organizations of the world, expressing its wish to strengthen the mutual relations of co-operation and struggle on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

We wish you future successes and advances on the road of revolution and socialism.


Long live proletarian internationalism!

Long live the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement!

Glory to Marxism-Leninism!




Copenhagen, April 21 – 23, 2000

The party struggle in the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist) and its lessons

The Struggle for the Communist Party of the Working Class and the Development of the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist)

A critical and self-critical analysis

by the Party-Building Communist Organization OCTOBER, February 1999.


The theoretical journal of the communist organization October, Orientering (Orientations), No. 1, February 1999, carried under the above heading an extensive analysis of the struggle to create and maintain the communist party of the working class in Denmark on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of Denmark (DKP).

The first part entitled “From DKP to DKP/ML” deals with the revisionist degeneration of the Communist Party of Denmark in the 1950s and 1960s and the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist communists to reconstruct a genuine communist party, succeeding in the founding of the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist) (DKP/ML) in 1978.

The second part entitled “The Communist Party of Denmark 1978-1997” describes the development of DKP/ML on the road of Marxism-Leninism during this period.

The third part entitled “DKP/ML since 1997: a false “Marxist-Leninist” party” deals with the development and characteristics of present-day DKP/ML.

The fourth and concluding part, entitled “The party struggle in the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist) and its lessons” deals with the party struggle in 1996-1997, that led to a revisionist takeover in the party, its division and the formation by the Marxist-Leninists of the party of the communist organization October in August 1997. It also examines the faults and mistakes of the Marxist-Leninist leadership of DKP/ML that assisted the revisionist takeover.

Here follows a complete English translation of the fourth part of the document.


The party struggle in the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist) and its lessons

The party struggle in the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist) (DKP/ML), during 1996-1997, was a struggle between the Marxist-Leninist line of the party and a revisionist line in the making, a revisionist line which today is about to be fully developed. The struggle expressed the acute intensification of the class struggle within the party and was provoked by a group of rightist people, headed by some trade union bureaucrats. For quite some time, this group had been developing a factional activity within the party, preparing for the final battle against the Marxist-Leninist majority of the party leadership. It was making alliances with the “Cuban phalanx” which had developed inside the party and with a number of other petty-bourgeois elements in the apparatus and leadership of the party. The individuals playing a key role in this revisionist group were Søren Becher, Jan Mathiesen, Joan Ågot Pedersen, Jørgen Petersen (present First Secretary of the Central Committee of DKP/ML), Sven Tarp and Karen Sunds. Lotte Rørtoft-Madsen, among others, later joined this group.

The first manifestation of this disguised rightist faction was to combat the antifascist and refugee/immigrant programme of the party, a programme expressing a class-based line for this struggle. Under the influence of the Unity List (Red-Greens) (Enhedslisten) and Demos, a group of party members, around and working at the local radio station, Københavnerkanalen, was opposing this policy and the general line of the party. After the line of the group was defeated at the 6th Congress of the party in 1994, it resigned from the party, but from outside the group was calling for struggle against the party. At that time, the party condemned the group unanimously, but it has now been “rehabilitated”, contrary to the resolutions of the party congress.

These events should turn out to be merely the first open battle of the party struggle. In 1996, the final struggle on the character of the party started off by campaigns of gossip and rumours and the creation of “petty cases” which basically were ridiculous and directed against the Marxist-Leninist party leaderships, leaders and especially against Klaus Riis (First Secretary of the Central Committee of DKP/ML from the founding of the party in 1978 until the 7th Congress in 1997). Distorting systematically the positions and intentions of the Marxist-Leninists, a general atmosphere of uncertainty in the party, a feeling of “something is really wrong” in the party and party leadership, was created.

A revisionist coup was being prepared; a faction was working inside the leadership and central apparatus of the party, as well as in the party leaderships of the big districts of Copenhagen and Aarhus. The creation of a “party crisis”, in which the revisionist faction could pose as “saviours”, was the objective of these actions.

In preparation of the 7th Congress of the party, which was to take place in March 1997, the Central Committee, in the autumn of 1996, passed a set of theses, which was submitted to the entire party for discussion. These theses adhered to and further developed the Marxist-Leninist line and policy of the party in a number of fields and constituted the basis of the party work of the coming three-year period till the next congress. The Central Committee adopted them unanimously. At that time, the factional elements did not dare to oppose them openly. However, by factional work, involving elements outside the party, they succeeded in raising doubt about the cadre policy of the party, expressed in the theses. The faction started a crusade, which had no objective basis or content, postulating that the theses laid the foundation for a fundamental change of the cadre and member policy of the party dividing up its members into “A, B and C members”.

This was taken out of the air, but it had, in fact, an effect on the Central Committee, as it broke in two. A compromise was made on this question, but the struggle between two different lines was already in full swing. In an attempt of avoiding the sharpening of the situation into a hostile break and split of the party, Klaus Riis announced that he would not apply for renomination as first secretary at the coming congress. The rightist faction was getting appetite for more, and it then made the decisive attack for getting control of the party leadership and set aside the line of the party, as well as the congress theses that defended and developed that line.

The faction did not succeed in winning the majority of neither the daily leadership of the party nor the Secretariat of the Central Committee, in attacking the policy and line of the party up till then and the theses for the congress, but instead it succeeded in doing so in the important Political Bureau. By a well-prepared action at the meeting of the Political Bureau, preparing the meeting of the Central Committee, that was to take place the following day, a plan for the abolition of the daily leadership, and for putting the first secretary “under administration” and prevent him from doing his work, was presented and decided. At the same time a resolution, which rejected the very same congress theses, discussed and unanimously adopted by the Central Committee some months before, was presented. This coup, against the statutes of the party, succeeded. The rightist faction of the Central Committee got the support of a number of vacillating elements, and even the Marxist-Leninist forces were divided.

Politically the following 7th Congress in March 1997 appeared to be a “congress of compromise”. Essentially, however, it was a congress of splitting. The victorious faction did not yet dare to change the line of party, but the congress resulted in its complete takeover of the Central Committee, the party apparatus and the daily party newspaper, Dagbladet Arbejderen. In fact, the congress meant the almost total cleansing of the Marxist-Leninist leaders, who from the very beginning had headed the building of the party. It did not create unity within the party, but left the party divided into different wings.

A split of the party and expulsions of the Marxist-Leninists

The real ideological and political substance of the party struggle was not clearly understood by the majority of the party members, who were heavily bombarded with sparks of the struggles inside the party leadership, with rumours and gossip, and a large number of memorandums. The above-mentioned trade union bureaucrats were showing off as the “guarantee” of the proletarian character of the coup. Many members took political positions according to their personal relations, on the basis of personal trust. Because of the rapid developments of this struggle, before and after the 7th Congress, they did not get many chances of examining it independently, on the basis of facts and documents.

The revisionist faction, who was in control of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the Central Committee, whose supporters made up the overwhelming majority of the newly elected Central Committee, decreed that “the party struggle is over”, even though the congress left behind a number of questions, on which there existed disagreements, undiscussed and not adopted. As an example, this was the case with the “Programme for a Socialist Denmark”, a document inspired by revisionism. This document had been on the agenda of the congress, but it was postponed until later, i.e. until a new congress, in as much the congress is the only forum where the adoption of communist party programmes can take place.

Jørgen Petersen, Søren Becker and Co. understood that time was against the new leadership and its plans, that in the course of time the facts and the real content of the party struggle would become more and more obvious. Time would also reveal the new line of the party (a fact denied at the congress, although it was concluded that the party had become “a different party”), among other things, by going beyond or overruling the essential resolutions of the 7th Congress that were obstacles to the development of the new line in all fields. They were anxious to go further along the revisionist path and “prove” that this path would bring progress and advancement.

Objectively, the party had never had better possibilities of advancement, as it had at the time of the 7th Congress.

The party struggle was kept behind closed doors, although the new party leadership in Dagbladet Arbejderen, through the coverage of the congress and the change of first secretary, was bringing the news of “radical changes under way”.

As the former first secretary still was considered the main obstacle to the development of the new line of the party, a plan for the expulsion of him and his two close comrades, Dorte Grenaa and the communist veteran, Frede Klitgård, was initiated. At all points of the party struggle, the latter had resisted the revisionist faction resolutely, and at the decisive meeting of the Central Committee, which altered the direction of the party, he had laid down his mandate, protesting the revisionist coup against the party. Confident of its complete control of the party apparatus and Dagbladet Arbejderen, and especially relying on the strong loyalty to the party (a fine communist characteristic), the faction assumed that only a few handfuls would follow “Klaus Riis and Co.”. For its expulsions it even assured itself of the support of leaders of the revisionist parties Common Course Workers’ Party (Fælles Kurs), the Brezhnevite Communist Party in Denmark (KPiD) and the Communist Party of Denmark (DKP).

The expulsions were carried out against all communist standards. The item of expulsions was not even put on the official agenda of the meeting of the Central Committee, which passed them. Those expelled had neither received any notification of impending expulsion nor been confronted with any concrete “accusations”, and they were deprived of any possibility of defending themselves against false charges. In the deepest secrecy and hidden from the party, the Central Committee was turned into a special tribunal, a court-martial, in which the verdict was already given, due to the hand-picked majority of the faction. Obviously, the expulsions needed to be motivated, and because of the lack of any evidence in accusing the former first secretary and his two comrades of opposing the line and programme of the party, a number of fantastic and mendacious accusations of violating democratic centralism and faction making were fabricated. The “crime” of the expelled comrades was, however, that they had resisted and would continue resisting the alteration of the party line that was carried out by the faction of Jørgen Petersen.

At the very moment this special tribunal decided on expulsion, the few Marxist-Leninist members of the Central Committee, elected at the 7th Congress, gave up their mandates and left the party. Shortly after, they were joined by almost one third of the party members.

What had happened was actually an expulsion of the Marxist-Leninist wing of the party, a deliberate splitting of the party.

The revisionist DKP/ML continued its work on the basis of the results achieved in the period of Marxist-Leninist leadership, e.g. Dagbladet Arbejderen. It had, however, due to the expulsions and the splitting, destroyed the extremely positive situation of the party definitively. In return, it was free to provide the communist movement and public its version, its mendacious stories of the party struggle, of the three expelled and the Marxist-Leninist wing, that formed the Party Building Communist Organization October (Oktober) and began the publication of Kommunistisk Politik (Communist Policy), the central organ of October.

Klaus Riis, Dorte Grenaa and Frede Klitgård were branded as “enemies of the party” and “factionalists”. The Marxist-Leninist line and politics was denounced as “dogmatism” and “left opportunism”.

Just as the revisionist DKP and the Maoist Communist Workers’ Party (KAP), in the past, tried to isolate the revolutionary DKP/ML, the “new DKP/ML” was trying to isolate and combat the Marxist-Leninists and October.

This is how the revisionist leadership of DKP/ML achieved “free hands” to develop its revisionist line and policy, and it did not twiddle its thumbs. In quick succession, the anti-revolutionary platform described above (in the third part of the present document, translators note) was developed. These events in a former revolutionary party did not pass without notice. DKP/ML has become almost “presentable”. The party suddenly got a big media coverage, when it declared itself a supporting party of the Unity List (Red-Greens), which in its turn is a party, supporting the social democratic government, and when it announced, that it was considering joining the Unity List (Red-Greens). In the bourgeois press, the revisionist DKP/ML gets a coverage contrasting sharply with the systematic boycott against the revolutionary DKP/ML.

Dagbladet Arbejderen, after its transformation into an appendage of the day-to-day struggle and its developments, so to say into a speaker’s corner of the entire revisionist left, has “come in from the cold”, too. Today it must be called the “worthy” successor of the defunct daily of DKP, Land og Folk, sealed completely from Marxist-Leninist contributions.

On the initiative of the Association of Danish Daily Newspapers, it has even become member of this venerable employers’ institution.

These tangible “gains” of the present revisionist DKP/ML were just a part of all the “gains” achieved by the closing down sale of revolutionary ideals and principles of the former revolutionary party.

The errors and shortcomings of the Marxist-Leninists

The 6th Congress of DKP/ML in 1994 laid down the continuing construction and development of the party, of its leading role in the communist movement and the class struggle, of the consolidation and further development of Dagbladet Arbejderen, as the main tasks for the coming three-year period. It called for revolutionizing the party, strengthening democratic centralism within the party and combating the danger to the party that its members were turned into merely activists of the party newspaper, of the party apparatus, or into an appendage to the trade unions and mass organizations. It stressed that right opportunism constituted the main danger to the party, that tendencies of right opportunism, especially tendencies of reconciliation with modern revisionism, were showing in a number of fields in the work of the party and had to be combated head-on and effectively.

The congress period was marked by the inner struggle, which developed into a struggle between two different political lines; the Marxist-Leninist line, the line of the party from its founding and maintained during changing and sometimes dramatic historical developments, and a rightist line, a revisionist line coming into existence, whose true content and character was not revealed fully until after the 7th Congress.

The strong Marxist-Leninist majority of the Central Committee and party committees on different levels were undermined by the factional struggle of which the result is already known.

But what are the reasons for the defeat of the Marxist-Leninists?

The class struggle in the communist party, the struggle on two fronts, against right and left opportunism, is an objective phenomenon, which goes on continuously.

It is directed by the Central Committee in order to defend the line of the party, defend Marxism-Leninism as a theory and practice, and make sure the complete implementing of the party decisions without any distortions. The entire inner development of the party, from its founding, has taken place as a struggle on these two fronts, with the struggle against right opportunism, especially the influence of modern revisionism, constituting the main danger, as the principal struggle.

The revolutionary party and its members are neither isolated from society, from the class struggle, nor from the propaganda or ideological and political pressure of the bourgeois, reformist and revisionist parties. Because of this, the party must continuously hinder that these influences do not become rooted in the party itself.

This is done primarily by raising the Marxist-Leninist level of the party and its members, by revolutionizing the work of the party so that it keeps up with the changing situations and demands, and by getting rid of opportunist elements and members who have lost the revolutionary spirit.

The end of the 1980s and the early 1990s were very difficult periods that taxed the energy of a lot of people. The influx of new party members was negligible, and half a generation of youths was “lost” as was the case to other communist parties as well. The old cadres were beginning to feel worn-down while the tasks of the party were growing everywhere, with respect to the further building of the party, the development of the daily, and the class struggle and mass organizations. The number of party members in trade union organizations and other mass organizations were growing while the actual influence of the party was diminishing at the workplaces.

Among the consequences were a serious weakening of the party studies and the vigorous defence of the revolutionary theory, of the presentation of the revolutionary lessons of struggle, gained by the party and the communist movement, including the historical struggle against modern revisionism that was continuing its undermining work, assuming new forms.

Towards the mid-1990s, the influx of members again started, due to a series of initiatives, activities and the generally strengthened positions of the party. The new members were primarily revolutionary youths without much experience concerning Marxism-Leninist theory and practice, but also a number of young and older people who had been educated politically in the depressed and dissolved revisionist parties, especially the DKP of the 1970s and 1980s, joined the ranks of the party. Some of these people, without traditions of struggle and communist party consciousness, turned out to be vacillating elements, who were manipulated by the revisionist faction, which developed and had its centre in a clique inside the Central Committee. The general Marxist-Leninist level of the party was lowered.

It is the responsibility of the Marxist-Leninists that a situation developed that resulted in the strengthening of the petty-bourgeois elements in the party and the weakening of the dominance and influence of the revolutionary workers. Some of these even left the party.

To a small party, the publication of a revolutionary daily newspaper is a huge task. For many years the survival and development of the daily was the main task of the party. The daily was the strongest weapon of the party, but if the daily takes control of the party, instead of the reverse, it can turn out to be a two-edged sword. In DKP/ML this was the case. The 6th Congress made a strong effort to change this situation, but not sufficiently. The economic crisis of the daily and the necessary campaign to save it, which the petty-bourgeois rightist elements in the party were deepening and sabotaging, respectively, while refusing to accept party priorities (e.g. through passivity) took up the time of the Marxist-Leninist forces to such an extent, that other tasks, politically and ideologically important, including the struggle against the growing danger from the right, were being neglected, out of respect for the survival of the daily and the unity of the party. The party control of the work of party members working politically in mass organizations and trade unions, especially those working in the trade union apparatus, was gradually weakened. This caused the detachment of these people from the party and its priorities; it caused “trade union autonomy” which also manifested itself in the Trade Union Committee of the Central Committee. This committee was essential in the development of a legalist trade union line and the opportunist “alliance policy” which characterizes the party today.

All these factors, and more, made the creation of a right opportunist and revisionist line in the party possible.

Generally, it must be stated that the Marxist-Leninist leaders of the party did not carry out the struggle against right opportunism consistently and in all fields. It must also be added that besides this absence in the work of the Marxist-Leninist leaders, they also made a number of grave errors, which made the development of the revisionist line and its victory in the party struggle easier.

This was reflected in a tendency of underestimating the threat, which modern revisionism as a well-developed and deeply rooted opportunist current, active for half a century, continues to be to the revolutionary struggle of the working class, and especially of underestimating the factual influence of modern revisionism inside some sections of the party.

In fact the Marxist-Leninist party leadership allowed that essential elements of the new opportunist line developed and were expressed, internally and externally, in different ways.

In Dagbladet Arbejderen, the two lines, the two different views, e.g. in relation to Cuba and North Korea, were both to be seen. The Marxist-Leninists did not ensure, that the party view on these countries, as countries that deserved the support only on an anti-imperialist basis, or its views on the opportunist character of “Juche” and Castroism, were made clear. Such faulty “tactics” resulted in a general confusion about the party line, inside and outside the party, although a fundamentally correct line in these questions was expressed in the documents and resolutions of the party. By elaborating such “tactics” and by turning “tactic” into strategy, the right elements succeeded in raising doubt about the line and policy of the party in a number of fields, causing confusion about it, and succeeded in this way to formulate and lay down the essential elements of their revisionist line and strategy.

When the party struggle became very acute, above all in the District Committee of Copenhagen and in the Central Committee, the Marxist-Leninist elements in the leadership got confused, and for quite some time they were trying to reach “compromises” in order to save the unity of the party as well as Dagbladet Arbejderen. This lead to compromises, including on questions of principles, to the splitting of the ranks of the Marxist-Leninists who were not organizing an effective defence of the party line or calling on the whole party to crush the factionalist and right opportunist clique. This was also the case, when the Marxist-Leninists were reduced to a minority in the party leadership. They had neglected getting rid of the revisionist elements and elements hostile to the party, elements who did not at all hesitate to smash it into pieces.

The party allowed that a number of old cadres embarked on careers in the trade union apparatus and as officials of other mass organizations. These people became the majority of the Trade Union Committee of the party, and they tried to run it as a kind of “autonomous” entity, thereby sabotaging the decisions of the Central Committee concerning its tasks and priorities. Besides the “autonomy” of these new union officials, their new jobs resulted in a standard of living considerably higher than the living of ordinary workers. When the question of bringing their salary to the level of an ordinary worker was raised, these elements virtually exploded with rage and in anger confirming the old saying, that you don’t bite the hand that is feeding you.

The development of the disguised rightist line was facilitated by other errors in the policy and initiatives of the party during the 1990s, too.

Of course a party is not able to avoid making errors in the complex class struggle, and therefore it tries to rectify them, as soon as they are realized. Otherwise the party will get punished. Among such errors, which eventually achieved importance, but were not rectified, was the failure regarding the status of the revolutionary youth organization, Red Youth (Rød Ungdom). It must be pointed out, that it was an error that this organization, from its very beginning, did not openly and actually attach to DKP/ML, and to the struggle for a strong communist party and to scientific socialism.

What the international communist movement after 1991 is concerned, it must be stated that DKP/ML committed a number of errors.

The party held the correct view that the international communist movement, first and foremost, had to be built by creating strong Marxist-Leninist parties in the respective countries, while at the same time “The New World Order” and the so-called globalisation demanded, that the collaboration and coordination of the struggle of the communists, the working class and the peoples had to be strengthened.

The Marxist-Leninist communist parties could and should also play an active role in the processes that were taking place in the world among the declared communist parties. Among other things, they should support the attempts to rebuild genuine communist parties in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We do not consider it an error that the party tried to orientate itself by making connections with declared communist forces in a number of countries in which Marxist-Leninist fraternal parties did not exist. Also the assessment of the party, that the time was not ripe for founding an international communist organization, a new Comintern, was correct.

However, DKL/ML neither fought to preserve nor energetically developed relations of bilateral or other nature with a number of fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties that upheld their Marxist-Leninist positions. Especially the parties of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations, founded in 1994, on the basis of the appeal “Communist Call to the Workers and Peoples of the World”, the so-called Declaration of Quito.

We consider it an error of principle matter that DKP/ML established fraternal relations with the Workers’ Party of Korea and the Communist Party of Cuba, in spite of the fact that the party in its basic documents stressed the existence of fundamental ideological and political differences in relation to both of them.

This was a violation of the strategic principle of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement about developing and consolidating unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Establishing fraternal relations with these two parties in power, parties from the camp of modern revisionism, could not lead to a strengthening of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, but only contribute to the blurring of the demarcation line between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism, in the communist movement and in the party itself.

Marxism-Leninism is invincible

All this being said, it must be stressed that the name of the revolutionary DKP/ML of 1978-1997 has been enrolled honourably in the history of the communist movement of Denmark, enrolled as a small, but genuine communist party, which in a very difficult period of international counter-revolution and reformist, revisionist treachery raised the red banner of the working class and revolution. It contributed decisively to the survival of Marxism-Leninism and communist policy as a vivid force in the struggle of the working class.

In the present struggle to establish the communist party of the working class, which is the fundamental task of the Danish communists today, and the main task of the communist organization October, the experiences of the revolutionary DKP of 1919 till around 1960 and the revolutionary DKP/ML are particularly important.

The lessons of the revisionist degeneration of these parties also constitute a part of this.

The communists and the working class always pay a high price for revisionist treachery. But it must also be noted, that a high price will be paid for all errors of the Marxist-Leninists, when they fail to

combat right and left opportunism, modern revisionism, reformism etc.

Once more, the party struggle in DKP/ML has proven, that the struggle against opportunism must be carried out head-on, putting away the kid gloves, and that the communist party strengthens itself by getting rid of opportunist elements. Compromises and concessions regarding questions of principle, affecting the foundations of Marxism-Leninism, are inadmissible and always carry the germ of defeat and degeneration.

Social democracy, right as well as left social democracy, and modern revisionism constitute counter-revolutionary currents within the working class movement. Without their defeat, without turning them into a minority in the working class movement, a socialist Denmark is not possible. Only the communist party of the working class will be able to defeat their present dominance, which is deeply rooted (especially due to the social democratic trade union movement) and will be able to develop the revolutionary line of class struggle and revolution in the entire working class, at the workplaces, in the trade union movement, among all progressive classes and strata.

Today, in the year of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the revolutionary DKP, of the 30th anniversary of Communist League (Marxist-Leninist) (KFML) and the 20th anniversary of the founding of DKP/ML, the task of the communists, the best elements in the working class, the revolutionary youth, is the foundation of the communist party of the working class.

Many generations of revolutionaries have struggled for this objective, for creating and developing the working class party, the essential and indispensable instrument for achieving their aspirations. The party will be built on all these experiences and lessons, won in the struggle.

Guided by invincible Marxism-Leninism, the communist party of the working class will be able to ensure the victory of socialism in Denmark in the coming century.

February 1999





Second National Conference of OKTOBER, Denmark

On the 19th – 20th September 1998 the party building communist organisation OKTOBER completed with success its 2nd National Conference.

The conference, among others, heard and approved the report of the National Leadership, delivered by national secretary Franz Krejbjerg. It adopted a number of resolutions, constituting the political program of action of the Danish working class, and analysed the situation in the Danish communist movement, the international relations of October, and elected the new National Leadership.
The report to the conference drew up the balance of the work of OKTOBER since its founding in august 1997, following a dramatic split of DKP/ML, the Communist Party of Denmark (“Marxist-Leninist”).
It stated, that most of the tasks set by the Founding Conference of OKTOBER had been successfully completed. The mere existence of OKTOBER had preserved the marxist-leninist line of the Danish communist movement in the face of a co-ordinated attack by modern revisionism and former marxist-lennists, turning revisionist, as the present leadership of DKP/ML.
During its first year OKTOBER has managed to organise itself in a national scale, publish the central organ Kommunistisk Politik (’Communist Politics’) every 14 days as a quality magazine -and take part in a number of important class battles, adding militancy and class perspective. These include the great labour conflict in the spring of 98, where hundred of thousand Danish workers went on strike against labour contracts, negotiated by the LO, the treacherous socialdemocratic leadership of the Danish trade unions . And also the campaign to vote No at the referendum about the Amsterdam Treaty of the European Union.
The report pointed to the lack of a strong and genuine marxist-leninist, communist party and the existence of a number of small and fragmented revisionist parties and organisations as the main problem of the Danish communist and revolutionary movement. It also pointed to socialdemocratic control of the labour movement and trade union legalism on the part of the socialdemocratic and revisionist left wing of the trade union movement as other main problems confronting the Danish communists and revolutionaries.

Impending capitalist world crises: Make the rich pay!

Under the heading The beginning of the capitalist world crises and ’The New World order’ a resolution analysing the current world economic crises and the sharpening of all the main contradictions in the world the conference among others stated:
“The capitalist world market, during the last number of years developed under headings such as ’global market economy’ and ’globalisation’ is experiencing serious turbulence. The optimistic predictions that the world was heading towards a period of uninterrupted growth without crises, have already been denied…
The indications are that the acute capitalist world crises will also spread to other continents, regions and countries, that in so far have been relatively little affected, with destructive social consequences – including the main imperialist countries, that until now to a large extent have been able to throw the burdens of the crises on to weaker countries and their economies.
The impending capitalist economic world crises appears to become one of the most severe of this century …
Even though the present crises has its own specific features, it constitutes a classic capitalist crises of overproduction…

The counterrevolutionary processes in Europe and the rest of the world in the 80es and the beginning of the 90es led to the establishment of the so-called ’New World Order’ under the leadership of American imperialism and to the construction and relative consolidation of an all-including capitalist world market, directed by the monopolies and the multinational companies, sealed by a series of international agreements (such as GATT, WTO, IMF and the planned MAI-agreement) that have served the unhampered advance of the multinationals at the expense of the broad strata of the worlds population and indeed also at the expense of the weaker national states.
Therefore the present crises under development is also a proof, that capitalism as a world system has failed, and that the ’free market’ cannot provide economic and social progress for the broad masses, but is turning life into a living hell to the majority of the inhabitants of the world. It has also definitively shown that the complete capitalist restoration of the former Soviet Union and a number of other countries, prepared through decades, have turned into a major catastrophe.
The present crises … is going to reinforce the global tendencies of social polarisation: the rich getting richer, and the poor even poorer. …
The crisis of overproduction is entangled with the current crises of finance and currencies. The speculative character of the capitalist economy are also expressed through these crises, where billions of dollars are won or lost on the bourses, and where one currency after the other is struck by damaging speculative assaults. Great disturbances are noticeable in the world trade, among others concerning energy, food as well as raw materials. Inflationary tendencies are increasing.
The economic world crises under development is at the same time an integrated part of the general crises of capitalism: it proves that capitalism has reached its historic limits of a positive development, that state monopoly capitalism and imperialism is decaying and dying capitalism.
Its decay is mirrored in the permanent political, ideological, social, ecological and moral crises, that are experienced in all capitalist countries and in capitalism as a world system.
As always the ruling capitalist bourgeoisie is going to make every effort to escape the burdens of the crises by loading it onto others: other nations, other peoples and to the working class and broad masses of their own countries.
Therefore the old slogans Make the rich pay the crises! and Workers of all countries, Unite! are again assuming new importance.”

In the general political statement ’Oppose the offensive of capitalist Denmark against the working class and the majority of the people’ of the 2nd National Conference a programme of struggle of the Danish working class and its allies was laid down, calling for an enhancement of the fight against the offensive of the capitalists and its political lackeys such as the present soialdemocratic led government of Poul Nyrup and Co. Heavily relying on social demagogy such as ’unemployment has almost been eliminated” and ’reforming welfare society” this government is striving to eradicate the results of the struggles of the working class trough decades, implementing the antiworker, antipopular neoliberal policies of the European Union. At the same time the Nyrup-government is sacrificing the national interests to the interests of this United Europe of the monopolies, headed by reunited Germany. As a loyal junior partner of the big imperialist powers the socialdemocratic Danish government participates actively in any warmongering, adventurous action undertaken by imperialism, such as the planned NATO-intervention in Kosova.
The attacks against the unemployed and their rights constitute a main direction of this offensive, which has lead to the creation of a so-called yellow 3rd labour market of unemployed and welfare recipients, who are forced to work in both the private and public sector without any trade unions rights or labour agreements, constituting an underpaid section of the working class, forced to dump the price of labour power.
The struggle against these policies and the creation of the yellow 3rd labour market was at the focus of the resolution on the labour struggle ’Reinforce the line of class struggle in the worksites and in the trade union movement’, calling on the class conscious workers, the revolutionaries and communists to confront the treacherous socialdemocratic trade union leadership and its line of class collaboration and adaptation to the European Union, replacing it with the line of class struggle, and calling on the trade union opposition to unite, eliminating the harmful influence of trade union legalism.
Also a resolution concerning the continued struggle against the European Union as a new imperialist superpower – aiming at getting Denmark out of this union – was passed.
The Danish government has allowed our country to become a hotbed of nazism, granting the nazis full freedom of expression and action, in open violation of international agreements. From Danish territory nazi propaganda in all main languages are printed and distributed; the nazis are allowed to carry out marches in the streets, protected by the police; the “Danish” nazi party even receives money from the state to run a local radio station, quoting “Mein Kampf” and propagating the entire Nazi-doctrine. The resolution Forbid nazi! outlines the policies and tasks to successfully wipe out this growing danger, relying on the popular forces.


Towards the founding of a genuine communist party around the year 2000

At the center of attention of the 2nd National Conference was the question of the creation of a genuine marxist-leninist communist party.
The resolution The ’unity crises’ of the communist movement and the tasks of Oktober analyses the situation and different forces of the Danish communist, revolutionary and workers movement.
The party adhering to Soviet brand of modern revisionism DKP – The “Communist” Party of Denmark – was practically dissolved and split in the years following the failure of modern revisionism and the fall of the Soviet Union. Today DKP exist as a loose network, a faction, inside the parliamentary party “The Unity List – The Red and Green”, that has united different forces of the old ’new left’, including left wing socialists, trotskyites of the 4th international, former maoists and others.
The “Unity List” was founded as a parliamentary alliance, but has now turned into a united party of different factions and tendencies:

“The transformation of the Unity List into a left socialist party, trying to liquidate the communist movement and trying to assume the role of the communist party in the struggle of the working class on a reformist basis, that will further halt the struggle for a socialist Denmark and the state of the working class, is another important factor in the development of the ’unity crises’ in the communist movement in Denmark. The failure to understand the true role and character of the Unity List and illusions to the extent, that this party might develop into a genuine communist party do exist among some people, considering themselves to be communists, and this is creating obstacles to the struggle to recreate a genuine communist party.
The party building communist organisation OKTOBER was founded in 1997 in a specific situation, following a split of DKP/ML, which embarked upon a revisionist line and course. As its main task OKTOBER has the creation of a genuine and strong communist party on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.
The struggle to create a genuine, strong communist party must proceed from the fact, that the self-proclaimed communist parties such as DKP, DKP/ML and KPiD (’Communist Party in Denmark’, a faction of the DKP, upholding the line of this party of the 60es and 70es) are not genuine communist parties, do not work on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, but are parties of modern revisionism. …
The struggle to build a genuine communist party on the basis of Marxism-Leninism preconditions a continual struggle against modern revisionism, that has suffered damages, but is not yet beaten, in all its forms and shapes, nationally and internationally.
It must be made clear, that at present the Unity List constitute a current, most dangerous to the communist movement: that of open liquidationism, and that the attitude towards the Unity List and this current is a major question to the entire communist movement, a question of principled importance”

The conference issued an Call to the entire communist movement, appealing to all the communists to throw themselves into the struggle to build a strong communist party for the next century, and not to be lured neither by the Unity List Party and its claims to represent the revolutionary and communist movement inside – and outside – parliament, nor by the so called communist parties, that either proclaim they constitute the communist Party needed or try to trick the communists by appealing for a unification of the revisionist parties and organisations, presenting this as the method to create a strong communist party.
Finally the conference adopted a resolution concerning the communist youth work and the struggle of the youth in the face of the capitalist crises. The conference decided to strengthen the preparations to create a communist youth league in the not-so-distant future. Members of OKTOBER continue to work also in the youth organisation Red Youth, considering it to be a progressive organisation of revolutionary minded youth.

OKTOBER and the international communist movement

The conference also passed a resolution on OKTOBER and the international communist movement, which reads in full:

“OKTOBER considers itself as a part of the international marxist-leninist communist movement, that was developed in the course of the struggle against modern revisionism, including Soviet modern revisionism and maoism.
OKTOBER continues its efforts to establish brotherly links to the marxist-leninist, communist parties and to establish friendly links with other proclaimed communist parties and organisations, that upholds a principled rejection of the revisionist general line, emanating from the 2oth Congress of the CPSU.
OKTOBER upholds its rejection of all attempts to create a ’communist international’, based on a smaller faction of parties and organisations. The international communist movement must be developed on the basis of equal relations between independent parties.
The task of today is still the creation of strong communist parties on the basis of marxism-leninism in all countries and to reestablish a strong international communist movement on this basis.
To the international communist movement modern revisionism of all shades still constitutes the main danger. Soviet revisionism in different shades, titoism, maoism and Chinese revisionism
Are still influential even though state-bearing revisionism in Europe has disappeared.
Modern revisionism is still the state bearing ideology of The Demokractic Republic of Korea, basing itself on the non-marxist Juché-philosophy, and in Cuba, that with its strategy for a ’front against neoliberalism’ has developed a new revisionist general line of the entire international communist movement, that has to be rejected with determination.
Today no genuine socialist country exists in the world.
OKTOBER supports countries such as DR-Korea and Cuba on anti-imperialist basis, because they constitute special targets of the aggression of imperialism – and also supports other regimes, that have come to power as a result of popular liberation struggles and upholds a progressive and anti-imperialist line.”

The new national leadership was elected to head the work of OKTOBER on the basis of the decisions of the 2nd National Conference for the next year until the 3rd Conference. Franz Krejbjerg was re-elected National Secretary, Comrade Klaus Riis, former Chairman of DKP/ML, was elected to the daily leadership as editor of Kommunistisk Politik.

Long live proletarian internationalism!


Introduction by Raúl Marco – the hundred fiftieth anniversary of The Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Introduction by Raúl Marco
On behalf of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations
January 1998

This year is the hundred fiftieth anniversary of the first publication of The Communist Manifesto, or as it was originally titled, the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, at the request of the Communist League, a secret organization in which was grouped a handful of revolutionaries, mainly German, but also English, French, Swiss, Italian, Polish…

The Manifesto was not a work conceived by Marx and Engels to expound their theories, economic and philosophical findings and political conclusions. It arose out of the need to explain to the world who the communists were and what they wanted. The Congress of the League (London, December, 1847) entrusted them with the writing of that document. In the circular letter that the Central Committee of the League of the Just wrote to its members in February of that year, (the name of Communist League was adopted at the Congress), it stated:

“Humanity progresses by leaps and bounds, consciousness develops in every soul and along with it the desire for freedom. We have to submit to that necessity and not force the people to be subjected to laws that contradict their spirit. […] we must draw up a brief communist confession of faith that will be printed in all the European languages and circulated in all countries. […] What is communism and what do the communists want? 2) What is socialism and what do the socialists want? 3) How can communism be established as quickly and easily as possible? By way of introduction, let us observe the following: […] communism is a system in which the land should be common property of all, and everyone should work, ‘produce,’ according to their abilities and enjoy, ‘consume,’ according to their strengths; the communists intend, therefore, to overthrow all past social organizations and to raise a new one on their ruins.” (1)

Months later, in 1848, this fundamental work appeared, conceived mainly as a weapon for the formation of a genuine revolutionary party capable of confronting the situation that was emerging in Europe, a revolutionary upsurge that foretold the confrontations and revolutions of 1848 and that put forth the need to put into practice the unity of socialism with the working class movement. It is an axiom to remember, that the Manifesto constitutes the clearest and most correct conception of the world, “consistent materialism, which also embraces the realm of social life; dialectics, as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development; the theory of the class struggle and of the world-historic revolutionary role of the proletariat.” (2)

It was not, as we have seen, a coincidence that the Manifesto appeared in 1848, when the revolution was maturing all over Europe (in America, heroic struggles for liberation and independence were developing). In January, the people of Sicily rose up in Palermo and established a provisional Government; at the same time the people of Milan heroically stood up to the tyranny of the Hapsburgs; in Paris, the revolution broke out in February, and the first copies of the Manifesto arrived in Germany several weeks after the insurrection in Berlin had taken place. According to Engels, the first French edition of the Manifesto was published in Paris on the eve of the insurrection.

It seems to us that this was not a mere coincidence. It is not a matter of affirming glibly that the Manifesto exercised a decisive influence on the revolutionary movements of 1848; that would be to falsify facts. It is a matter of understanding how the historical conditions of that time, and their dialectical understanding, which would lead to the days of 1848, were correctly grasped by the communists and shaped by Marx and Engels into the Manifesto of the Communist Party. And the conclusion is fully valid today, that the achievement or realization of the communist ideals, will only be possible to the degree to which the communists unite in a communist party. This statement deserves greater merit when we realize that, at that time, the communists were a small minority, or as Engels called them in 1890, the “not at all numerous vanguard of scientific Socialism.”

They knew perfectly well what they wanted and what they had to do. Three years before the appearance of the Manifesto, Marx in his Thesis on Feuerbach, expounded categorically his famous statement: “Until now the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” And Engels later would write in Revelations that neither he nor Marx tried to create a work for scholars:

“We never thought of describing for the scholarly world, in thick volumes, the new scientific results of our investigations, so that others would not be informed. Nothing of the sort… We had the duty to lay a scientific basis for our doctrines; but for us, it was at least equally important to win the support of the European proletariat… And scarcely had we come to clear conclusions ourselves than we began to work.” [Translated from the Spanish.]

Thus the Manifesto of the Communist Party corresponds to certain clear and determined objectives, not only for the moment as some would try to have us believe, particularly the social-democrats and reformists of all types and hues, but its precious pages established a program of action and thought (always in development) for the whole historic process that can not be limited. It is the direct union between theory and practice, thought and action, that today, one hundred fifty years later, continues to be necessary, vital to achieve, perhaps more than ever before. The plans of Marx and Engels in this “little book” show that not only were they theoreticians of genius, but also leaders and organizers of the world proletariat, standard-bearers of their struggles and yearnings.

Origins of the Manifesto

The Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations decided at its last meeting on the publication of the Manifesto and the elaboration of this common introduction. This was done with the clear understanding of the need to develop a new campaign of study and discussion in our ranks and beyond, of this work which symbolizes what we fight for with our (scarce) forces, and (limited) means, in order to arrive at the point where it ceases to be a utopia.
The wealth of this work is such that it needs an extensive and well-documented study of its origins, the historic conditions in which it arose, the people involved, etc.; however, an introduction is not adequate for this. Therefore, we will just try to briefly present some of the main data and facts.

The French Revolution (1789), having overthrown feudalism and established the power of the bourgeoisie, laid the bases for socialism. It was in Paris, where the conspiracy of Babeuf, based on an egalitarian, primitive communism, failed in 1791, that the center of the proletarian movement was situated. It is true that English Chartism profoundly shook up bourgeois society, but it barely extended to the Continent. In Germany, feudal oppression savagely persecuted the artisans’ associations, whose members were imprisoned, killed and forced into exile, mainly to Paris, which made this city the concentration point of the European revolutionaries. It was there that the embryonic communists first met up with socialist theories. But, as Engels himself pointed out, the English Owenists and the French Fourierists called themselves “socialists,” as did:

“the manifold types of social quacks who wanted to eliminate social abuses through their various universal panaceas and all kinds of patch-work, without hurting capital and profit in the least… The section of the working class, however, which demanded a radical reconstruction of society, convinced that mere political revolutions were not enough, then called itself Communist. It was still a rough-hewn, only instinctive and frequently somewhat crude communism. Yet, it was powerful enough to bring into being two systems of utopian communism — in France, the ‘Icarian’ communists of Cabet, and in Germany that of Weitling. Socialism in 1847 signified a bourgeois movement, communism a working-class movement.” (3)

Engels evolved towards the philosophical ideas of communism, while he was still in the ranks of the radical neo-Hegelians of Berlin, through his comrade Moses Hess, who was the first to understand that communism was the logical development of neo-Hegelianism. At that time, in France, the revolutionary aspirations took form in the Society of the Friends of the People and in the Society for the Rights of Man; these were radical organizations of petty-bourgeois and proletarians. In 1834, the second revolt of the weavers of Lyon was crushed and their leaders, the ones who were able to escape the ferocious monarchical repression, fled abroad. The members of the “base” continued their secret activities, led mainly by Blanqui and Barbés. They created the “Society of Families,” which was quickly destroyed by the police, and then the “Society of the Seasons,” which was predominantly proletarian. Its ideology was the utopian communism of Babeuf, based on the petty-bourgeois idea of “equality” and the belief that a handful of determined men sufficed to do away with Authority.

Directly related to the latter, and sometimes allied with it, there arose the League of the Just. This League developed quickly under the leadership of the German artisans Bauer and Weitling. The failure of the uprising of May of 1839, in which the League of the Just and the Society of the Seasons acted together, led to the death penalty (later commuted to prison terms) of Blanqui, Barbés and others who, after long years in prison, were expelled from France. Some took refuge in London, others in Switzerland. It was in London, in 1843, that Engels made contact with them, particularly with Bauer (a shoemaker), Moll (a watchmaker) and Shapper (printer). Of them Engels said:

“They were the first revolutionaries who boasted to me, and although our ideas, at that time, did not totally coincide, far from it, in contrast to their petty egalitarian communism, I still nourished at that time a good dose of philosophical arrogance that was no less petty. I will never forget the imposing impression that those three men really made on me when I had barely ceased to be a child.” (4)

In 1840, the German exiles in London formed a legal mass organization which served as a transmission belt and for recruiting members for the League of the Just. From London they maintained direct contacts with Germany, and with the groups of refugees in Switzerland, France, Brussels, etc. This was the scene when Marx and Engels, then living in Brussels, were working on their revolutionary theory. They were attracted by the League of the Just, but they had not taken the step of joining it. They were greatly influenced, it seems, by the work of the tailor Weitling, “Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom” (1842), that Marx described as “a gigantic and brilliant debut of the German workers… the first original theoretical activity of the German proletariat.” (5)

In 1845, Marx and Engels, who were beginning to have an influence on the revolutionary movement, moved from Brussels to London, where they (mainly Engels) began a period of collaboration with the left wing of the Chartist movement and with the League of the Just (these organizations worked with each other). Upon returning to Brussels, Marx completed his work “The Poverty of Philosophy,” in which he relentlessly lashed out at Proudhon. At the same time, he did not cease his revolutionary activity and together with Engels, his intimate Silesian friend Guillermo Wolf and others, he formed the “Association of Workers’ Culture,” through which they carried on an intense labor of criticism, statements and elaboration of concepts, and “we mercilessly criticized the hotchpotch of Franco-English socialism or communism and German philosophy, which formed the secret doctrine of the ‘League’ at that time.” (6)

In the spring of 1847, according to Engels (Marx in Herr Vogt gives the date as the end of 1846), they joined the League of the Just, after a period of discussions and when the organization had already overcome its conspiratorial conceptions and the pseudo-theoretical communism of the artisans. Engels described it as follows:

“Moll [sent from London by the League] met with Marx in Brussels and me in Paris, inviting us repeatedly in the name of their comrades to join the League. He told us that they were convinced of the correctness of our ideas in general, as well as of the need to free the League from old traditions and conspiratorial forms.”

In the summer of 1847 the First Congress of the League was held in London. Guillermo Wolf attended as delegate of the Brussels Commune (Marx could not attend) and Engels as representative of all the communes in Paris. At the end of November the II Congress was held, which Marx and Engels attended with the draft of the Manifesto, whose writing they had previously been assigned. It was in the form of a “confession of faith,” something that apparently was traditional among the French socialists. But Engels was not in agreement with that form and wrote to Marx, at the same time that he invited him to Ostende to attend the Congress together:

“Think over the confession of faith a bit. I believe we had better drop the catechism form and call the thing: Communist Manifesto. As more or less history has got to be related in it the form it has been in hitherto is quite unsuitable.” (7)

The II Congress lasted until December and ended by assigning Marx and Engels the writing of the definitive edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Weeks later, the text was sent to be printed in German, English and French, at the same time that the revolution broke out in Paris.

Since then, the world proletariat could rely on a treasure which has resisted the passage of time, the transformations and changes, and which continues to be young and fully valid in its general lines. In the Manifesto, the old humanist and quite confused slogan, used by the League, of “All men are brothers,” was replaced by the class cry, “Workers of the world, unite!” Despite general opinion, it was not in the Manifesto that this slogan was used for the first time. Actually, according to Marxist researchers, the Austrian Grünberg and the German Meyer (the biographer of Engels), it was in September of 1847, months before the publication of the Manifesto, that the League in London put out the first (and only) issue of its newspaper, under the name “Communist Review,” which put the famous slogan on its masthead. (8)

Present Validity of the Communist Manifesto

The Manifesto certainly appeared in a specific historic context and between 1848 and our day many things have changed. The authors themselves recognized this (see the foreword to the German edition of 1872):

“Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II…. But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter.”

This was an idea that Engels would subsequently repeat on many occasions. What would we say today, one hundred fifty years later! Changes in industry, in the development of capitalism that they could not have predicted; the era of cybernetics and the conquest of space… In this period there took place the first attempt at the seizure of power by the proletariat, the Paris Commune; two cruel world wars and the longest conquest of power until now by the proletariat led by the communists (the Great October Revolution of 1917). The independence of numerous countries and the almost total disappearance of colonialism of the old type; the world supremacy of U.S. imperialism; the ever greater and more shameful betrayal of social-democracy; the rise of what is known as revisionism in the country of Lenin and Stalin and the errors, lacks and deficiencies that have provoked the stagnation of the 1960s and the disappearance of the USSR and the so-called eastern countries…

A theory often repeated by the social-democrats and reformists is that the “Manifesto” is an obsolete document, overtaken by events. These people sang praises both to the “Manifesto” and to Marx (always less often, and some, such as the Spanish socialists and others, have removed it from their literature), but now they claim that since 1848 the world has changed and that Marx’s conclusions are no longer valid. Naturally, the “Manifesto” is not valid for them, the renegades and revisionists of all types and all over. If we analyze the world in 1998, as Marx and Engels did in 1848, is it not clear that everywhere social-democracy and the socialist leaders are following a policy of treason, of abandonment of the interests of the working class, the proletariat, and of vile subjection to their bourgeoisie and/or to imperialism? What and whom do Jospin in France, the “Olives” in Italy, Felipe González in Spain, etc., etc. represent but their own bourgeoisie with interests opposed to those of the proletariat? Clearly those people have an interest in shouting high and low that the “Manifesto” is obsolete…! It is people of that kind who are currently falsifying history, modifying it in accordance with their interests, and having launched a furious anti-communist campaign, they lie shamelessly.

As a result of this, one must insist that the “Manifesto” is not just a product of the conditions of that time, nor is it the precursor of experiences to come. We agree with the Italian Marxist Antonio Labriola (1842-1903?), who said that:

“In reality the only historic experiences are those which history itself creates, and those experiences can neither be anticipated nor brought into existence by premeditated design or decree.”

The Manifesto was the result of continuous progress in the history of thought which, with Marx and Engels made an extraordinary, qualitative leap in its theoretical development. The “Manifesto” made the leap from socialism as a somewhat confused and inexact idea, to socialism as a science. As a science in continuous development (which inevitably will make more qualitative leaps), it allowed its authors to conclude that capitalism digs its own grave:

“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”

This is perhaps the main conclusion of Marx and Engels, that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable. That statement continues to be valid. The passage of time confirms this and what happened in the USSR in no way invalidates it. Capitalism will not collapse in and of itself. But that is another question. What is important is to prove that despite the scientific and technical advances, the transformations that have taken place, the changes, etc., capitalism is incapable of solving the serious problems of humanity, such as hunger, misery, the exploitation of man by man, wars of plunder, oppression. The terrible conditions in which the people of Africa live are a consequence of capitalism, not of some backwardness or lack of culture of those peoples, but a direct result of brutal capitalist exploitation. The same can be said of America and Asia… Even in the main imperialist country in the world, the U.S.A., are there not terrible pockets of poverty, is there not social marginalization, is there not hunger? Does “prosperous and cultured” Europe not know misery, unemployment and the other ills of capitalism? The bourgeoisie can never solve those problems. Today, 150 years later, the statement of Marx and Engels that the Government is nothing more than a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie is just as true as when it was formulated. The cynical statement of French Prime Minister Guizot in 1847 still holds for the big bourgeoisie:

“Any man with a greater than average intelligence, who does not have property, nor industry, should be considered dangerous from the political point of view.”

The [leading] role that the working class is called upon to play is another of the conclusions of the Manifesto. It is of particular importance to keep in mind that this conclusion, which has been confirmed, was made at a period in history when the working class was not the majority of the population in Europe and when the artisans were the most active class and the most educated politically. The distinction between artisans and proletarians is essential to better understand the passage from “utopian communism” to “scientific communism.” It is in the Manifesto in which for the first time the proletariat steps onto the stage as the protagonist, as the force which will give all its soul to the class struggle. Thus we see how Marx and Engels knew how to distinguish between the predominant force at a given moment, but without possibilities of development, such as the artisans, and the force in development, on the rise, as the proletariat was and continues to be. As for the class struggle, it is necessary to point out that it was not Marx and Engels who discovered it, but they were the ones who placed it as the determining factor in the progress of history. Marx explained it clearly:

“… no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular, historic phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.” (Marx’s emphases) (9)

Thus he made clear the principal role of the proletariat in the class struggle; another essential point that the Manifesto made is that one of the principal features and characteristics of capitalism is the exploitation of the worker, an exploitation that will only disappear with capitalism itself.

All this continues to be valid, it has not been superseded. What happened in the USSR, Albania, etc., does not invalidate any of the above. This is not the place to deal with that problem, but we maintain that despite the errors, misconceptions and deformations (as well as betrayals) that led to the collapse of those countries, the fact that wrong answers were given does not mean that the questions were erroneous. Or, as the philosopher L. Peña stated:

“As a result of the difficulties of giving a Marxist explanation of what has happened on our Planet in the last decades some have been led to conclude that communism is bankrupt […] Communism has a long history. Communism is a proposal, the proposal of organizing human society without private property […] The collapse affects only some of its forecasts. It does not affect the proposal.”

The “Manifesto”, no matter how much the enemies of communism and its horde of pseudo-theoreticians and pseudo-philosophers insist, is not a museum piece. One hundred fifty years later, it continues to be a weapon that the proletariat must grasp, a weapon which serves the international revolutionary movement. Because they are aware of this, international reaction furiously attacks the ideas contained in the Manifesto; the international anti-communist campaign does not let up or cease. Why this fury, if communism has already been finally defeated as they claim? However, they join forces, they support each other and cheer each other on in this campaign, from the reactionaries to the modern revisionists, including the always treacherous social-democrats, not to mention all those that make up the industry of the repented (Benedetti). All the reactionary forces of the world are united in slandering the ideas of communism, fighting and trying to liquidate the communist parties. They have set loose a pack of “new historians,” who distort and grotesquely, vilely falsify the history of the workers’ movement.

The anti-communist campaign particularly includes the efforts to bury the Manifesto by making it a kind of mouldy archive document. This “first mature work of Marxism” (Lenin) clearly stated what the present situation of the world confirms, that “the bourgeoisie… is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery.”

We are aware, as Marx and Engels were, that not all of the Manifesto, its propositions, are currently valid. The fundamental thing in it is the role of the proletariat in the class struggle; the sense of internationalism (“the workers have no country”), and the affirmation that the proletariat can only reach its objective by overthrowing by force the whole social order and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is well understood that the bourgeoisie trembles before the communist revolution, in which the workers have nothing to lose but their chains!

The Manifesto is neither obsolete, nor outdated, nor will it be as long as it is still necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie, to carry out the proletarian revolution, to abolish the exploitation of man by man, the oppression and looting of one country by another, the subjection of the people by force of arms… Those who claim that the Manifesto has been left behind are the ones who have been left behind by history.

That all the above is possible has been proven clearly by the Great October Revolution of 1917, as earlier in 1871 by the glorious Paris Commune. That it could not be consolidated was due to subjective factors not attributable to the Manifesto.

Today, one hundred fifty years after the appearance of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, with all the vicissitudes and problems that the world communist movement has gone through, to us the attitude taken towards it is a dividing line between revolutionaries and reformists, between communists and social-traitors.

1. Ernest Drahn, Neue Zeit, XXXVII, 2. p. 131ff, translated from the Spanish.

2. Lenin, Karl Marx

3. F. Engels, Prologue to the Manifesto of 1890.

4. F. Engels, Revelations, translated from the Spanish.

5. K. Marx, in “Vorwaerts,” Paris, 1844, translated from the Spanish.

6. K. Marx, Herr Vogt, Marx/Engels Collected Works, vol. 17.

7. Marx and Engels, Correspondence, Engels to Marx, Paris, 23-24 November, 1847.

8. Karl Grünberg and Gustav Meyer, Die Londoner Kommunistische Zeitschrift und andere Urkunden aus den jahren 1847-1848, Leipzig, 1921.

9. Letter to Joseph Weydemeyer, March 5, 1852

Declaration of foundation of OCTOBER, Denmark Communist Partybuilding Organisation

Documents of
OCTOBER, Denmark
Communist Partybuilding Organisation

Declaration of foundation

The conference of foundation on the 3rd of August 1997 decides to create OCTOBER, a nation-wide Communist organisation.

The preparation of and the creation of one strong communist party in Denmark are the main task of OCTOBER – a communist organisation on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.
OCTOBER is founded on the basis of the best traditions of the Danish working class and revolutionary movement – from the time of Frederik Dreier of the revolutionary social-democratic party of Pio and Brix. And of the revolutionary DKP, which was the revolutionary vanguard party of the Danish working class until the breakthrough of modern revisionism. OCTOBER is going to defend and carry on these traditions.
OCTOBER will defend and carry on the fight against modern revisionism, upholding especially the political line of “Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti/Marxister-Leninister”, (DKP/ML) from its foundation in 1978 until the 7th congress in 1997.
OCTOBER is founded on the best traditions of the international communist movement – from the International of Marx, the 2nd International and The Communist International (Komintern), from the fight against modern revisionism (that was adopted at the 20th – congress of the CPSU in 1956), till the present international communist movement. OCTOBER will also defend these traditions.
OCTOBER is founded on the basis of scientific socialism and will defend it, as conceived and developed by its founders, Marx and Engels. OCTOBER is also founded on the doctrine of Lenin – Leninism – which is Marxism in the epoch of imperialism – and on the contributions to the development of Marxism-Leninism provided by Stalin, Enver Hoxha and other great Marxists.

The goal and main task of OCTOBER is to contribute to the creation of the ideological, political and organisational prerequisites for the foundation of one strong communist party in Denmark, of “Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti”, which can take its rightful position in the international communist movement as the communist vanguard party of the Danish working class. When this task succeeds, OCTOBER will be dissolved.

OCTOBER endeavours to create such a party on the basis of the statement of “Towards to one strong communist party” and the other documents adopted on the conference of foundation.

The organisational principle of OCTOBER is the democratic centralism.

Copenhagen August 1997

(From the founding documents of OCTOBER, August 3rd 1997)
Towards one strong communist party

The strategic task of the Danish communist party is to guide the Danish working class and its allies to the victory in the socialist revolution and to the construction of a socialist Denmark under proletarian dictatorship –until the establishment of a class-less communist society.
The creation of one strong communist party on a Marxist-Leninist basis became a necessity with DKP’s transition to modern revisionism and the influence of modern revisionism in all its varieties in the Danish and international communist movement – from Soviet revisionism to “eurocommunism” and Maoism.
This struggle has in Denmark traversed a number of stages since the sixties.
The Marxist-Leninist movement arose in the sixties in opposition to the breakthrough of soviet revisionism in the DKP and decided to create a genuine communist party opposing modern revisionism.
While surmounting several aberrations of modern revisionist and Maoist character – from the KAK theory of the bribed working class to KAP’s embracement of the Chinese modern revisionism and “the theory of three worlds” – in 1978 the communist managed to found “Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti/Marxister-Leninister”, a small, but genuine communist party, that with Klaus Riis as chairman in the following 18 years developed a revolutionary line and politics, strategy and tactics for the fight of the Danish working class for the new society.

The period of 1989-91 was a critical one for the communist movement. The Soviet Union and the Soviet revisionist camp collapsed, the revisionist counter-revolution was replaced by the openly bourgeois counter-revolution in the former socialist countries, and the capitalist law of the jungle and the free market forces conquered these countries with a violent force and immense and disastrous consequences. When socialism felt in Albania socialism was wiped out in Europe.
On a world scale the international communist movement received several shocks. The transition of modern revisionism to socialdemocracysm was completed. In our country the DKP went down, the daily “Land & Folk” was liquidated and the youth organisation DKU was shut down.
The remains of the DKP were transformed from a party into a loosely knit network organisation, today functioning as a special grouping within the “Enhedslisten” party.
The breakdown of the DKP was also the start of “Kommunistisk Forum”, that was transformed into the “Kommunistisk Parti i Danmark” (KPiD). This party maintains the programmatic modern revisionism and defends soviet revisionism in the shape it acquired in the Bresjnev period, but opposes Gorbatjovism.

DKP/ML remained relatively unhurt by the upheaval in the Danish and international communist movement in’ the late 80’s and early 90’s. The party developed its line and tactics for the new period of working class and popular struggle under the so-called “New World order”.
In accordance with the situation of the communist movement in Denmark the party raised the slogan of unification of the communists in one strong party founded on Marxism-Leninism. In the following years the party took a number of steps to prepare the unification of communists and to create a strong party qualitatively and quantitatively.

In this positive situation this fight saw a serious setback. The central committee of DKP/ML, elected on the 7th congress, and the new chairman of the party Jørgen Petersen decided to exclude the former chairman Klaus Riis, the veteran communist Frede Klitgård, as well as former CC-member and district leader in Copenhagen Dorte Grenaå. At the same time – and contrary to the decisions of the congress -a new anti-Leninist conception of the party and a new direction of the construction of the party was launched.
The lightning and putsch-like exclusions were the climax of a party struggle up till the 7th congress, that divided the Centra1 committee and the party in a majority and a minority on the question of party conception, on what was the main danger for the party and the communist movement, and a number of other strategic and tactical questions.
The exclusions lead to a split of the party. A big minority of about a third of the party left. The DKP/ML was divided in a strongly reduced party and a group of excluded/seceded members about half the size of the party.
The cleavage of the DKP/ML in a favourable situation for the party and for the unification of the communists in one strong party is a serious setback for communism in Denmark, which otherwise would be in a positive phase of revival and rebuilding.
The responsibility for this setback, which serves the ruling class and the enemies of communism, and for its many negative consequences, must be assumed by the central committee of the DKP/ML, which has moved from Marxist-Leninist positions towards reconciliation with modern revisionism.
The DKP/ML can no longer be considered the leading force in the communist movement in our country, but has reduced itself to one more small group inspired by revisionism and opportunism.

In spite of this serious setback the fight goes on to surmount the negative consequences to the communist movement in Denmark caused by revisionism and to create a strong communist party on a Marxist-Leninist basis. The necessity of the strong communist party is more urgent than ever in a situation, when imperialism and the ruling bourgeoisie, organised in the “United Europe” of the monopolies, have started a long-term offensive against the working class and its allies in order to eliminate the results of the victories of socialism and the fight of the Danish working class including the destruction of the so-called “welfare society” and the suspension of the Danish national state in favour of the supranational EU. According to the plans of the ruling class Denmark in the future is supposed to act as an aggressive errand boy for bigger imperialist powers and imperialist organisations like NATO and EU, for instance as a participant in imperialist military adventure everywhere on the globe.
The strong communist party is necessary both for a defence of the interests of the working class and its allies – the large majority – in the day to-day fight and for the preparation and the accomplishment of the historic mission of the working class: the creation of the socialist and communist society by overthrowing ruling class and destroying its state apparatus and its links to imperialism and the imperialist agencies by proletarian revolution.
A “peaceful transition to socialism” or transition to socialism “by parliamentary means” is a dangerous and objectively considered anti-revolutionary illusion.
The strong communist party required must surmount the opportunistic, reformist and revisionist illusions and ideas, that are so wide-spread in the working class and even in the revolutionary and communist movement in Denmark, where the bourgeois labour party, the Social Democrats, has had a dominant role, and where modern revisionism in the shape given by SF, “Venstresocialisterne” and the revisionist DKP has had great influence on the most advanced and class conscious part of the working class and the revolutionary movement through decades.
This party must master and in a creative manner use the revolutionary theory of scientific socialism, Marxism-Leninism.
The main danger for the communist movement and the strong communist party comes from the Right, the Right opportunism, that is the influence from reformism and modern revisionism in its different varieties. Also Trotskyism and anarchism in various new varieties are dangers to be disclosed and suppressed.
The strong communist party is not a constituency organisation, a parliamentary party, even if it endeavours to master any kind of fight, including the parliamentary arena.
The communist party is the party of revolutionary action, the party of class action and class struggle.
The strong communist party prefers quality to quantity. Not the numeric size of the party, but its revolutionary quality and striking power, including its close relations with the working class and the popular movements, is decisive for its political influence and impact and in order that it can fulfil its mission as the revolutionary avant-garde party of the working class. Passive members – that means members in name, but not in fact – do not belong to the communist party that is based on the organised activity of the members through the basic organisations of the party.
The strong communist party brings together the most able members of the working class and the best of the revolutionary minded intellectuals and from other strata. It sharply rejects the reformist and revisionist practice of opening the doors for anyone who wants to become a member of the party, including careerists, pseudo-revolutionaries and agents of all kinds.
The strong communist party is based on the communist organisational principle – Democratic centralism – which develops a lively internal democracy and unique vigour in the implementation of the policy, decided on by the party.
The strong communist party stresses the permanent ideological and political education of cadres and members. It strives to ensure a comprehensive communist basic education of all members.