To attempt to link the implementation of the communist program to the vicissitudes of the historical course of a single one of the great races of the human species, that is, the white Caucasians, or Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, by concluding that if this branch is now at the end of the cycle, nothing that happens within the other races is of any interest; this is, as is easily demonstrated, the kind of gross error that unites within itself, far more than all the worst revisionist degenerations, all the ancient and possible errors of all anti-Marxists.
— Il Programma Comunista, No.3. 1958
3.1. Struggles against the former colonial metropolises1
3.1.1. In the Western world, the succession of modes of production was as follows: primitive communism, its dissolution phase, ancient slave society, feudalism, and capitalism.
In Asia, it was: primitive communism, the Asiatic form, and the current development of capitalism.
In Africa, the same is true. However, there are significant secondary variations linked to geographical and historical factors.
In North America, when the Europeans arrived, the various peoples were in a society in which primitive communism was in dissolution. However, we cannot be precise given the vastness of the country and the variety of its populations. With Morgan, we note their being in a similar phase to that experienced by the Greek peoples before the founding of the city-state.
In Central and South America, there was a form of dissolution of primitive communism that closely resembles the Asiatic form of production. Here again, the vastness of the country and the different living conditions it offers mean that we can only sketch a phenomenon that is certainly more complex.
However, what was and still is important, to the extent that capitalism did not fully develop, is to understand how the transition from the Asiatic form of production to capitalism could have taken place, and what relationship does this have with the communist revolution?
3.1.2. "Can humanity fulfill its destiny without a profound revolution in Asia?" The answer to Marx's question has been given by the development of this continent over the last 50 years. The revolution has affected not only Asia but also Africa. What matters is to know what outcome this revolution could have, and where are we now?
3.1.3. The Asiatic mode of production offered enormous resistance to the development of capitalism. In China, penetration began with the Opium War, but the triumph of capitalism did not occur until 1949; in India, the cycle was even longer.
In Africa, primitive communism and the slave trade, which ruined the entire African continent, caused a delay that, until a few years ago, everyone attributed to the supposed inferiority of the Black race.
In Africa, we have three areas: the Arab area, which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf and, as a result, extends into Asia.
South of the Sahara: the equatorial area, or the area of Black Africa; the area of Southern Africa characterized by a large white population (South Africa, Rhodesia, and small Black states enclaved within Southern Africa.)
For both Asia and Africa, given the persistence of communitarian social forms, the question of leaping over the capitalist phase arose. This question had already been addressed for Russia in the mid-19th century.
The prerequisite for this leap was a strong proletarian movement in the West and a weak penetration of exchange-value in these countries.
3.1.4. To understand the movement, we must compare it with the cycle of bourgeois and proletarian movements in Western Europe.
In England, the bourgeoisie played a significant role in the revolutionary phenomenon, and during the C18th, the English bourgeoisie, following two revolutions, seized power.
In France, the revolution arrived later. It was more radical and, at the same time, achieved a generalization of the English Revolution. The new element is that this bourgeois revolution was pregnant with a proletarian revolution (Hébertists, Enragés, and especially the Babouvist movement) and, ultimately, it only truly triumphed in 1871 with the crushing of the proletariat, after experiencing proletarian communist ‘growings over’ [transcroissances] in 1848 and 1871. France is the country of progressive emancipation.
In Germany, due to the weakness of the bourgeoisie, the revolution presents itself as an absolutely radical revolution, a revolution that must be carried out by the most revolutionary class because progressive emancipation is not possible (it can be called a permanent revolution – provided it is well circumscribed in time – or a dual revolution.) The defeat of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie brings about the revolution from above.
In Russia, the revolution was a radical revolution, a double revolution. "But as a result of the reabsorption of the proletarian revolution, it developed as a bourgeois revolution and therefore as a progressive emancipation.” Ultimately, the Russian Revolution (of 1917) was a proletarian revolution pregnant with a bourgeois revolution.
As for the United States, their revolutionary phase occurred during the American Civil War.
The cycle of the bourgeois and proletarian movement in Asia and Africa is more similar to that of Russia, but there are still some nuances and differences to note.
3.1.5. The development of capitalism in these countries destroyed ancient social relations and developed a capitalism that was an appendage to that of the metropolises (the most striking examples: Algeria and India). Hence:
the formation of a strong proletariat with a virtually non-existent bourgeoisie.
the formation of proletarian parties before those of the bourgeoisie. This is a common element with Russia (the RSDLP was created before the bourgeois party, the Cadet Party). Or, when it was formed before, it borrowed a significant part of proletarian ideology from socialism (as was the case with the Kuomintang under Sun Yat-Sen). It is strongly imbued with socialism and implicitly recognizes its necessity for the liberation of the geo-social zone in which it develops.
3.1.6. All this facilitated the connection with the Comintern in 1919. The call launched by the leaders of the International met with a profound response. Communist parties were formed in China, India, and South Africa. So great was the response that if we call n the number of revolutions that brought humanity to the moment of the transition to capitalism, these countries were ready (thanks to the world movement) to move on to n+1 revolutions and we witness the same ‘growing over’ take place within them as in Russia in 1917.
3.1.7. The defeat of the Western proletariat, beaten by democracy, led to the bankruptcy of the Comintern and the defeat of the proletarian movements in the most advanced areas of Africa and Asia (Canton and Shanghai); the proletariat of these countries was isolated. This is a retreat to purely national bases (thus the Algerian movement became the MTLD and the PCC became a party leading a peasant revolution).
The construction of socialism in a single country is therefore accompanied by the downgrading of the revolution in the two major areas from n+1 to n: the capitalist revolution. The movement becomes solely anti-imperialist, and the proletarian movement develops on an economic basis, like the English movement during the struggle for the 10-hour day.
With the war of 1939-45, the proletariat is completely eliminated. We have a bourgeois cycle beginning in which the proletariat is encompassed as a mobilized class.
3.1.8. In countries where a state had existed for a long time and where indigenous capitalist elements had been able to form, the classical bourgeois revolution developed: China. But in other countries where the state did not exist and where there was no bourgeoisie, the only anti-imperialist class was the industrial proletariat (small in number) and the agricultural proletariat (Algeria and Cameroon), supported by poor peasants; by fledgling proletarians, those expropriated from the land (the wretched of the earth, F. Fanon) and not yet recruited into capitalist industrial or agrarian enterprise (Kenya, Congo-Kinshasa). This is why in all African countries, trade unions played a role in the anti-colonial struggle (the Union of Black African Workers, for example, but also in Tanzania, Kenya, etc.).
3.1.9. Thus appears the difference with the West. There, the proletariat helped the bourgeoisie to take power and the latter then turned against it to ensure its domination. In Asia and Africa, as in Russia, the proletariat was first to manifest itself; hence, for the triumph of the bourgeois revolution, it was necessary to destroy the proletarian ‘growing over.’
In Russia, there was a reabsorption of the few communist measures and the destruction of all proletarian forces. In China, the destruction of the communes of Canton and Shanghai was necessary. In Algeria it was necessary to eliminate all proletarian forces (even if they did not manifest themselves on the level of the integral program) for a petty-bourgeois solution to triumph, that is to say, a compromise between the demands of capital held by the French and those of the proletarian masses and poor peasants. There, the petty bourgeoisie (especially the intelligentsia) established itself as a national entity in order to destroy the proletarian movement.
All this gives a somewhat indeterminate character to these revolutions: there was an n revolution, but no n+1 one. They were stopped at the bourgeois stage, and at different levels, as a result of the counterrevolution. This does not mean that the stopping-point is absolutely fixed, or that the countries where these revolutions have more or less frozen cannot undergo new transformations.
In the countries where the proletarian movement and that of the peasant masses has been hardest hit, where the bloodletting has been even deeper, the setback is clear. Independence is achieved, but the country is tied to the former colonial metropolis almost as tightly as before (Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar, etc.).
3.1.10. The position of the revolutionary proletariat within the exploiting countries was the same as Marx's position with regard to Ireland. Initially, from 1919 (Baku) until 1928, the proletarian movement was supposed to assist (and did assist) the colonial movements, with a view to the dual revolution. The various countries of Africa and Asia could only achieve their independence with the help of the world proletariat.
During a second period (1945-1962), these countries achieved independence on their own. The struggle of these countries was then considered from the perspective of the counter-effect it could have on the capitalist centres of the West: to relaunch the revolution. It was from this same perspective that Marx and Engels studied the struggles of the Hindus and the Chinese against the intrusion of European capital in Asia.
3.1.11. The proletariat made the revolution for the capitalist class since the mode of production that was being established in all these new areas was the capitalist mode of production. Apparently, the revolution is defeated. It has been like this for almost a century and a half. Indeed, it was the same in the 19th century.
"With the exception of a few chapters, every major section of the annals of the revolution from 1848 to 1849 bears the title: Defeat of the Revolution!"
"But in these defeats, it was not the revolution that succumbed. It was the traditional revolutionary appendages, the results of social relations that had not yet sharpened to the point of becoming violent class contradictions: people, illusions, ideas, projects from which the revolutionary party was not freed before the February Revolution and from which it could not be freed by the February victory, but only by a series of defeats." (Marx, The Class Struggle in France.)
The proletarian revolution was thwarted, as it was in 1830. In 1848, the Parisian workers tried to prevent this from happening again; they were defeated (June 1848). Once more in September 1870 to triumph from March to May 1871. In February 1917 it was again swept away, but it triumphed in October, only to be reabsorbed later. This implies that finally, after this vast retraction, triumph on a global scale must come about.
3.1.12. All these revolutions are the executors of Baku's will. This confirms the appropriateness of the position affirming the necessity of supporting the struggle for independence of the colonial countries. It also shows to what extent the proletarian revolution of the West, even defeated, was a factor of acceleration for them. Their triumph, even limited, is indirectly that of the proletariat. Whilst it was totally defeated in the West it was not the same in the East. In any case, one cannot deny a profound setback because if in 1917 one hoped for a radical emancipation, one sees currently only a progressive emancipation developing.
3.1.13. All these revolutions are generalizations of the Russian Revolution:
a. the possibility of a ‘growing over’,
b. the essential intervention of the peasant masses, especially from the moment when the ‘growing over’ was no longer possible.
Thus, the Chinese revolution that triumphed in 1949 is a peasant revolution. It is not historically the first, but it is the first to have won. Indeed, the Great Peasants' War in Germany was defeated in 1525. However, it marked the beginning of the modern era. The entire history of Europe was conditioned by this failure.
This importance of the peasant masses was emphasized by Marx as early as 1849.
3.1.14. Another aspect of the generalization of the Russian Revolution is reflected in the question posed by most left-wing currents: "What class is in power after independence?" Since we cannot simply transpose the data of the past into the present (for it is difficult to identify an African or Asian Robespierre, Danton, or Cromwell) we resort to the same subterfuge as the bureaucratic class.
It is global capitalism that has taken power in these countries, and based on what has been said (3.1.9.), it is after victory that the bourgeois class will actually develop in these countries, to the extent that an indigenous capitalism manages to establish itself. Otherwise, we will always have a clique (we can call it a bureaucracy) at the service of international capital, at least at the service of a sector of it.
3.1.15. In all these countries, we witnessed a dilated development (i.e., taking place over a long period of time, as was the case in France) as opposed to a condensed development (over a short period of time, as in Russia).
In India, for example, from the middle of the 19th century, the struggles against English capitalism constituted the first elements of the revolution of a strong proletariat, but from the end of the century and the beginning of the 20th century, an opposite phenomenon occurred in which a weakened Hindu proletariat found itself submerged in the immense peasant mass. The appeal for help it launched to the English and European proletariat did not have the desired echo. All this explains the development of Gandhism, which would be an enormous obstacle to the development of the proletariat and Hindu society as a whole. If India has a capitalist state, it is still, in terms of its economic and social structure, well below the capitalist form of production. In India, as in France in 1789, there was a generalization of political relations, there was a political revolution, without having, as in France, a social revolution. In the latter country, this revolution was stopped in 1795 and, especially, in 1815. It then revived in 1848 and 1871. In the middle of the last century, Marx pointed out that England was in the process of accomplishing in India the only social revolution in Asia, by destroying the old social relations and developing the rudiments of industrial capitalism. However, this revolution was stopped. There was even a setback: a decrease in the number of proletarians, that, unlike in the West, was not linked to an enormous increase in machinery. But this time, with exchange value introduced into Hindu society, it could no longer perpetuate itself as before. So, the expropriation of the countryside continued. This caused an urban gigantism that consisted of masses of people looking for work or dying of hunger; while plots of land had to feed a growing population, part of which sometimes flowed back from the city.
Even the limited upheaval (further reinforced by the consequences of World War II) was too great to leave the British Empire intact, but it was too weak to allow for a full-blown bourgeois revolution. This has yet to happen, and, as things stand, it will have to start in the countryside, as happened in China.
As for China, the bourgeois revolution triumphed there as early as 1911. The first phase began with the destruction of the ancient empire. Social transformations were quite limited. They were accelerated by the intervention of the proletarians after 1919. Their defeat (1927) halted the movement. The revolution began again in the countryside. The Sino-Japanese War, which extended into the World War, accelerated the movement. The revolution truly triumphed in 1949.
However, to properly appreciate this expansion of the revolutionary phenomenon, we must take into account that 1927 actually marked the end of a historical cycle; one directly linked to the Russian Revolution as a double revolution. Then, there was a period of gestation and the start of a new cycle, which ended in 1949 (triumph of the peasant revolution). With the ‘growing over’ having been destroyed, we can then (bracketing out the latter) consider a cycle that runs from the first reactions to foreign penetration, including the great Taiping Rebellion and the Boxer Rebellion, and which ends in 1949. We then see that it took a century for capital to triumph, whereas in the West it took several.
3.1.16. From the first post-war period, the national liberation movement gained momentum: Ireland (1921), Egypt (1922), Turkey (1918-20), Afghanistan (1921); on the other hand, under the action of the proletariat, there was a significant radicalization in China and India. However, it was especially after World War II that the anti-colonial struggle took on its full importance. There are two major periods:
a. 1945-54. It triumphed in Asia as a popular revolution in China, and from the top down in India, Indonesia, and the Philippines (which did not prevent the Huk revolt). In Africa, the movement had taken off in 1946 with the formation of the main parties demanding independence in Black Africa, and in the Maghreb, a revival of the MTLD (Movement for the Triumph of Democratic Liberties). But the movement suffered terrible repression (1945 in Sétif, 1947 in Madagascar). The movement was halted. However, in 1952, widespread unrest developed in West Africa for a labour code, while the struggle of the agricultural workers of the maritime Sanaga continued and that of the Mau Mau began; it was to last until 1954.
b. 1954-62. The development of the Algerian revolution radicalized the entire African independence movement: Ghana gained its independence in 1957, Guinea in 1958. In order to isolate Algeria, France was first forced to grant independence to Tunisia and Morocco (1956), then to the countries of Black Africa. 1960 was the year of African independence: Cameroon, Congo Brazzaville, Congo Kinshasa, Nigeria, Gabon, and the Central African Republic. In short, almost all the countries of Black Africa except the Portuguese colonies. Africa was truly entering history.2
The counterrevolution could not abolish the movement; it could only channel it. Faced with the revolutionary upsurge, global capitalism could only try to encompass it, hence the eventual acceptance of independence. Ultimately, to break the revolutionary force it multiplied the number of nations in order to better divide the peoples.
The phase closed with the independence of Algeria in 1962.
3.1.17. The various federations that formed upon gaining independence were attempts to counter this manoeuver by global capitalism. But they were very short-lived, except for those directly linked to the former colonial metropolis. However, to destroy the revolutionary movement, capitalism went so far as to dismember a state: the Congo. Here independence was by no means granted but obtained by a push from the base. The Congo was able to achieve a high level of development and become a centre of attraction for all of Black Africa. The stranglehold of capitalist companies was over. However, the movement was broken by the assassination of Lumumba, the intervention of the Belgians, that of the UN and especially the Katangese secession. This secession also had the advantage of creating a buffer state – even a temporary one – to prevent ties with those states with a strong proletariat: the two Rhodesias and South Africa. A victory for the Lumumbist movement could have been the starting point for a crusade to liberate the horribly exploited and confined Black people of South Africa.
Subsequently, the diverging interests of the various capitalist centres led to the reunification of the Congo, but this was from above and under their tutelage. On the other hand, global capitalism granted independence to a series of small Black African nations landlocked within South Africa and therefore dependent on it. Capitalism had succeeded in stemming the revolutionary tide, even though its more complete victory – for example, the destruction of the apartheid regime in South Africa – would not yet mean socialism.
3.1.18. Since the radical revolution could not succeed, the entire vast revolutionary movement ultimately led to the strengthening of capital. Just as the partial defeat of the reform movement in the C16th resulted in the Balkanization of Europe, the partial defeat of the anti-colonial revolution in the 1960s resulted in the Balkanization of Africa.
Many countries in Asia or Africa, as a result of the Asiatic mode of production or related forms, could only see capitalism forming with difficulty. Pre-capitalist society had been destroyed, but as capital was not yet a global material community there was nothing to replace the ancient community. On the contrary, these societies could more easily tend towards communism. But, to keep humanity in subjection, to fix the movement, capital was led to create artificial capitalist states on non-capitalist bases. The example of such a state, not linked to a national community of which it would have been the expression, is furnished by that of the Belgian state in the last century. The majority of African states are such states, products of the counter-revolution. This was a good way to contain contradictions without resolving them. Hence, the instability of these countries.
3.1.19. These revolutions took advantage of the weakening of global capitalism following World War II. They accentuated this weakness, but then, given their limited point of impact, they contributed to its strengthening. One of the reasons for the difficulties the Algerian revolution encountered in triumphing was that it developed during the second anti-colonial wave.
3.1.20. It is also racist to systematically denigrate these revolutions because of their political instability (which can be seen especially in Black Africa.) The political difficulties are directly linked to the inadequacy of the solution imposed by global capitalism and against which the masses are trying to fight. To achieve a certain stability, significant economic development would be required to reinvigorate the destroyed ancient economy. However, since these countries are producers of raw materials, global capitalism has no interest in their development as this would cause these goods to rise in price.
These countries will long remain weak points, cracks in the global capitalist system. These cracks will be easily exposed during the crisis. On the other hand, the destruction of the old colonialism is an absolutely positive development. It involved the development of capitalism, placing secondary nations such as France, England, or Belgium in their realistic place in the global system.
3.1.21. As far as China is concerned, the importance of the Chinese revolution cannot be denied due to the country's economic difficulties. In this case, the importance given to the French Revolution of 1789 should be revised, since in France, it was not until the post-war period that capitalism, with the expropriation of small landed peasants, actually developed. In any case, to judge the radical nature of a revolution, the destruction of ancient social relations must be taken into account.
3.1.22. The proletarian revolution was unable to organically connect with other revolutionary phenomena.
In 1848, the national independence movements were unable to replace the weak proletarian movement (the proletarian movement in France and the national movements in Europe).
In the period that followed, the movements in the pre-capitalist zones, although they had a definite influence were not powerful enough to revive the European movement.
During the revolutionary phase that began in 1917, the movements of the colonial peoples did not arrive in time. When they manifested themselves, the ebb tide was already being felt in Europe. This made the task of the capitalist class easier: to stem the revolutionary phenomenon.
In the period 1945-1962, the anti-colonial revolution was ultimately not powerful enough to revive the proletarian movement.
In the future revolutionary phase, it would only be a matter of connecting the workers' movement that had reached a mature stage with the workers' movement that is just beginning its great historical cycle. This would be the moment of pure revolution on a global scale.
3.2. The struggles against American capitalism
3.2.1. It is not possible to make a clear break with the phenomenon analysed in the previous theses. The USA experienced a colonial phase identical to that of Western Europe; the conquest of Cuba, the Philippines and various islands in the vicinity of the USA. On the other hand, the struggle against the former colonial metropolises continues with that of Mozambique and Angola against Portugal.
3.2.2. We have the beginning of a new cycle, with the end of the shock of the Russian revolution. The USSR forms with the USA the new holy alliance which tends to limit all revolutionary phenomena. In many cases, the intervention of the USA in other countries no longer has the character of wanting to monopolize raw materials or to defend the American interests in place, but is a necessity for the total valorisation process of American capital, an aliquot part of world capital. This was manifested during the Korean War and, again, in an even more acute way, with the intervention in Vietnam since 1964.
3.2.3. The US's involvement in Southeast Asia also has other aspects: counterbalancing the influence of the USSR and Chinese expansion, as well as preventing any revolution in India, not to mention opposition to its long-term adversary, Japan. This explains the enormous deployment of forces from Thailand to Formosa, not to mention the covert intervention (CIA) in Indonesia which shifted the balance of power in favour of the USA.
Consequently, any disruption of equilibrium in Southeast Asia will necessarily benefit the revolution, not immediately the communist revolution, but also the bourgeois revolution (for example, in India). This is why a Viet Cong victory would have immense repercussions.
3.2.4. The struggle of the Viet Cong is a national struggle. It developed like all the others (China, for example). Initially, there was a certain class program, even if it was no longer proletarian. Then, gradually during the struggle, in order to attract the maximum number of social strata, it increasingly became a program of national unity, of a popular front. However, this struggle destroyed the ancient social relations that had remained intact after the Indochina War. Following this, there was a pure and simple setback. It was therefore necessary for the revolution to start again in the countryside so as to put an end to the old society and the rot grafted onto it by France, and later by the USA.
The destructive effect of the war was complemented by that of the economy. Peasants fleeing the war crowded into the cities and, thanks to the American presence, were able to survive. The dollar caused the ruin of the old society. The same thing is happening – without war – in Thailand. The dollar is triumphing everywhere. This is also the case in South Korea, where, to counterbalance the influence of the North, the Americans have facilitated industrialization and general economic development.
3.2.5. The Viet Cong’s struggle, linked to that of North Vietnam, has as its goal the reunification of the country. Here again, this is not an element of the communist program, but it is undeniable that if this reunification were to take place it would allow a development of the whole of former Indochina which would have great repercussions on the rest of South-East Asia, and therefore on India in particular.
3.2.6. Capital consolidated its domination after the war by dividing certain nations: Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and attempted to do the same for China (for Africa, it prevented the reformation of the ancient unities that pre-existed the arrival of colonialism); the struggle for the reunification of these countries can be the first stage of revolutionary revival. For it can only be waged, especially for Germany, against world capitalism. This is a fact that shows to what extent the struggle against the USA has a different content than that against the ancient colonial metropolises. Moreover, in assessing this struggle, we must take into account the characteristics of the historical cycle in which it is situated. At present, we are no longer liquidating a phase of capital's development; it is the contradictions of capital’s ‘new being’ that are at issue.
3.2.7. During the decolonization phase, the USA presented itself as the champion of the liberation of peoples. Now, they are the ones intervening everywhere, replacing England, France, etc. The great mystification of America-as-Liberator – a mystification to which the Stalinists contributed powerfully – is destroyed by these struggles. The Cuban Revolution was one of the foremost of these destructive agents.
3.2.8. Ultimately, these struggles are only the prologue to World War III or the future revolution. Everything depends on the radicalisation that will occur in the West within the proletariat. By weakening the fundamental capitalist centre, these struggles favour those of the Black American proletariat and revive those of the workers of Europe. In turn, given that in Latin American countries, Cuba, and Vietnam, the relations of production have not yet been structured but are unstable, any struggle in the Euro-North American area can facilitate a certain ‘growing over’. This is why it is not possible to arbitrarily condemn Latin American guerrilla warfare on the pretext that guerrilla warfare is an inferior form of struggle. In fact, as with Lenin after 1905, we must simply deplore the fact that it is not guided by an effective class party on a global scale.
3.2.9. Ultimately, all these struggles against the USA are of no interest because they could result in the immediate triumph of socialism in any of the countries where they are underway; they have a strategic interest for the new revolutionary cycle beginning in 1968. Any weakening of the world centre of counter-revolution is a victory of the revolutionary phenomenon tending towards communism either because it will accelerate the outcome of the crisis or because it will radicalize the struggle on a world scale.
3.3. To what extent has the proletarian class been produced?
3.3.1. The anti-colonial revolutions constitute the most grandiose phenomenon; the most important since the Russian Revolution. We have had the following series, not always linear: double revolution (failed), attempts at ‘growing over’, popular revolution, revolution from above. In all cases, the revolution triumphed, but the proletarian revolution was defeated. The immediate program on a planetary scale of 1919 has been realized: the emancipation of all peoples (with a few exceptions) subjected to the domination of the capitalist metropolises. Without the great push of 1917, without the hope of leading a double revolution on a world scale (which would lead the proletariat to build capitalism in Russia, to carry out a bourgeois revolution in other countries), the whole world would never have been turned upside down to this extent. Cortés at the beginning of the historical phase, the proletariat intervened as a historical subject, because it was constituted as a party and, at the end of this phase, it was eliminated as such. But what was really eliminated were all the weaknesses, all the historical defects. For the entire planet the current question is the constitution of the proletariat as a class and therefore as a party. The conjunction of forces no longer arises between those which must lead the n-1 revolution and those which must complete the cycle of n revolutions, since all are at the n + 1 level. The connection must be made between the young and the old proletariat.
3.3.2. All those who theorize a cessation of the movement so as to establish the proletariat as a class in the Asian and African regions, while ironizing about the weakness of these revolutions that "claim to be socialist," are only theorizing their own incomprehension, their theoretical resignation in the face of the investigations required to understand the great social upheavals of humanity. Finally, they are making themselves the defenders of capitalism, engendering immense defeatism. It is a question of seeing what the revolutions have eliminated and what they have established.
3.3.3. Their development is the end of the myth of socialism in a single country, of the myth of chosen peoples or necessary peoples. For eight years (1954-1962), the Algerian people were a necessary people because, without their heroic struggle, not only would the independence of Algeria not have occurred, but that, too, of all Black nations. Now, within the Algerian people, the struggle must polarize the classes and the proletarian struggle must connect with the proletariat of all countries.
By destroying the Russian and Chinese myths, they have truly consigned to the past an entire phase that seeks to live on in our present. On the other hand, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are on the move, while Europe is lagging behind and is, so to speak, being Asianized. Such an observation does not lead us to say that the centre of the revolution is in these countries, but rather to recognize the full importance of the revolutions that developed there. These countries will be important in the return of the revolution to the Euro-North American area.
3.3.4. Many remain obsessed with the mystification: the independence movements in Asia and Africa claim to be socialist when they have only a bourgeois program. However, the systematic denigrators are themselves victims of the mystification of social relations. They do not understand that this is a reality, that it simultaneously indicates this potential ‘growing over’ and this proximity to communist society. The historical goal demanded by the situation is a classless society. But the real foundations for this do not exist in these countries, which are strongly tied to the facts of the past. Moreover, the persistence of the counterrevolution on a global scale is increasingly leading them to compromise with the main capitalist centres.
These movements are in the same situation as those Russian economists who, after 1921, believed they could domesticate the law of value and deluded themselves that they had somehow escaped its domination.
3.3.5. The revolutions of 1789 and 1917 were both generalizing revolutions. The first was a bourgeois revolution pregnant with a proletarian revolution; the second was a proletarian revolution pregnant with a bourgeois revolution. The cycle is complete; all possibilities have been exhausted.
The revolutions in Asia and Africa are therefore included in this cycle. The leaderships prevailing in most of these countries are totally devoted to global capitalism. F. Fanon described their cowardice, their vileness, and their national pettiness. They are the offspring of the global counterrevolution. The latter was able to halt the formation of the proletariat and the revolutionary growth in Africa, but it cannot do so indefinitely. It must achieve from above – very slowly – what a grassroots revolt would have accomplished in a few years. The solution of creating capitalist states imposed on societies just entering the initial phase of capitalist development has made it possible to absorb the revolutionary wave, but now it must necessarily give life to capital's rival: the proletariat. This is seen in the vast movement of expropriation of people taking place throughout Africa; a movement which is at the base of the formation of the proletariat.
3.3.6. Apart from the formation of capitalist states grafted onto more or less archaic societies, blocking economic activity is an effective measure against revolutionary movements, even if they are not proletarian. This contributes to giving the societies of these countries a monstrous appearance.
The state tends to swell and, from the beginning of its life cycle, resorts to the same measures used by the states of European countries at the end of this same process: integration of unions (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Guinea, etc.) and single-party systems. This is proof, a contrario, of the strength of the proletariat. It also shows that these states are oppressive machines, implanted in specific areas to keep the proletariat on a leash because the old colonial form could no longer do so. The artificially created nation (very often) serves as a means to keep people in slavery. Hence the dual character of the national struggle: because of the power of the proletariat it is the fundamental resource used to divert the latter’s struggle and fragment it, in this sense it is reactionary; because it leads (or has led) to the eviction of the colonial metropolises and then allows the development (even if it is slowed down by the world counter-revolution) of a capitalist society as the basis of the next revolution, it is revolutionary. However, the first affirmation could have all its force, its power, if in the West there really existed a proletarian movement capable of supporting those of Asia and Africa. But to support this and only this when there is not, at the present time, a proletarian movement in the West, ultimately amounts to forgetting the second aspect and, therefore, to denying any positive character to these revolutions. This is only a step away from calling them reactionary movements, a step that is too often taken...
Bourgeois ideology, by speaking of proletarian nations, recognizes the importance of the proletariat. A (completely hypothetical) struggle of these nations against the super-capitalist West could only be viewed favourably, hoping for the victory of the "barbarians."
Finally, the various currents developing in these countries are often criticized for fighting only against American capitalism and not fighting enough against their own state, yet in these countries the latter is only a by-product of the former (cf. 3.1.18).
3.3.7. The proletariat's support for the bourgeois revolutionary leaders was necessary for the revolution to triumph. Support, but not fusion into a single movement, as occurred with the Kuomintang, the FLN, etc. But this is no longer the case after the triumph of these linked leaders, as we have seen with the various capitalist centres. Such support for leaders presented as supposedly more revolutionary only led to catastrophe. The most typical cases occurred in Iraq and Indonesia (1965). The repression inflicted on the proletariat in these countries constitutes a major handicap for the constitution of the class into a party.
3.3.8. To understand the state of the proletarian movement in these areas, it is necessary to compare it with the stage it reached in the West in the middle of the last century. We find it caught in the compromise (in the class bloc):
"The provisional government which emerged from the barricades of February necessarily reflected in its composition the various parties which shared the victory. It could only be a compromise between the different classes which had overthrown the throne of July, but whose interests opposed each other with hostility." (The Class Struggles in France, Ed. Sociales. p.44).
"What it had conquered was the ground for the struggle for its revolutionary emancipation, but not the emancipation itself." (ibid., p. 45) Isn't this the stage it has reached in the Asian and African regions?
The weakness of the proletariat in these areas is the same as that in Germany in the mid-19th century:
"In Germany, the working class finds itself, in its social and political development, as backward as that of France and England as the German bourgeoisie is behind that of these two countries. Like master, like servant. The evolution of the conditions of existence for an intelligent class goes hand in hand with the development of the conditions of existence for a numerous, wealthy, concentrated, and powerful middle class. The movement of the working class is never independent, it never presents an exclusively proletarian character, as long as the various sections of the middle class, and particularly its most progressive section, the big industrialists, have not conquered political power and reshaped the state according to their needs. It is then that the inevitable conflict between employers and employees becomes imminent and can no longer be postponed; it is then that the working class can no longer be deluded with illusory hopes and promises that will never be fulfilled; it is then that the great problem of the 19th century, the abolition of the proletariat, is finally brought fully to the forefront and appears in its true light.
"This general absence of modern living conditions and modern modes of production is obviously accompanied by an equally general absence of modern ideas. Is it therefore surprising that in the early days of the revolution, a significant segment of the working class loudly demanded the immediate restoration of the guilds and privileged corporations of the Middle Ages? (Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany (pp. 11-13))
Consequently, criticizing the weakness of proletarian movements in Asia and Africa, denying them revolutionary importance, without confronting the historical cycle of the proletarian class, ultimately results in racism because it denies Black or yellow proletarians what Marx and Engels recognized in those of Western Europe. This is all the more racist because in the West, heir to the great revolutionary tradition, the most uninspiring democratism triumphs.
3.3.9. The proletarian movement in these areas has now reached the stage of the European movement in 1851 when Marx wrote his circular to the Communist League.
a.
"The relations of the revolutionary workers' party with petty-bourgeois democracy must be as follows: it will collaborate with it against the faction it intends to overthrow, but it will oppose it in everything that concerns particular interests." (Address of the Central Committee of the Communist League, 1850).
One can, within very strict limits, conceive of aid granted by the proletariat of these countries to their state only when the latter genuinely opposes the former colonial powers or the USA. It is also obvious that it must constantly oppose this same state in order to defend its interests and constitute itself as a class and therefore an independent party.
b.
"They must strive to diminish the intoxication of victory and the enthusiasm for the new state of affairs which arise after every victorious struggle, by their calm way of understanding the situation and by an attitude of open distrust towards the new government. Alongside the organs of official government, they must establish their own workers' organs, either in the form of district councils, or in the form of workers' clubs or committees, so that the organs of the democratic, bourgeois government not only lose all support among the workers but are subject to the control and supervision of organs based on the working masses. In a word, from the day after the victory, the distrust of the workers must no longer be directed against the defeated revolutionary party, but against its former ally, against the party which claims to exploit the common victory for its exclusive benefit."
Here we see the enormous difficulty for the proletariat of Africa and Asia because it finds itself facing very modern, very strong states, which were not born, like those of Europe, by struggling and prohibiting coalitions, which had the effect of radicalizing the struggle, but were born in the fascist form: they integrate the unions into the state and create a single party.
"They must not allow themselves to be misled by the admonitions of the democrats accusing them, for example, of dividing the democratic party and facilitating the victory of reaction. All these phrases have no other purpose than to deceive the workers."
c.
"The first point on which the bourgeois democrats will come into conflict with the workers will be the question of the abolition of feudalism. Just as during the first French Revolution, the petty bourgeoisie will divide the feudal lands among the peasants, in full ownership, that is, they will allow the rural proletariat to survive and create a class of petty-bourgeois peasants, who will experience the same poverty and indebtedness as the French peasantry today."
"The workers must oppose this plan, in the interests of the rural proletariat and in their own interests. They must demand that the confiscated lands remain state property and be transformed into workers' colonies, which the associated agricultural proletariat will exploit using the methods of large-scale farming. This will also have the effect of immediately providing a solid foundation for the principle of common property amidst tottering forms of property. The workers must unite with the agricultural proletariat as democrats unite with the peasants."
This is entirely valid. It is enough to replace feudalism with pre-capitalist forms, since the countries in question have not experienced the feudalism. This also implies the struggle against the old colonial metropolises and against the USA. They are the ones who prop up the old social relations, they are the ones who have the greatest interest in perpetuating them so that there is no radicalization of the struggle.
d.
"But they themselves must do their utmost for their own victory by becoming aware of their class interests, by adopting, as quickly as possible, an independent political point of view, and by not allowing themselves to be stopped for a single instant by the hypocritical rhetoric of petty-bourgeois democrats, in the independent organization of the political party of the working class. Their slogan must be: PERMANENT REVOLUTION!"
In 1850, Marx predicted the next revolution would take place in two years. It is therefore obvious that he ends his text with the demand for permanent revolution. At present, it is still a long way off. However, the need for the independence of the proletarian movement is more necessary than ever. At the same time, the connection with the world movement must be verified, which alone will be able, in turn, to proclaim the permanence of the revolution when the conditions for it are met.
3.3.10. Numerically, the proletarian class is very significant in the African and Asian regions. It includes not only those who, in a certain sense, are integrated into a system, but also those who have been expropriated and have nothing, absolutely nothing. There is no middle class as in the West. More precisely, the old middle class, a relic of colonial society (intelligentsia, small shopkeepers, artisans, small landowners), is in power. It is from this class that there emerges the civil servants of the capitalist state that manages the country on behalf of global capital; the means of production having remained, for the most part, in the hands of the country's former masters.
Organisationally, the proletarian class has not yet defined itself. Programmatically, it suffers from the regression of the class on a global scale. However, to aid its theoretical development, there is no point in denying its entire involvement in the previous phases or simply copying the Western situation. In fact, it is necessary to highlight the specific characteristics of the struggle in these countries, the only way for the proletariat to achieve a unitary universal vision.
3.3.11. The future of the proletarian class is to become global. Objectively, there is unification across the entire planet. It must be brought to the forefront so that it becomes subjectively felt. Our separate history of the class is ending, now that, potentially, its unified, global history begins. In 1858, Marx wrote to Engels:
"For us, the difficult question is this: on the continent, the revolution is imminent and will immediately take on a socialist character, but will it not be stifled in this small corner, since on a much larger scale, the movement of bourgeois society is still on the rise?"
Currently, anti-colonial revolutions have made the communist revolution imminent throughout the world.
3.4. Remarks on the Chinese revolution
3.4.1. K. Marx was concerned with the development of the revolution in China immediately after the 1848 revolution. He predicted that the penetration of Europeans into Asia would provoke a bourgeois revolution similar to that of 1789. His hope was that such a revolution would revive the movement in Europe.
The Third International abandoned the study of extra-European areas. It developed as a European and North American phenomenon and, very early on, retreated to this geo-social area. Apart from R. Luxembourg, who dealt with the penetration of capital into various countries, and Lenin, who dealt with the Turkish, Persian, and Chinese revolutions (1911), and finally the Italian left, which vigorously opposed the Libyan War, nothing serious was done on this question. The study of Asia, Africa, and the civilizations that developed there remained where Engels had left off; as for Marx's [TN: anthropological] work, it was unknown.
The Third International actively engaged with the colonial countries, however, it never managed to clearly reiterate the theoretical data defined by Marx regarding the Asian model and thus to understand the historical particularities of social struggles in Asia.
3.4.2. When the Chinese question arose in the Comintern, the doctrinal weakness mentioned above clearly manifested itself. It facilitated Bukharin's theorization: to form an alliance with the bourgeoisie, and therefore with the Kuomintang, to fight against a supposed feudalism.
"The fundamental difference between the situation in Russia between February and October 1917 and the current situation of the Chinese revolution is that Kerensky pursued an imperialist policy, while the revolutionary army and the Chinese national government are objectively pursuing an anti-imperialist policy at this time." (Bukharin, The Problems of the Chinese Revolution)
"But the party of the proletariat must and can support Chiang Kai-shek to the extent that he led and continues to lead the war against the great military governors and the imperialists, although by his class nature he is, abstractly speaking, further to the right and worse than Kerensky." (Ibid.)
"Organizationally, the Kuomintang is not a party in the usual sense of the term. Its structure allows it to be conquered at the grassroots level by regrouping classes and driving out right-wing ‘Kemalist’ elements, whom it would be absurd to confuse with the entire Kuomintang. Should we, during the Chinese revolution, seek to exploit this particularity, or should we ignore it?"
"We believe that the task of the communists in China is to take this particularity into account and utilize it. How? We must increasingly transform the Kuomintang into an elected mass organization." (Ibid.)
After Chiang Kai-shek's defeat and massacre of proletarians and peasants, Bukharin remarked:
"The Chiang Kai-shek faction is already shooting peasants and workers, but is still fighting the feudal military leaders." (Ibid.)
He concluded:
"That is why even today, especially today, the tactic of leaving the Kuomintang is absurd." (Ibid.)
The theoretical error in characterizing Chinese society led to the proletariat fighting against an imaginary enemy and being massacred by a very real enemy. This is something that no one wanted to recognize.
3.4.3. Trotsky, Zinoviev and in general the entire Left Opposition opposed the policy of the Third International in China. However, the question of the definition of Chinese society, the characterization of the social strata struggling within it, of classes, is not really addressed. We are only at the level of an assessment of the balance of power and questions of tactics. The affiliation of the CCP to the Kuomintang was approached not from a point of view of principle but from a circumstantial point of view. In China, the circumstances for a merger of the two organizations were not favourable and, on the other hand, the conditions of "organizational independence of the CCP vis-à-vis the Kuomintang" would not have been realized. Zinoviev, who asserts this in his theses on the Chinese Revolution, refers, to support his argument, to the question of the Communist Party of Great Britain in the Labour Party. However, in this case, it was a mistake (it was Lenin who, at the time, advocated such a merger!). Trotsky, too, does not approach the question from a theoretical, but a pragmatic point of view. Consequently, he does not fully draw the lessons of the defeat. He declares:
"It is necessary to:
a - Declare as fatal the forms of bloc in which the Communist Party sacrifices the interests of workers and peasants for the utopian purpose of keeping the bourgeoisie in the camp of the national revolution.
b - Purely and simply reject the forms of bloc that, directly or indirectly, hinder the initiative of the Communist Party by subjecting it to the control of other classes.
c - Categorically renounce forms of bloc that force the Party to retract its flag and sacrifice the progress of its influence and authority to the interests of its ally.
d - Base the bloc on a clearly formulated commonality of objectives, not on misunderstandings, diplomatic maneuvers, and falsehoods.
e - Determine the conditions and limits of the bloc with perfect precision and make them known to all.
f - Preserve the Communist Party's full freedom of criticism and the right to monitor its ally with no less vigilance than an enemy, without forgetting for a moment that an ally relying on other classes or dependent on other classes is only a temporary ally and can, due to circumstances, turn into an adversary and an enemy.
g - Prefer liaison with the petty-bourgeois masses to liaison with the leaders of their party.
h - Ultimately, trust only in oneself, one's organization, one's weapons, and one's strength.
Observing these conditions will make possible a truly revolutionary bloc, and not a hesitant alliance, subject to all sorts of twists and turns between leaders; only this will make it possible to rely on the alliance of all the oppressed in town and country under the political hegemony of the proletarian vanguard." (Trotsky, The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin)
3.4.4. In all his works dealing with the Chinese revolution, Trotsky therefore correctly defends the need for a more autonomous policy for the Communist Party, but he never manages to conduct a comprehensive study of Chinese society and the revolution unfolding there. This lack of in-depth study prevented us from seeing the new revolutionary cycle that emerged after 1927. He continues to analyse the revolution in China using the Bolshevik schema and in accordance with his theory of permanent revolution and completely omits the fact that the proletariat had been defeated on a global scale.
"Today, no one can yet say to what extent the aftereffects of the Second Chinese Revolution will combine with the dawn of the Third Chinese Revolution. No one can predict whether the hotbeds of peasant uprisings will continue uninterruptedly throughout the extended period needed by the proletarian vanguard to strengthen itself, to engage the working class in battle, and to align its struggle for power with widespread peasant offensives against its most immediate enemies." (‘To the Communists of China and the World! On the Perspectives and Tasks of the Chinese Revolution.’ The Truth, No. 53, 1930)
"What characterizes the current movement in the countryside is the peasants' tendency to give it a Soviet form – or at least a Soviet name – and to equate the partisan detachments with the Red Army." (Ibid.)
"We are on the road to the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet form." (Ibid.)
However, the character of a peasant, bourgeois, and national revolution was to become apparent even before Trotsky's death. He was too imbued with his schema of permanent revolution, with his idea of the impossibility of a peasant revolution, to recognize the facts.
3.4.5 The Italian Communist Left agreed with the Left Opposition but opposed Trotsky's call for the convening of a Constituent Assembly. After the war, it recognized the new revolutionary cycle: a bourgeois cycle.
"For China, private capitalism is a step forward; if Liu Chao Chi says so, he has the right..."
"The Chinese bourgeois revolution is a revolution that arrived at the right time in its continental area, as was the case with the French Revolution. Having lived for millennia fragmented into multiple economic, social, and administrative units, China has taken the formidable momentum of building the internal capitalist market by establishing itself as a unitary state, and Mao would be a great symbol if he stood on the level, not of Bonaparte, but of Louis XIV." (Il Programma Comunista, No. 6, 1953)
At the same time, it was asserted that Mao was in line with Marxism by defending his bloc of four classes.
Regarding the People's Commune movement of 1958, considered to be still within the bourgeois cycle, the following was stated:
"It seems that the problem that has provoked the ‘reform’ is, in such a populous country, a labour shortage crisis. Men would move to a greater extent from agriculture to industry, and women would replace them in agriculture." (Il Programma Comunista, No. 20, 1958)
3.4.6. After 1960, the work done on the Chinese revolution no longer had any connection with that carried out previously. The way of approaching the question changed completely. Moreover, it had no connection with Marxist theory. Everything published since then was a simple rehash of the positions of Lenin and Trotsky. It was simply stated that Marxism is always right and commented on a few quotes from the aforementioned authors. The latter's position on permanent revolution was fully accepted. With Trotsky, this was a mistake; in this work, it becomes a farce. Such a thing cannot be criticized. It can only be said that it is one of the most obvious signs of the theoretical retreat of the left, and its absorption into Trotskyist decay.
3.4.7. From the assessment of the Chinese revolution by the Italian left (before 1960), two important, though seemingly contradictory, assertions emerge.
a - China will be conquered by the American dollar (1950).
b - In China, a Marxist school capable of criticizing the Russian movement may emerge (1953).
China is a 20th century Germany and will witness the birth of a true communist movement that can make a contribution to the current proletarian movement comparable to that made by the German proletariat in the 19th century (1958).
The second assertion is closely linked to the first in the sense that the vast revolutionary movement can, both in terms of struggle and in theory, overflow the leadership of the Chinese party and state. After the troubles of 1961, there was the offensive on Assam. But a Chinese intervention in India necessarily saw it come into conflict with the USA. Hence the retreat of Chinese troops and, as a result, an opportunity to relaunch the revolutionary process in an immobilized and lost India. The movement could then be diverted into the struggle against the USSR (the letter in 25 points and the China's break with the USSR in 1963). Then with the Vietnam War. However, in 1966 the great cultural revolution began which was clearly engendered by a vast movement of the masses. The Maoist leadership tried and succeeded in channeling it. The terror of the Red Guards is comparable to that of the plebians Marx spoke of during the French Revolution, a terror that had helped put an end to the ancien régime. Mao then appears as a Robespierre who manages to harness these masses, to put himself at their head while only satisfying a certain number of their demands. In any case, this capture of leadership could not be achieved without clashes with more left-wing elements (as was the case during the French Revolution). Moreover, as we have seen, the bourgeois republic only triumphs from the day it has temporarily eliminated the power of the proletariat.
American non-intervention in China can be explained by the fear of accelerating and radicalizing a phenomenon that could disrupt Asia and the world.
3.4.8. The first assertion is linked to the study of interstate relations. Russia never supported the Chinese revolution but tried to stifle it and divide China. In 1950, the left affirmed that Russia would not support China, and in 1953, "History does not rule out, it presents as probable, a pact between Mao's China and the Western imperialists, and does not rule out, that China, in turn, will not be among the big powers at war against Russia..." (Il Programma Comunista no. 23, 1953)
However, China, abandoned by Russia (1960), found itself isolated and left to its own devices. The Chinese state can only maintain the vast revolutionary movement that is wracking it by facilitating the establishment of institutions and structures, by building capitalism. To this end, it inevitably enters into processes of both conflict and convergence with the United States.
3.4.9. There is therefore a double movement: on the one hand there is China's integration into the world system: for this to happen, the Chinese masses must be domesticated. On the other hand the revolutionary movement, due precisely to the revolution's lack of fixation, to the fact that it has not given rise to a stable, structured society. The leftward orientation of the current leadership of the Chinese state can be compared to that of the Stalinist leadership in 1929, which deluded so many revolutionaries.
The Cultural Revolution perhaps represents the cracking of the bloc of the four classes, the movement to delineate their boundaries and their oppositions. It would mark the end of the popular revolution phase and the beginning of the class revolution. Mao's triumph would then represent the "blockage" of the proletariat's struggle and the triumph of the capitalist class.
3.4.10. The revolutionary phenomenon is therefore only slowed down in China. There is a race between the two phenomena indicated above. However, to discern its real possibilities of giving birth to a true communist movement, it would be necessary to have previously made an exhaustive study of the evolution of Chinese society since at least the revolution of 1911. However, such work is absolutely non-existent. Hence all the confusion that reigns on the subject of China. In 1958, the left had taken up Marx's position on the Asiatic mode of production and had begun a study on the history of China since its origins but, as has been said, the work that followed is of no interest.
3.4.11. Maoist ideology has a revolutionary character in China in that it presents itself as a substitute for ancient Chinese civilization, for ancestor worship (it therefore destroys the old superstructures). The Maoist cult constitutes a counterpart to that of Reason, and then of the emperor, in France. The old unitary cult can only be destroyed by another unitary cult. If Chinese capitalist society secures its foundation, it is not unlikely that we will experience a de-Maoisation just as we experienced de-Stalinization.
In the West, this ideology, with its deification of the people, represents a setback of nearly two centuries. Its current vogue only reflects the absence of the proletarian class as a class on the stage of history and therefore the absence of the theory of the proletariat.3
***
"Recently, the slogan of a certain participation of the workers in profit has been launched with great conceit; we will discuss this in the section on wages. Special bonuses achieve their purpose only as an exception to the rule; they only serve in fact to buy off this or that foreman, etc., in the interest of the employer against the interest of his class, or they apply to clerks, etc., in short to individuals who are no longer simple workers, and do not participate in the general relationship. Finally, it is a special method for swindling the workers by retaining a part of their wages in the precarious form of a profit linked to the running of business." (K. Marx, Grundrisse)
Translated by Howard Slater
Original Text at http://www.revueinvariance.net/revolutionsanticoloniales.html