GIORNALE 2 LAMBERTI-U1902364690851EhF-U19023687034818AH-139x172@IlSecoloXIX-Nazionale


Every phenomena is transformed in the course of its development. This transformation is not only “quantitative” but also “qualitative”. This is a general law of dialectical materialism, and therefore also applies to the guerrilla and its forms of struggle:

1) initially and by necessity we operated in small nuclei and carried out small actions.

2) then, with the growing strength and rootedness of the guerrilla, we moved to more complex actions, while more nuclei were always simultaneously carrying out small actions.

3) furthermore the guerrilla has shifted to campaigns, which is to say the same line of combat implemented simultaneously at multiple centers. This is one dimension of the growth of the guerrilla. A second is the transition from “rapid actions” (“bite and run”), to “prolonged actions” (Amerio, Sossi, Costa), which allow us to carry out a more incisive armed propaganda, and to demonstrate to the resistance movement, the level reached by the organization of proletarian power. It allows us to amplify and multiply the contradictions internal to the State. Lastly a third dimension is that of the rapid concentration of numerous forces to attack the enemy in small battles (Casale, Coco).

We have summarized these three dimensions of the growth of guerrilla action, because they are the ones which highlight the basic content of the guerrilla with the greatest intensity. The real strength of the guerrilla is demonstrated not only by “raising the bar” but above all by leading evermore complex campaigns (involving an increasing number of centers); engaging the enemy in prolonged actions which highlight and exacerbate all the internal contradictions, attacking the enemy forces by surprise in evermore substantial battles which provide to the proletarian masses the real margins of increase of the guerrilla forces.

Furthermore the restructuring of the Imperialist State of the Multinationals is characterized by its extreme militarization and by the concentration of military force in the defense of its vital organisms, of its leadership personal, of its fundamental structures, etc. Developing the revolutionary initiative for the political and military disarticulation of this apparatus, entails the adaption of new techniques of struggle which prefigure and bring to life today, the fundamental aspect of the widespread civil war: the annihilation of the imperialist forces. This does not mean, that possible mediations no longer exist, but that they need to be seen in a dialectical relation with the necessity of making a “military” impact in order to make a “political” impact.

The task of the guerrilla is that of the transition from so-called “exemplary” actions, to those which give combat the unambiguous significance of “destruction” of enemy forces. No target should be defensible, for the gorillas and the mercenaries of the government, it should not be possible for any bunker in which the agents of the counter-revolution hide to be called “safe”. The techniques of the guerrilla make this possible, and we should develop them to the new levels of combat imposed by the class war.


In recent years, and particularly in the one just concluded, the antagonistic behaviors of the class, have radicalized and expanded to such an extent that it seems hardly improper to speak of a creeping civil war. According to official data, more then two thousand offensive actions were carried out in 77’ alone, and in the single month of January 78’, more then three hundred and fifty. Spread throughout fifty provinces and a hundred cities. We call this the Proletarian Movement of Offensive Resistance (MPRO), the area of antagonistic class behaviors produced by the escalation of the economic and political crisis, the term MPRO denotes the area of forces, groups, and revolutionary nuclei which give a politico-military content to their anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist initiatives of struggle for communism. It is clear that the concept of the MPRO, does not reflect a flat, homogeneous movement, but rather, an area of struggle and of “partial movements”, very distinct and yet linked by a common denominator: the process of crisis-restructuring driven by the imperialist bourgeois. Because it has such powerful causes, it grows and expands despite those who would to rein it in, within the bounds of “combatant nuclei” (more then a hundred in recent months), actually it is a unitary, solid and sustainable movement.

At this point, we think it is useful to briefly consider an analysis of the new class composition, which is produced on the structural basis which follows from the process of crisis-restructuring, giving rise to an extremely multifaceted and diverse reality in its class determination, which is termed the Metropolitan Proletariat (PM).

What is required is a systematic definition of the social figures which connote the subjectivity of which the MPRO is the direct expression, always bearing in mind that the proletariat alone-on the base of its objective class position-is the factor which introduces into history a concrete interest in the negation of private property in the means of production, in this way creating the preconditions for the destruction of capitalism and the imposition of its dictatorship. The sum total of social strata which-insofar as they are separated or gradually excluded from all forms of property-circulate within the metropolitan proletariat, manifest each of the partial movements, which despite operating on a plane of relative political autonomy, are however determined in their movement and in their historical possibility of liberation by what constitutes the strategic force among all of them: the working class. This is the center of gravity, starting from which it is even now possible to build the unity of the various partial movements, a unity which is not the spontaneous aggregation of the same, but through their alignment to the practices of struggle developing in the working class.

The unification of the MPRO is a mediated process which constitutes the dialectical synthesis of the interests of the various partial movements, around those immediately antagonistic in their strategic components, and this process is not spontaneous, it can only be organized by a vanguard Party which assumes a vanguard function. The working class, remains therefore the central motor of the revolutionary process, as well as its political leadership, although profound changes have been produced within it, which do not form a homogeneous reality and which consequently need to be examined.