In organic centralism the party is understood as a collective organ of the historical movement of the proletariat. Comrades cooperate on the basis of a shared program and doctrine. Fraternity within the party is not merely emotional, but a practical solidarity founded on common work and responsibility toward the movement as a whole. The party’s historical task lies entirely in promoting the cause of communism. Yet through the voluntary decision to dedicate one’s life to this work, the militant undergoes a profound transformation. By subordinating personal ambitions and desires to a collective historical program, the individual begins to break away from the narrow, conditioned existence imposed by capitalist society.

Instead of living as an isolated person whose horizons are limited to private survival, career, and consumption, the militant consciously participates in a broader historical movement. By dedicating themselves to the disciplined work of the party, the individual escapes the passive and merely reactive role assigned to them by capital and, for the first time, performs a free act, choosing to participate in the collective force aimed at overcoming the social conditions that reduce human life to a merely contingent existence completely determined by capital.

Even for communists, at the beginning it is always a need, a feeling, an instinct. Individual and collective. There is a bourgeois sensibility and a communist sensibility. Just as there is a party sensibility and a circle sensibility. One excludes the other. The narrow horizon of the circle, of the sect, prevents the unfolding of the communist sensibility, and ends up negating it in personalism. Communists must therefore cultivate a sober and impersonal way of relating to one another in which every comrade is viewed as a participant in a collective task whose unity derives from the party’s programmatic foundations.

The formula “love no one, love everyone” captures this discipline of political relations. To “love no one” means rejecting personal devotion or attachment to particular individuals. To “love everyone,” by contrast, expresses a universal solidarity with the collective body of the party and with the working class whose historical interests it represents. The militant’s loyalty is therefore directed not toward individuals but toward the movement and its program. In renouncing personal attachment, the comrade affirms a broader commitment to the collective cause and to the impersonal continuity of the party.

Within this framework, the notion of fraternal consideration governs the conduct of relations among comrades. This principle rejects internal polemics based on personal attacks, insinuations of malicious motives, or attempts to discredit individuals. Disagreements are inevitable in any living organization, but they must be addressed through theoretical elaboration, doctrinal clarification and evaluation of contemporary conditions, rather than through personal confrontation. Fraternal consideration requires that criticism focus on political positions, interpretations, or formulations, never on the personalities of those who advance them. At the same time, it does not mean avoiding conflict or suppressing disagreements. When theoretical or doctrinal misunderstandings arise, as they inevitably will, they must be worked through collectively and openly. The aim is not for individuals to prove themselves correct or to “win” debates, but to clarify the doctrine and preserve the coherence of the party’s program. Therefore, every disagreement should be seen as a moment of strengthening the formal party and further developing its programmatic unity.

Marxism further assumes that the working class confronts a single objective reality, one that exists independently of the opinions or preferences of individuals. The doctrine of the party expresses the historically accumulated understanding of this reality, continually tested and observed through the study of contemporary conditions. Because of this, the party cannot treat individual opinions as autonomous islands that must be indefinitely “respected” in the name of pluralism. In the Party, individuals are not even allowed to hold onto opinions as their own property. When disagreements arise regarding tactics, programmatic interpretation, or organizational methods, they cannot be left unresolved. They must be confronted and clarified, because Marxists hold that there is ultimately one concrete social reality that can be grasped correctly or incorrectly. To retreat from approaching all questions on this basis would be to backslide away from the epistemological basis of the dialectical materialist world view which forms the basis of the Party’s organic centralist method. The collective process of the Party, its study, discussion, and coordinated activity, is the means through which that objective reality comes into clearer view beyond the limits of individual perception.

This impersonal character of relations is reinforced by the understanding that individuals who enter the party do so as operators within a larger historical organism. Each militant fills a role and performs a function for a period of time, contributing their labor to the collective work of the organization. Yet no individual possesses ownership over the party or its doctrine. The party’s theoretical foundations and programmatic continuity are not the creations of its current members but the historical inheritance of the entire working class. Militants therefore operate as temporary custodians and executors of this inherited body of principles rather than as authors or proprietors of the movement.

For this reason, the functions performed by party operators must always remain subordinate to the defense and application of the historical doctrine. Immediate practical considerations, tactical conveniences, or opportunities for short-term gains cannot justify compromising foundational principles. The party’s work is guided first by the preservation and clarification of its program, even when adherence to doctrine limits pragmatic flexibility or the pursuit of immediate objectives. In this sense, militants are not political entrepreneurs adapting the party to circumstances, but disciplined operators whose task is to apply and defend a historical program that stands above personal ambition, temporary success, or tactical expediency.

When individuals join the party, they are not expected to possess a complete mastery of all points of doctrine. What is required is an acceptance of the programmatic foundations and a willingness to subordinate themselves to them. Entry into the party therefore begins a process of disciplining oneself to the doctrine, a process that unfolds through participation in the collective life and work of the organization. This development does not occur solely through reading and study, although these things remain important. It often emerges through practical experience, through disagreements, questions about methods, or uncertainties that arise while carrying out organizational tasks. In confronting these situations with comrades and referring them back to the established principles of the party, the militant gradually deepens their understanding and alignment with the doctrine.

Taken together, these principles define a distinctive form of comradeship. Relations among militants are fraternal but impersonal, guided by respect, theoretical clarity, and shared responsibility. The rejection of sentimentality prevents the emergence of personal loyalties and factional divisions, while fraternal consideration ensures that disagreements are addressed through collective clarification rather than personal struggle. As operators within a historical movement whose doctrine belongs to the entire working class, comrades perform their functions with discipline and humility, subordinating the always wretched individual ego and immediate pragmatism to the enduring principles of the revolutionary program.