Partido Obrero’s contribution to the international conference debate

Comité Nacional del Partido Obrero

The recent collapse of the international stock exchanges has been a well-timed reminder that the world capitalist crisis is mutating into increasingly parasitic economic forms, on a larger social and geographical scale, and in more repressive and warmongering political forms.

Versión en castellano

In a few days’ time, it led to around 8 trillion dollars in losses in the leading stock exchanges, and increased the cost of the already unbearable foreign debt of so-called emergent countries. It didn’t exclude Moscow, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Mexico, Istanbul or Buenos Aires. The collapse was preceded by a persistent devaluation of US public debt, depreciation of the dollar and a rise in interest rates. The purchase of public and private bonds by central banks, in the recent decade, has taken the US public debt well above 20 trillion dollars, in sync with a growing fiscal deficit that assumes catastrophic proportions if one takes into account the financial obligations of the health system. The main capitalist power faces a debt crisis, manifest in the dollar’s devaluation – the exchange currency of 70% of all international transactions. The US trade deficit is 600 billion dollars per year. China has been a net seller of US debt just prior to the collapse of the stock markets of early February. The Federal Reserve’s withdrawal from financing the State (QE), and China’s withdrawal, open a scenario of world monetary crisis. Private capital cannot fill the vacuum, except at the expense of a considerable raise in the interest rate or via a considerable repatriation of US capital from abroad. The perspective of an international monetary crisis and a “war between currencies” has sharpened the contradictions between capitalist powers and also between great part of the US “establishment” and Trump’s policies.

Great Britain experiences an even larger trade deficit, in both relative and absolute terms. It has compensated it by means of London’s City positive financial flows. Brexit might lead to a crash in London’s City – the international financial center. The bankruptcy of the English contractor Carillion (40 thousand employees and thousands of sub-contractors) points in that direction, a risk hanging over its competitor Capite. The crisis of the public-private investment scheme has once again raised the idea of nationalizing public works and services. According to the Financial Times, 37% of the international companies could go bankrupt if the interest rate were to be sharply raised. This bankruptcy potential is reflected in the interest rate of the higher risk private bonds (“junk bonds”), which has reached 7% per year – the same as in the ‘emergent’ states.

The threat of a financial crisis in China occupies a central place in this framework. The state has been forced to cease, in part, its bailout policy and establish a regime of commercial bankruptcies. In the first line of bankruptcy is the “behind the scenes” banking system, which finances great part of the speculation in real estate. The non-banking debt of China is purported to be around 60 trillion dollars. Given this threat, the government has re-established the Chinese Communist Party’s [henceforth CCP] control over private companies, including international ones.


Trade war

The recent collapse of the stock markets has been detonated by the dollar’s devaluation, i.e., by the financial and trade war, accentuated under Trump’s government. It was triggered by the US Secretary of Trade in Davos, when announcing an under-valuated dollar policy. This also implies a drop in the value of capital in the US. Mario Draghi, ECB president, immediately denounced that the US devaluation represented a threat to Europe’s ‘recovery’. On the other hand, Trump has raised import taxes. If these were to include steel and aluminum, it would unleash an open confrontation with China. In this case, the trade war will extend onto products that use steel or aluminum as raw materials. US protectionism would force China to raise the scale of value of its production. The clash with China is a reaction from US capital against the relative decline of the USA in the world economy.

This pseudo-protectionism puts pressure on opening national markets throughout the world to US banks and companies, first of all in China. It also puts pressure on ceasing the requirement of associating with Chinese companies or on living up to the commitment to share technology. It’s like a missile pointed at the heart of the ‘sui generis’ capitalist structure of China. In China, the State acts as a unifier of the diverse public and private capitals, in the absence of an independent, historically constituted bourgeoisie. The USA as well as the EU have both vetoed Chinese capital investments in their markets, including corporate fusions. China uses its financial surplus to acquire foreign technology by means of such fusions. Thus, China finds itself blocked from diversifying its international financial surplus, but international capitals also find themselves devoid of such financing (which China has been providing). China is by and large an importer of capital and and exporter of currency (purchase of foreign public debt and minority share holdings in international companies). All this affects the continuity of US debt financing by China. The economic war develops a tendency towards the social and political dissolution of weaker states, and accentuates the tendency towards political reaction, on the one hand, and social revolution, on the other – which are pre-conditions to generalized wars.

The huge reduction in corporate taxes, that the US Congress has voted under Trump’s pressure, aim at repatriating American money-capital from the rest of the world and mainly from Europe. We witness a fiscal and financial war. It constitutes another strike to London’s City. It affects the commercial interests of Germany and France and accentuates centrifugal tendencies in the EU.

In the latest meeting of the international financial oligarchy at Davos, China’s representative warned Trump that if he deregulates the US bank system, to free the hands of US bank in the world dispute, the only thing he would achieve is an acceleration of its bankruptcy. It was clear to the leading rulers of capitalism that this trade and financial war endangers world capitalism as a whole.

The pressure in several countries (Germany, France, USA and even Spain) to raise salaries, is exhibited as an attempt to recover domestic markets, in the context of an international trade war. The drop in the purchasing power of workers has sharpened crisis in the proportion between capital accumulation, on one the hand, and personal consumption, on the other. Credit for consumption has once again become unpayable, and it will be even more so as a consequence of the rising tendency of interest rates. This pressure for raising personal consumption purchasing power is justified in terms of ‘correcting’ the ‘excessive’ accumulation of fictitious capital (“savings”), on the one hand, and the accentuation of international trade unbalances, on the other. It also expresses an attempt to contain the growing pressure from the working class. Some ‘neo-liberals’ become ‘populists’. The scarce salary increases are consistently accompanied by higher labor flexibility and the destruction of rights and social conquests. The recent salary hikes in Turkey, Germany and USA seek to contain an increasingly belligerent working class. There’s a tendency towards fighting for better salaries, which has manifested itself as an opportunity in several collective bargaining agreements and in the 15 dollar minimum wage campaign. The tension in work places, in the USA, is drawing close to exploding.


An historical balance

A quarter of a century after USSR’s dissolution, the world capitalist crisis develops as a metastasis. Capitalist restoration in one third of the planet, in territorial and population terms, has turned into growing explosive international antagonisms. Capitalist expansion in the former state-controlled economies has sharpened the anarchy of the world’s economy and has accentuated its parasitic tendencies. The former state-controlled economies, in the other hand, have brought to their autarchic contradictions the even more violent contradictions of the world economy. This is the concrete historical balance.

Neither in Russia nor China has a bourgeoisie emerged as a class, since in both cases it is mediated by the State, which continues to hold on to large part of its “pre-capitalist” bureaucratic structure. Six months ago, the CCP issued a directive that reestablishes party cell control in private companies. A few days ago, “members of the Communist Party in the aeronautic and financial conglomerate HNA were informed that their business must align itself with the party in power. This took place in a meeting convened to declare their loyalty to Peking” (Soutjern.org). Another report warns that “there are not enough prison cells to lock up so many corrupt capitalists”. In his own realm, Putin has just dictated measures in favor of Russian capital repatriation. From there comes the tendency of Chinese capitalists and Russian oligarchs to procure international support to obtain greater local autonomy vis-à-vis the State, i.e., a growing integration with international capital. There is a growing presence of Chinese capitals in the NYSE and in the City. Great part of the so-called “capital export” from China is actually flight of money and a way to empty firms in bankruptcy. Xi Jing Pin and Putin, two special Bonapartists, are forced to conciliate the tendency towards autonomy of their proto-capitalists with the need to contain the disintegration of their states.

The transition in China and Russia are in flux. Under Boris Yeltsin, Russia ran the risk of disappearing as a nation. When the Chinese regime partially opened the stock exchanges in 2014, it unleashed a financial volatility followed by an extraordinary collapse. The State had to intervene the stock exchange s and take a step back in its financial ‘opening’; the same happened in 2015, with the currency market, when a trillion and a half dollars flew from China. The exit of money-capital must not be confused with capital export. In order for these two states to convert the strong political and military pressure they exercise on their geographical and historical environment into imperialist domination, it a long historical period of capital accumulation would be necessary in the context of the historical decadence of capitalism and world crisis. It implies going through a period of crises and revolutions.

Hypothetically, this transition poses a series of alternatives. On the one hand, that the bureaucratized State inherited from preceding social regimes be substituted by a traditional capitalist bureaucracy, under parliamentary control -what the imperialist press calls the ‘democratization’ of China. This ‘democratization’ is seen as a way to integrate China to the world market in terms of dependency. The other alternative would be that capitalism develop, in China and Russia, from its present state form towards one where the bourgeoisie is under the wing of the bureaucracy. In this case, the domination of the geographic areas adjacent to their borders might turn into a sort of Ottoman Empire of capitalist decadence in Central Asia, in a violent clash with India, Russia and Japan. In the case of Russia it would be a passage to a post-modern Tsarist Empire. It is clear that under both hypothesis, and before “succeeding”, they would likely go through one or more international wars and political and social revolutions. A “peaceful” transition to capitalism, on behalf of regimes that expropriated capital through social revolutions, is unviable.

The restoration of capitalism in China, under this ‘sui generis’ transition, has produced, especially in China, a spectacular industrial and technological development, which has put into commercial and capitalist value the enormous human resources of the country. In the 90’s, the European Union planned to build a series of “corridors” that should link it to the Middle East and Central Asia. Nowadays, China postulates, in an inverse sense, the so-called “silk route”. The initiative didn’t find international capital support, hoped for by the Chinese bureaucracy. China must take charge of the enterprise when the economy faces a huge debt and even the need to rescue companies and banks that go bankrupt. The “silk route” projects the ‘sui generis’ structure of China abroad by means of infrastructures that seek to replicate the latest development of the country. The “silk route” seeks to embrace the Chinese regime with external social protection. It also constitutes an attempt to neutralize centrifugal nationalist tendencies, which especially take place in the country furthest confines. This projection by China leads to clashes with different states of Central Asia and with international capital. The economic and political cost of this project could imply, eventually, a full-fledged crisis in the restorationist transition.


The imperialist war

When the dissolution of the USSR and the capitalist reconquering of Eastern European nations took place, liberal internationalism predicted that humanity would enter an era of “universal peace”. The opposite happened. This alone suffices to demonstrate the counter-revolutionary character on the whole of capitalist restoration in China and the Soviet Union.

The development of international wars in the stage in course is not only a manifestation of trade and financial disputes, or of the division of the world among established imperialist powers. For international capital and its states, the hegemony of China and Russia’s transition to capitalism is at stake. We are witnessing one of the most contradictory and violent historical transitions in history.

The struggle for hegemony in this transition not only has Wall Street as a protagonist, operating as international financier and as the shelter of all world capital -or the IMF, the political financial central of monopoly capital and its states. It manifests itself, in another dimension, in NATO bases in the Baltic, in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the conversion of its nations into vassal states, in the financial and political occupation of Ukraine, in the war for control over the Caucasus, in the military occupation of Afghanistan, the presence of the US fleet in the Chinese sea and in plans for an atomic bomb attack on North Korea (‘bloody nose strike’).

The Pentagon has just defined Russia and China as “strategic enemies”, and has enormously increased spending in armaments, and in nuclear programs.  This would seem to contradict the intentions, sometimes repeated by Trump, to proceed in an alliance with Putin. In fact, if confirms it, because it concerns separating Russia from China, and increasing US pressure on the European Union. The US wars in the Middle East are instruments in the struggle for hegemony of the capitalist transition in Russia and China. Trump’s offensive against Mexico and Canada focuses on reducing the supply of components of final products of the US market by China (and also Japan).  It’s an attempt to restrict the world of economic operations of China and to accentuate, as a consequence, its dependence on international capital.

The struggle over the capitalist transition in former “socialist” countries involves rival imperialisms powers. The president of France’s petroleum giant, Total, has just told Le Monde how he was forced to not use dollars in order to avoid economic sanctions from the USA against a giant investment of Total in the Russian arctic. Société Générale, the main bank of France, on the contrary, had to pay, a couple of years ago, a fine of 8 billion dollars for not having taken that precaution in a business deal with Iran. Right now, Total demands that Macron, president of France, politically guarantee its investments in Iran.

However, China and Russia don’t find themselves on the “progressive” side of the barricade.  They represent the direct counter-revolution against the conquests of their two revolutions. They are guardians of the most ferocious capitalist exploitation recorded in the world scenario (“workshop of the world”). They are links in the chain of world capitalist domination. China’s and Russia’s restorationist nationalism is reactionary; it does not represent an independent historical development of the productive forces. The duty of any socialist is to denounce the wars of US and European imperialism, which have as their ultimate goal the hegemony over the transition -the war plans of NATO-, to repudiate any pacifist neutrality in wars of these characteristics, and to use all means of struggle against this war, not in defense of Putin’s or Xi Jing Ping’s capitalist restorations, but in favor of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.  In the hypothetical case of a union of all imperialist states in a war against China and/or Russia, this would assume for these countries in transition a war of national independence.

With this conception we defend the struggle of the eastern regions of Ukraine against the mafia and Nazism of the Ukrainian government, using the methods of class struggle, for the expropriation and working class control in the embattled regions. The Russian bureaucracy use the crisis in Ukraine as an international negotiation piece with imperialism, for the recognition of their annexation of Crimea. In this framework, we support the historical slogan of an independent and socialist Ukraine.


Korea, Middle East (…)

Late last January, Trump removed who should have been the next US ambassador to South Korea, when he warned against the risks of a “surgical” nuclear attack of the USA against North Korea.  He thus reaffirmed intentions repeatedly expressed by the Pentagon. Trump has rejected Kim Jong-Un’s proposal for North Korea to end its nuclear expansion in exchange for the USA’s military retreat from the peninsula, as from Japan, and the establishment, ultimately, of a Korean confederation and an impulse to economic privatization. The North Korean proposal largely embraces the Chinese one, and even South Korea’s. Russia, in turn, accompanies the clandestine supply of petroleum to Kim Jong-Un, in response to US sanctions for Putin’s occupation of Crimea. China and Russia, nevertheless, have voted the sanctions presented by the USA in the UN Security Council.

The probability of a US nuclear attack is surprisingly manifest in repeated press dispatches that claim China could be discussing the possibility of going along with Trump on such a military adventure. The discussion of an alliance of China and the USA against North Korea is public and involves Chinese government authorities. This would reveal a group that “buys in” within the bureaucracy and private capital of China. This extreme hypothesis faces unsurmountable contradictions, since it would turn China into an economic and even military satellite of the United States, which supposes a radical modification of the present international historical scenario. The US bourgeoisie finds itself equally divided -a powerful wing furthers an agreement of the kind reached with Iran, which would freeze the nuclear plans of Kim Jong-Un. In this line, South Korea has restarted a diplomatic approach with the North, which in the past led to the establishment of South Korean companies. It follow along the lines of “market socialism”.

The workers, at world level, are kept in ignorance about the risks of an imperialist attack in the Korea peninsula. The internationalist working class and socialist fighters have the duty to break this political-media silence, and to denounce the war that imperialism has been carefully preparing. We propose the defense of the whole Korean people and national self-determination (unity) and a working class Korea, i.e., governed by working class and socialist councils.

The bombing of the Kurdish canton of Afrin and the subsequent territorial invasion, by Erdogan, have opened a new phase in the war in Syria. It has happened with Putin’s and Trump’s complicity, in violation of all assurances offered to Kurdish combatants. Turkey aspires to create an armed corridor under its control all along the Syrian border and extending it to Northern Iraq. This ambition puts Erdogan on a collision course with the USA and Russia. The agreement to “de-escalate” the war in the territories in dispute have been broken, reopening bombardments and attacks, from Bashar Al Assad and Russia’s side, as well as from the so-called Free Army, which includes ‘Islamic’ forces, supported by Turkey. The USA has ratified its support of Kurdish militias to form a military force on the Northern border. The US objective is still to overthrow the Syrian government and to break the political and military front of Iran-Hezbollah-Syria. Israel, in the meantime, backs militias under its control on the Golan border, with the ultimate objective of disputing political control of Lebanon. The war in Syria threatens to turn into a war all the way from Central Asia to the Mediterranean. Trump conditions the nuclear agreement with Iran on its full retreat from the Middle East.

In this framework, Trump announced the recognition of Jerusalem as the sole capital of Zionism. It is the officialization of the “final solution” for Palestine. Far from pacifist illusions, the international war over control of the Middle East is more intense than ever. The question of war has become urgent to all workers. It is necessary to warn the international proletariat of the growing tendency to an extension of wars in course in the Middle East, in order to engage it in a militant fashion against imperialism.

While many warn of the possibility of a military clash between Turkey and the USA over the Kurdish question, others, on the contrary, point out the possibility of a return to an alliance between both NATO members. The national movements that deposit their aspirations on agreements with powers in dispute, have already suffered several setbacks -no less has been the failure of the recent referendum in favor of the independence of Kurdistan in Iraq. The same has repeatedly happened with the Palestinian cause. The war in Syria increasingly assumes a direct international character. Clashes have started between the Zionist state and troops of Iran and Hezbollah militias. Putin had agreed with Netanyahu, in 2015, to reopen the air space to Israeli aviation.

The geographical scenery of war also spreads: in Yemen it is increasingly cruel and with no sight of ending. Even the contradictions sharpen among the petroleum monarchies: Qatar-Saudi Arabia, due to the pact of Qatar-Iran for the exploitation of the largest gas reserve ever known; Saudi Arabia-UAE in the North of Africa and the Aqaba Gulf; in short, the crisis unleashed with the EU, Russia and China, following Trump’s intention of not recognizing the nuclear agreement with Iran. News that the sale of 5% of the shares of the biggest company in the world, Saudi’s Aramco oil company, wouldn’t take place in London or New York, but directly to China, adds a powerful conflict in the region. Saudi Arabia is undergoing a huge social crisis and an open regime crisis.

These wars with no end in sight provoke cracks and crises in all the imperialist metropolis and among the leading powers overall. Afghanistan has definitely turned into a tomb for the USA, after 16 years of military occupation. Trump has just denounced his main regional ally, Pakistan, for collaborating with the Taliban. The Pentagon has prohibited informing about the amount of territory under Taliban control. Afghanistan is the link that joins the Middle East, on the one side, with India and Central Asia, on the other. The world capitalist crisis cannot be dissociated from this huge political-military crisis. It’s happening to Ukraine as well, which links Europe and Southern Asia: the non-ending crisis in Ukraine highlights the strategic impasse of the European Union.

The geographical spread of the tendency towards military ‘solutions’ and war has gained new space, now in Latin America: Macri, Temer and Santos’s demand, encouraged by Trump, for the USA to declare an embargo on Venezuela’s foreign trade, entail the possibility of military intervention.


Popular rebellions and political leadership

There is a widely assumed characterization that the world crisis has met with a passive response by the masses. Thus, the crisis would only have an ‘organic’ character. However, the world crisis is a convulsive phenomenon that alters, often suddenly and violently, the relationship between classes. It forces militants to come up with concrete proposals for every turn in a situation. To the extent that everyday class struggles affect the position of governments involved in the international crisis, these struggles go beyond national boundaries. There is a need to infuse militants with a sharp awareness of international politics and to develop a program and tactics accordingly.

However, at the turn of the century we’ve had two huge mass insurrections in Ecuador; the gigantic insurrection of October 2003, in Bolivia; the ‘argentinazo’; the irruption of a mass movement under the leadership of Chavism; the political shift of the masses in Greece, from 2012 on, and the subsequent political crises; the large demonstrations in Turkey and the development of Erdogan’s regime towards Bonapartism and a state of emergency; the demonstrations of the ‘indignados’ against evictions in Spain; and the demise of the two-party system; partial and massive strikes in China; great strikes in South Korea; demonstrations of diverse intensity in France; the uprising of a strong mass woman’s movement and the actions it engaged in against Trump’s victory; and last, but not least, the Arab revolutions, in 2011. The contrast with the decade dominated by “the end of history” is overwhelming. The political and international agenda of the masses has changes substantially, and that manifests itself in the evolution of the political struggle of the forces at stake.

The popular rebellions late last year in Tunisia, Sudan, Iran, and Morocco have demonstrated the provisional character of the Arab revolution’s defeat, as well as of the political regimes mounted on those defeats. To characterize changes of tendencies on a political level (to the right, to the left) one needs an all-embracing characterize –a few episodes do not suffice. The world situation is characterized by a tendency towards instability, first of all due to the world crisis. In Latin America one clearly notes that the populist demise and the electoral victories of the rightist have not led to a new equilibrium of forces, but rather to an accentuation of preceding inbalances, which manifest themselves in recurrent episodes of political crises, ruptures and re-building of alliances, and in important popular actions. The pressure towards new monetary devaluations has sharpened the need for struggle in Argentina and Brazil, where great struggles are taking place against labor and retirement reforms, and for the right to free collective bargaining agreements between workers and bosses.

Recent revolts in the Middle East and Northern Africa fit within this characterization. They even pick up a thread with preceding revolutions. In Iran there was an important workers’ participation, including factory take-overs, and most recently with women’s intervention. The struggle “against belt-tightening” has in part become political, with attacks on the theocratic regime. There is frequent news that popular discontent in Egypt may turn into popular rebellion. These rebellions occur in a geographical context dominated by wars. Instead of a characterization that artificially opposes world crisis to a sort of popular indifference, we call to politically draft materials that bring forth resistance and mass struggle, via political strategy and a transitional program.

The tendency to popular rebellion also expresses itself in the enormous development of the women’s movement and the radicalization of its demonstrations. Women who participate in these struggles go back to their work places with a consciousness of struggle they impress among their female and male co-workers. This is precisely what has transformed the feminist movement into a terrain of fierce struggle between the class collaboration line, on the one hand, and the class struggle and socialist development of the movement, on the other. This tendency manifests itself in the national movements, such as the Catalonian rebellion, regardless of the dead end alley that the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie of Catalonia nationalism represent. We highlight the impulse it lends to the republican struggle in the Spanish State. One must also highlight the position of raising an undefined general strike in recent conflict led by the steel workers’ union of Germany.

The class struggle that develops in each country is the fundamental method of the working class to face imperialist wars. This class struggle, combined with a tendency towards crisis in political regimes, weakens the capacity of imperialism to carry out its international wars. Faced with the geopolitical alignment with one of the sides or bourgeoisies in conflict or war, we put forth the method of class struggle and, in this content, we follow the slogan that “the enemy is in our own country”. In order to separate the proletariat from geopolitics and develop its victory, one must invoke a decisive internationalist perspective. Without it, the working class finds itself tied down by the demagoguery of the bourgeois fractions in struggle -between, for example, “neoliberals” vs, “populists”. It’s a deadly trap that threatens workers of Latin America, but more so in the Middle East, where the alliance between Putin-Bashar Al Assad-Kameini is deceitfully presented as an alternative to imperialism and its wars. The slogan of ‘democracy’, on the other hand, has been invoked by great part of the left to support the so-called “colorful revolutions”, which were backed by international financial capital and imperialist states in order to colonize the bankrupted states of Eastern Europe. One must develop an active internationalist consciousness in the class struggle that is taking place in each country.

There is a huge leadership crisis of the exploited, which manifests itself, above all, in the strategies and programs in circulation. Those strategies and programs are not based on the historical decadence of capitalism and the tendency to wars and revolutions that is inscribed in the world crisis. This was evident, to give just one example, in the high hopes deposited in Syriza, and way before in the PT of Brazil. This type of leaders emerge from the power crises in each country and from the exhaustion of the most varied reformist movements of the past and Stalinism, but in no way do they come to redress the historical role of working class reformism. They even boast rejecting ‘socialdemocratization’, thus anticipating an acute consciousness that old fashioned class collaboration is bygone. As soon as they attain political prominence, they reveal themselves as leaders of leaderships of class collaboration, imposing on the masses their subordination to the demands of capital. Lula’s government started off with a ‘reform’ in public sector retirements, along the lines that Temer pretends to deepen. He gave out ‘family bags’ with part of the money from the high prices of exports, but as never before advanced in establishing precarious labor conditions, precisely what working class reformism fought against during its rise. Syriza and Podemos are not ‘neo-reformist’ movements; they don’t have a working class character – whereby they don’t have a class collaboration character either, being as they represent a sector of the well-off petit-bourgeoisie.

The Latin American experience has once again shown the unsurmountable limits of bourgeois nationalism during the period of capitalist decline. The rightwing governments that have emerged in Latin America govern with the support of great part of the nationalist or center-left opposition, and of the labor union bureaucracy.

The migratory crisis in Europe concentrates all aspects of the world crisis. It is the result of the social disintegration of the weakest nations of Asia, Latin America, and Africa due to this crisis. It is the result of the humanitarian destruction produced by Yankee and European imperialistic wars in Asia and Africa; it is the result of the social misery of the youth in the neighborhoods of Europe, and the fierce discrimination they suffer. This gigantic humanitarian crisis has no other response, from capitalism, than concentration camps. The working class movements of the USA and Europe are paralyzed vis-à-vis this crisis, because their leaders fail to propose unifying the struggle against imperialist wars with an open-arms approach to refugees; or unifying the struggle against the class war waged by capital with that of the unemployed and impoverished masses.


International unity of action

The international conference which will take place in early April in Buenos Aires is inscribed in a path of struggle for the unity of action of workers throughout the world. Likewise, it proposes to continue a debate around strategy and program, whose ultimate end is the reconstruction of a working class socialist international. Based on discussion, we will vote concrete initiatives for struggles and for drawing close to combative organizations, seeking shared actions.

The goal proposed by the internationalist parties organizing this Conference is the development of revolutionary working class parties, convinced by long historical experience that movementism is a dead end street. Building working class revolutionary parties cannot take place via unprincipled (pseudo-pluralist) agglomeration, but via political clarification and unity of action. Movementism and pseudo-pluralist parties are a factor of demoralization, in these times of capital decomposition, wars, humanitarian crises, crisis and systematic political shifts. The formation of “broad parties” is a contradiction in terms, because a party is defined by its political delimitation. The line of converting “broad parties” into homogeneous revolutionary ones, is Sisyphus’ work, since they oppose one another. Instead of the method of permanent maneuvers, we propose unity of action based on a platform of basic demands.

The development of the Frente de Izquierda (FIT, Front of the Left) in Argentina has drawn the attention of many left currents in other countries, especially where their atomization is on the rise. So, one must clarify that it was built on the basis of a political differentiation, in this case from bourgeois nationalism or “populism”. This was the political axis that differentiated a sector of working class vanguard from Peronism and readdressed the perspective of an independent working class. It contrasts with the experience of Psol in Brazil, where the revolutionary left seeks shelter under the umbrella of a petit-bourgeois capitalist leadership. The FIT, though, has not become an action front in the class struggle; it has stagnated as a coalition for electoral occasions. It finds itself under the contradictory pressure of working class militants, who demand a FIT politically united in the struggle, on the one hand, and the electoral adaptation that justifies itself in the need to coopt the left wing of Kirchnerism. The revolutionary left must fight to win over the proletariat for independent historical action.


For an action plan

The international Conference will undoubtedly be a forum for debate and for the mutual understanding, sharing of knowledge and clarification. In this respect, it will mark new advances on the path to develop working class revolutionary parties. But above all, it must accomplish the obligation of uniting the participating forces around an action plan. The common experience in the struggle is a condition and an engine for political unity. The success of the Conference will be marked by the advances reached towards this goal.

Let us end imperialist and reactionary wars through unity in the struggle of the proletariat and the masses all over the world!

Against the growing social misery of capital and its every day assassinations, we call to struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and for power to the workers, to establish an international socialist society!