XIII Congress of the MST: international point. Opening and closing of Alejandro Bodart

Opening

Companions, us from the CEI of the LIS, to contribute to a series of conferences that we had on these dates (Recently there was the congress of the comrades of Pakistan, We are now going to a congress in Kenya, there was this one from the Argentine MST) We advance a document that appeared in bulletin No. 17[1], with a point to facilitate the debate and encourage the international issue to also be present in our congresses. More in a situation where the national, particularly here in Argentina, It has trapped us for several months.

We gave a title to that material, what isSocialism or Barbarism. It doesn't try to be more of the same, because many times we use this slogan, but for us it has great importance now, because it is a forecast that is becoming more and more current and we think it is important to start there. Because we are in a moment where the crisis of capitalism is to such a degree that there are already elements of barbarism and that everything indicates that, if we don't put a stop to it, will continue to advance. It has the sense of focusing well that we are facing an important moment, where this dilemma becomes increasingly present, most current, and it is important to bring to the forefront this debate about the current stage we are in and the moment we are living in.

The economic crisis, who took an extraordinary leap in the 2008, which is the largest at least of the last 70 years, has not stopped. Conversely, has continued to deepen. Even, If we do an economic analysis of the situation, I think this year's outlook, Next year, is that the crisis is not going to have a positive perspective. All economists, all international organizations, They propose that it will continue to deepen and therefore the prospects are very bad for the world economy. And we all know what that means for the popular sectors.: a situation of worsening hardship.

Because the bourgeoisie, facing this crisis, is unleashing a brutal offensive to try to get out of the crisis at the cost of brutal adjustments, and even to question the very political regimes that are needed to apply this type of adjustments. In many places they do not have the power to impose dictatorships, but neither does bourgeois democracy anymore, just as we know it in some countries, It helps them move forward with the adjustment. So we are seeing changes.. We are seeing the commitment of bourgeois sectors to more far-right variants. While we cannot talk about fascism, There are clear elements of this and it is linked to the crisis.

The situation of hunger and misery is causing phenomena such as mass migrations, that in the case of Europe, They have tremendous weight. The desperation to reach the metropolises from semi-colonial countries causes deaths and, the one who manages to arrive, He lives in a situation of permanent misery because he cannot find the future he was looking for.. This is also repeated in Latin America in relation to the United States..

We are seeing a brutal attack on nature. We have to discuss that we are in a critical stage in relation to the productive model and the possibility of entering a path of almost no return in relation to the possibilities of survival., fruit of the brutality of capitalism. Racism and religious disputes are growing. Where progress is being made in achieving democratic rights for women, there is also a reaction to that. In many places there are epidemics caused precisely by violating the limits of nature and a productive model that produces more and more catastrophes..

Thus, It is very important that we clearly define something that for many of us here is obvious., but it is also a political dispute, because it is about convincing the vanguard and important sectors of the mass movement that capitalism has no reform and that there is no possibility of a way out of the crisis if it is not by destroying capitalism.. And what is this, I insist again, For us it may be an obvious topic, It is not so obvious for the vanguard and for sectors of the mass movement. Thus, There is a political battle to convince that there is no perspective for humanity without destroying capitalism, that has no reform, that there is no type of capitalismbueno nihuman. And of what, Thus, From this it follows that the great task for humanity - and that we have to collaborate in making it happen- It is the socialist revolution. The crisis has reached such a degree that capitalism does not even allow minimal reforms. You almost have to make a revolution to achieve minimal reforms that in other times the reformists achieved and in that way they maintained themselves..

This is precisely what is leading reformist projects around the world to crisis.: raise expectations, but since they cannot give anything to the mass movement from the government due to the current stage of the crisis of capitalism, they quickly fall into crisis. This is what often opens the door to the right.: the disappointment with those projects. We have seen it in Europe with the Syriza, with the Podemos, in Latin America with everything that Chavismo was, with what Lula was at the time, Kirchnerism itself in Argentina: They cannot offer absolutely anything to the mass movement because, within the framework of the current crisis situation of capitalism, there is no room for reforms. The reformists fall prey to this.

That is why this debate is very important., to bring it to the forefront. We have to fight politically to explain to the vanguard that if we do not destroy capitalism, what is proposed is barbarism., and there are already elements of barbarism; that the battle is precisely to avoid barbarism, to prevent the emergence of far-right expressions, and that this requires definitively breaking with any reformist perspective and moving towards a revolutionary perspective..

Another important element of the current stage, without which practically nothing that happens can be understood, is that the crisis of capitalism has also brought about an interbourgeois dispute between old imperialisms that are in crisis and new imperialisms that are emerging. This is also an important element. Practically nothing is understood about what is happening, nor of the conflicts that are beginning to occur at the international level, without understanding that we are in a stage of a kind of new Cold War, this time between imperialist powers, that gets increasingly hotter and that can even lead to, in a period of time, to a new international confrontation. Because beyond the fact that we cannot make a closed prediction about this, you have to know that, until now, Disputes between powers for hegemony have always ended in a military dispute. Now we are in a moment where the atomic power that exists can even raise the possibility that a new global confrontation will end life itself on the planet.. That is why it is important to point out that we revolutionaries are the only ones who can stop this perspective., because only the socialist revolution can act to prevent this from reaching that terrain. Ojo, you have to know that, for example, The Russia-Ukraine war permanently raises the possibility that, especially Russia, what is a nuclear power, if it is threatened, can act in this field. In fact, This topic is a permanent debate in Europe.

Now, to understand and to position ourselves politically, It is important to define the theme of the decline of the United States. Because the United States remains the hegemonic power to this day, but it is in a period of very important decline and has to do with different factors that have led to this situation. One element is that, although “sold”, through very strong propaganda that hit the conscience of the mass movement, what, fall of the Soviet Union and everything that happened after, I was going to semi-colonize those countries, failed at that task. Not only did it fail to semi-colonize China, and Russia, but the opposite happened. Capitalist restoration did not end in semi-colonization: ended in the formation of new capitalist powers that began to dispute the hegemonic role, especially China. But it's not just China: It's also Russia, that we must discuss whether it has the character of a more regional power, more international, but finally it powers throughout its region, where it acts as an imperialist power.

Another very important element is that the United States lost the Soviet bureaucracy as a fundamental partner to act in the class struggle.. Although the restoration was a triumph of capitalism over “real socialism” carried out precisely by the entire policy of Stalinism, at the same time he lost the bureaucracy, that played a fundamental role in responding to the world situation and that weakened imperialism and the United States. I always make a comparison, that it is important to do it. Imagine that here the bourgeoisie lost the union bureaucracy as a fundamental actor to act in the class struggle.. Because the advances of the bourgeoisie cannot be understood only by what the bourgeoisie wants to do.: In many cases they are understood by what the policy of the bureaucracy allows it to do.. In Argentina we are in a moment where, If there were a general strike and a fight plan, Milei's plan could hardly survive. But it advances due to the complicity of the bureaucracy. Good; Worldwide, The Soviet bureaucracy also played a role in that sense..

There is a very important debate on the left, First, because there are many comrades who believe that China cannot yet be defined as imperialist.. It is a debate that leads to political conclusions, because if it is not imperialist and there is at some point a confrontation between NATO and China, If one is imperialist and the other is not, objectively suggests that we must take the side of China. If they are two imperialist sectors, What do we think?, none are progressive and therefore we do not have to support any. This translates into the conflict that exists permanently.. For example, the PTS colleagues (Trotskyist Fraction) of Argentina believe that it is a process that has not been completed, which has a lot to do with the position they have on Ukraine and other places.

The same about the war in Russia and Ukraine.. It is not the same if they are two semi-colonial or non-imperialist countries.. What is under debate in Ukraine is whether there is an imperialist country that attacks another. The Workers' Party has a tremendous confusion in its head. It's very confusing; states that the restoration in Russia has not yet been completed, but at the same time it plays an imperialist role. But it is a debate at an international level and we have to be very firm in this. We from the LIS have contributed important material, which was the magazine we published about all this.

It is a debate that exceeds campism. Camping exists. Sectors even of the bourgeoisie itself encourage camping, nationalism, sectors that come from Stalinism. But there is a debate that goes beyond that and reaches even the forces of Trotskyism., that we still cannot agree on this and that often makes unity of action difficult in the face of processes that occur and find us in debates and even in different fields.. We are categorical: We believe that none of the sectors, nor the old powers -obviously the United States-, not even the new ones, play no progressive role and, Thus, we have a policy independent of all of them.

And this is important to act, not only in the face of conflicts like the one in Ukraine. It is important to act, for example, In Nicaragua. What policy do we have for Nicaragua, that we have it here nearby? We have an independent policy. We revolutionary socialists develop a policy against Yankee imperialism, but also against the government of Nicaragua. We do not yield to the government of Nicaragua, how does a sector, about all camping. We have had a policy that has allowed us to strengthen ourselves throughout Central America, precisely because it has a policy independent of the Nicaraguan government. We put together a brigade. All this allowed us to strengthen ourselves, build our Nicaraguan section, start having relationships and build ourselves in Central America to be clear about this.

There are sectors of the left that do not have clarity; They are not clear about Cuba, which is in a restoration process; They have a completely ambiguous policy, of many times not supporting the mobilizations that take place. We, first, we differ from imperialism, that constantly tries to get in and take advantage of every crisis. But we also have to have a policy independent of the governments that are part of this bloc organized around China and Russia..

In the mass movement, hatred of America, a righteous hatred, often makes these debates complex, because “the enemy of my enemy” often attracts sympathy for what the powers that oppose him do. But it is a political debate that we have to do to explain. The fact that Russia is understood as if it were a continuity of what the Soviet Union was also often acts., and what happens in Russia has nothing to do with what happened in the Soviet Union.

In Ukraine all this came into contradiction. In our opinion, An important sector of the left fell into a unilateral position of seeing only one side of the process that occurred in Ukraine, when in reality two processes were combined. Because the conflict begins with the invasion of Russia, an oppressive power, a people's prison, historically oppressive of the different peoples of the region, against a semi-colonial country. That fact raised, first, defending Ukraine's right to self-determination. But it is also combined with the fact that NATO took advantage of the conflict to rearm and strengthen itself. The invasion of Russia even suited him perfectly to achieve this., even to incorporate new countries into NATO. And this confused, because there were colleagues who had a policy of only seeing this face and, Thus, not lifting Ukraine's right to self-determination, but to subsume it in the dispute against NATO and in that way also save Russia from the oppressive role and imperial power in the region..

Ojo, There were also currents like the ITU (Socialist Left of Argentina) of LIT (PSTU of Brazil) who ignored the fact that NATO takes advantage of the conflict and, Thus, they only saw one side of the problem: that of self-determination. When a policy had to incorporate both elements to be able to have a concrete position and to be able to help build itself in the region.

Because our big problem, If it is true that the alternative is socialism to avoid barbarism, To advance in the socialist revolution we need to build a party and we need to build ourselves in each of the places where we intervene and have policies to build ourselves.. Many colleagues have a completely abstract orientation, to act from a distance without trying to intervene and dispute the direction of the mass movement.

In Ukraine there is a dispute over the mass movement and those who give in to Russia will never be able to build themselves and win over the best of the vanguard and will give in to the nationalists.. Because the best help to nationalists is not to lift the right to self-determination in those countries. Because you leave the mass movement to the Zelenskys and NATO, who present themselves as the standard bearers of the defense of rights, when we all know that all they want is to subdue Ukraine and deepen their colonization. But to dispute, to have the authority to be able to dispute and confront the colonization plan of Western imperialism, It is very important to be a vanguard in the right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people.

And the same thing happens in Russia. It is impossible to build in Russia by giving in to Putin, that has developed a completely authoritarian and dictatorial regime to support its offensive and its transformation into a power in the entire region, and that has the best of the avant-garde imprisoned, exiled abroad or in hiding because she cannot act.

For us, the dispute over leadership is not an abstract problem., intellectual, academic; It has to do with the specific disputes that exist in specific places. We revolutionary socialists will never win the proletariat of Eastern Europe without having a clear policy of complete delimitation of the oppressive power of the place and, at the same time, explaining to the mass movement that the way out is not the West, It's not NATO, It's not the United States.

This combination also has to do with the policy towards Cuba. We will never build ourselves without supporting the vanguard that fights and defends the Revolution, but that is critical of the bureaucracy, If we have prejudices that if we support that we play into the hands of Yankee imperialism, as many currents do, including Trotskyism, that do not support the concrete processes of struggle and do not dispute the direction. It is a very important debate. All characterizations are linked to policies and we have to arm ourselves well because they are concrete debates with the avant-garde..

We are not nationalists. We have to be clear that our solution is not the division into countless countries and nationalities.. We fight for the unity of the working class. We fight for the Free Federation of Socialist Republics throughout the East, in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe, in Latin America. But we well identify that there are different types of nationalism. The nationalism of countries that oppress other peoples is not the same as the nationalism of oppressed countries.. And that is why we need to establish policies to defend the right to self-determination. And this is a crucial policy, because at the stage we are going to, we will see many processes of subjugation of the sovereignty of the people. And we, that we are not nationalists, we are going to have to defend that right.

Mira's, There was no Russian Revolution if Lenin did not defend the right to self-determination of the nationalities oppressed by the tsarist empire., even defending the right to separation, that it was not Bolshevik policy, because the Bolshevik policy was the Federation. But politics cannot be imposed through weapons, which is the best argument for the mass movement to go with the right-wing nationalists. There was a revolution thanks to that success, and it was a very important debate among the Bolsheviks, because Stalin and other sectors were against. Even Rosa Luxemburg was against it., because it only had an abstract policy that we had to be internationalists. But to make the international revolution we must win the mass movement and to win the mass movement, as also proposed by the Transition Program, we have to raise the demands of the mass movement to win it for internationalism, and not give the mass movement to the nationalist leaderships,.

There are going to be new problems. What are we going to do with Taiwan, for example, si China invade? Of course, there are arguments of all kinds. Yes, When the revolution took place, the entire right wing went there. There was a policy of Mao's own government to transfer to Taiwan the entire population that at that time was with the Chinese bourgeoisie. But many years have passed since that. Do you have the right to self-determination or not?? These are debates that we have to do, that are going to arise at any moment. These are debates that we have to open among ourselves to think about what policy we have regarding this..

There is another debate that is Palestine. Unlike Ukraine, there is a very large unit, no total, but very big, in relation to the defense of the Palestinian cause. But what is the way out for the Palestinian cause?, There are many debates on the world left. There is a debate that we have been doing against those who have defended for several years the departure oftwo states, that has been pulverized by reality, but that allowed him, for example Zionism, strengthened by the surrender of Arafat and the entire historical leadership when they accepted the policy oftwo states, which was accompanied by the recognition of the Zionist State.

There are other debates today. That policy failed, Is a binational state possible?, a single state where the two peoples coexist? It's been a long time since 75 years the Zionist State was created. Some colleagues argue that so much time has passed that the Jewish population has already settled, so the issue of the destruction of the Zionist State is up for debate, and maybe we have to go to a single binational state. These are debates that exist between colleagues who try to find a way out.. We don't see it. We believe that there is no possibility of peace in the region if it is not on the basis of liquidating the Zionist State and returning to the situation of ago. 75 years. It is a debate even with colleagues with whom we have fraternal relations, because it is a logical debate, because our proposal to liquidate the Zionist State and go to a single Palestinian State is not easy either., secular, democratic and socialist.

There is another debate: Is the solution the fraternization of the working classes of Palestine and Israel?? There is a strong working class in Israel. Now; We do not see that this fraternization is possible if there is not a defeat of the State of Israel, because today that working class is contaminated to the bones by the politics of Zionism, that has had a policy to get the population to follow Zionism, which has been to give him the territories, the homes and everything that belonged to the Palestinian people, to incorporate the entire population into the army so that everyone, one way or another, also participate in ethnic cleansing, of the seizure of territories and the genocide itself.

Thus, if there is not a categorical defeat of Zionism that opens another perspective, It is very complex. What are we going to do with the nearly seven million Palestinians who are outside the territories?? Are we going to allow them to return to the territories, which is a historical slogan? We are in favor of their return. But if they return to the territories, they are going to want their lands, they are going to want their homes. But in that house there will surely be an Israeli worker, that came from another place and settled. They are specific problems that we have.

First, We must defend the right of the people who have been massacred and who to this day continue to suffer a genocide. So, while we discuss how we stop genocide, These debates are very important and they are important on the left.

We are convinced that the only way out, and this is why it is important to discuss, because we have made a change with a historical slogan. Some of us raised what was the historical slogan of the PLO, which was that of a single Palestine, secular, that was a slogan, if you want, Democratic. We believe that this is no longer considered in reality.. First, because there is practically no direction that lifts it, why, by giving up the PLO and accepting the Zionist State, allowed the leaderships of radical Islam that do not have this policy to strengthen, But what they want is to destroy the State of Israel to replace it with a new Iran.. And we are not with that policy. There is a dispute with them. That is why we believe that the only way out, and I return to the initial slogan, It is the socialist revolution for the region. There will be no way out if there is no socialist revolution in the Middle East against the Arab bourgeoisies that have allowed Israel to become stronger..

And for that you have to build a party, because there is no revolution without a party. And here comes the same thing again. How do we dispute and build ourselves? That is why we give importance to the policy towards Lebanon. I tell everyone something. The first time I went to Lebanon, invited by colleagues who later ended up joining the International Socialist League, they made a big talk for me, Many youth colleagues came and the first question they asked me was: Are you for or against destroying the State of Israel?? Thanks to my response, we have a section of the LIS in Lebanon. Because many times it is discussed from outside the specific processes and the relationship with the mass movement and the avant-garde.. There is no possibility in the Middle East of building without starting there.

from now, This does not mean refusing to have a policy towards the movements that develop within Israel.. There is a brutal crisis over the Netanyahu regime. Repudiation of what is happening in Gaza begins to grow. You have to have a policy, but we must win them for a revolutionary policy, which is the policy of standing alongside the Palestinian resistance to defeat that State and build something new where the people can live in peace again.. But they are concrete debates that must be done, What we have to do with the avant-garde, Because they exist. The Jewish community has permanently provided valuable elements to the revolution, not only historically, but daily. Our game here Argentina has very valuable teammates who come from there. There is a strong representation of the Jewish community in the country, therefore we have to fight.

How to define the world situation? I know there is a trend here, inherited from our historical current, to constantly try to find a very precise name for the situation. Is it situationpre-revolutionary, situationrevolutionary, not revolutionary, counterrevolutionary? We are part of an international organization that is not morenista, although morenoism is an important component, but rather it is a confluence with other colleagues who have other types of mechanisms to define things. We do not want to define the situation around a name or do what many currents do, who first give the name and then try to make the situation fit the name.

For example, we have currents like the LIT, that since Moreno discussed that there was arevolutionary situation, have passed 40 years, there still beingrevolutionary situation. And it is the same if there is defeat, there is no defeat, if you move to the right, if the right does not advance, because they never dare to change. And the definitions are concrete, have to do with the situation.

Ojo, We at the international level came to define that a possible definition could bepre-revolutionary. Essentially because there are struggles everywhere but the subjective factor is missing.. But we are not so interested in this. What interests us is to define that there is a situation of enormousPolarization social, because we believe that it is the best definition to understand what is happening. The sea, The current situation is characterized by aPolarization extreme that is reaching all countries.

When we made this definition, Milei was not in the government nor had society practically split in two.. But he arrived in Argentina, as it is in practically all countries. There is a pole that has an increasingly clear political expression on the extreme right, and you have to assimilate it. It is a reality as big as a house. It is an extreme right with even fascist elements., that they do not become fascists because they have not yet achieved historic defeats of the working class in practically any country because the other pole responds with struggle, with many weaknesses, because he does it without direction, what is the big problem. But the rights act and have won a sector of society. We cannot be stupid and not realize that they have achieved a certain social base and that social base has to do with the fact that the traditional right-wing parties, and even the new left that emerged, They didn't solve any problem, but, precisely because of the crisis of capitalism, by not taking anti-capitalist measures, none could maintain. They have even entered into crisis and have fallen, and that has opened the door to these right-wing expressions, along with a sector of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, to implement your plans, It needs expressions that are willing to go to the end and even provoke changes in the regimes in places where bourgeois democracy served them for a time but no longer.. That is why they are leveraged by very important sectors.

Trump is not crazy. It emerges in the main country in the world and manages to come to power. He's not crazy: It has to do with the powers behind it and the sectors of the bourgeoisie that bet on that. Yesterday I explained it on the spot: In Argentina, a Milei is not understood without the Roca, without the Bulgheroni, without the great owners of the country, who are behind him and want to put an end to a working class that for 40 for years it has been screwing up their plans. They want to go for everything. And the same thing happens to the bourgeoisie worldwide., in many countries where he wants to get rid of the conquests that remain, because they have made progress in liquidating them in many cases, but there are still many. They want to go against democratic freedoms because they are a hindrance.

Now, They have not yet managed to defeat the working class. That is why we do not have a skeptical vision, nor do we give ourselves over to the idea that“bueno, is the right, we hid”. Nor do we bank on the politics of those who, facing right, They tell us that the way out is populism and that the left has to subsume itself behind sectors of the bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy - which do not have that project -, but they are the failures who have tried to govern the countries without causing any change.

This is a specific topic, we are living it in Brazil, for example. In Brazil we have a problem, because the tool that had been built, where Trotskyism played a fundamental role, What was the PSOL?, shit is being done precisely because a reformist wing has won that, facing the fear of Bolsonaro, has practically proposed fully integrating into the PT government, and he wants to throw those of us who are critics away.

They are specific problems, we are going to have them here in Argentina. Do not believe that Peronism, that is beaten, is dead. He's going to invent some way out, because the bourgeoisie is going to try to put something together. And they are going to try to pressure us with the issue that, to go against the Milei, let's all get together. It is a concrete pressure that captures the will of very honest people who are terrified of what is happening., He wants to get rid of them and sees everyone's unity as a way out..

and be careful, we are in favor of unity, drive on the street, unity in mobilization. We don't have to be sectarian towards that.. We are not sectarian in the mobilization, but we maintain political independence, because if we revolutionaries lose political independence there is no way out for humanity, companions. Because the only way for humanity to stop this disaster is for a revolutionary leadership to emerge., independent of all bourgeois and bureaucratic sectors. And for that you have to stay firm and fight at the forefront, and explain to him that that is not the way out.

These are important debates we have.. From global debates, policies emerge. And in turn, we have to discuss how we go about building the revolutionary leadership. Because the other pole, that manifested itself in the United States with the strikes last year, which was one of the years of biggest strikes in decades and will continue this year, in Europe, in Africa. There are processes in practically the entire world, but they have a weakness - we saw it here in the entire wave of struggles in Latin America- that there are no revolutionary leaderships at the front. The crisis of the revolutionary leadership is very acute, because the masses fight, they fight, they fight, but they do not have a direction in front that allows them to succeed, and that allows the bourgeoisie to recompose itself, and allow these rights to emerge.

Our great task is to collaborate with the emergence of that revolutionary leadership. There are countries where we have more responsibility than others because there is a certain accumulation. I said it yesterday at the event: In Argentina there is a tremendous responsibility because there is accumulation to build a strong alternative. That is why the debates we have with the FITU are not academic debates.. Because if we don't solve this problem well, the revolutionary left is going to miss the appointment. That is why they are debates that we have to give force to the forefront., because in the vanguard we will find sympathy.

All the changes that the party is discussing here to have a better dissemination of ideas, to have a better communication device, to be able to better stay ahead, They are linked to fighting this fight and reaching the forefront, that she is tired of the PJ but that, if you don't go left, You are going to fall into the traps that they are going to set up for you again., as they are already arming him from the Church with Grabois, who says things similar to us and that is why there are people who tell us not to be sectarian. You don't have to be sectarian, but we must have the political debate, why Grabois proposescapitalism with a human face and the Pope's encyclicals that we will never read. Our way out is not that. And if the left does not respond, This new seller of illusions is going to be strengthened in a capitalism that does not exist, as it is already getting stronger.

But be careful, In the PSOL we must fight politically from our party towards the MES and the sectors that, although tepidly, are to the left of the majority leadership, completely subordinated to the politics of the PT. We have to support the NPA process, which is a very important process in France, a central country. And we have to build our parties, companions, help build our parties.

It is essential to insert ourselves into the working class, because fundamental battles are going to come in the working class. We have to structure ourselves. In general, our parties are very structured in the state sectors and it is very good, because they have been permanently attacked and continue to be attacked. We have to continue strengthening ourselves as teachers, in general state, in culture, but we have to go to the industrial proletariat. We have to be able to structure ourselves there. We have to return to having the mystique that our young people want to go to the factory, want to go and become leaders of the labor movement, that is hard, it's not easy to bank, but it is strategic because it is our class and it is beginning to move everywhere, from the United States to Europe, Argentina, everywhere. So we have to structure ourselves there., without losing policies towards youth, because youth is a pool of cadres to be able to go to the labor movement, to be able to respond to all. We have to help our parties to be structured in youth, because many times it is difficult for us to structure ourselves among young people.

We have to respond to the new problems that have arisen. Environmental problems are new problems. They have nothing to do with the environmental problems of ago 20 years, which were essentially demands from more middle class sectors. Today they are concrete problems of capitalism. We have to respond to women's problems, without falling or giving in to identity politics, that are disastrous for the construction of parties. They take advantage of real and concrete claims to lead to completely wrong policies. There is a political fight in the women's movement. It's not just "let's go and let's go": You have to fight those political fights and you have to fight them with force..

To end, I think the LIS project, which is a new project, novel, that achieves sympathy, That's why the rapid growth we have had, although it is still a small pole, will continue to develop. We have to use it in all countries to build ourselves because the vanguard permanently follows international problems. And to build ourselves it is essential to be part of an international project. But we have to use it, propagandize it. In the small groups of the LIS even stronger, because it gives strength to small groups to go to the forefront, because it shows that we are part of a whole.

The LIS attempts a project that is not easy, which is to try to synthesize the different traditions of Trotskyism and Marxism into a new tradition. It is not easy to do it because it is always easier to be with people who think exactly the same as yourself., as do many of the currents of Trotskyism. But that model has failed. This model played an important role in raising the flags in a black period, What happened after the Second War?, when Stalinism became strong, and allowed us to get here. The model of more homogeneous small internationals played a role, we cannot deny it. We can't throw away the past and say“it's of no use”. But today it is exhausted as a model and that is why all the international projects that have been carried out around a single hegemonic party have failed and have entered into crisis..

The English had a great international, that we did not know because we were in something else. We followed Mandelism, but we did not follow the English. How they separated from the Fourth, We hardly gave them the ball and they built huge games alone, even bigger than those built by Mandelism and those we built. But they are in crisis. That project blew up. Everywhere there are parties and groups that come from there, who have conclusions similar to ours and that is why we have joined forces with the comrades from Pakistan, We have fraternal relations with our colleagues from Australia, etc.

and ourselves, the morenoist current, exploded into the air. Sepámoslo, companions, assumámoslo. And it also exploded because it is not adapted to the new times we live in.. Not to mention Mandelism, that is in a phenomenal crisis. Anyone who believes they can repeat that model is going to hit a wall or become a small sect.. We don't want that. At the current stage it is a crime to form a sect and refuse to build something that disputes the influence of the masses.. Because in the current dispute between socialism and barbarism, we need to build international and national organizations that challenge mass influence, which is the only way to respond to the current stage. And for that we have to remove all the cobwebs we have and bet on joining up with others as the only way out.. And if we do this, I believe that we are going to fight in better conditions to contribute to the resolution of the tasks that we revolutionaries have., What is overcoming the crisis of revolutionary leadership?.

Only me. I hope that the debate will be fruitful and that, between everyone, let us contribute to continue improving and to continue polishing our policy and our orientation. Thank you all.

Closing

The density of the point shows that the party, beyond all the weaknesses, that will be discussed to improve in the following points, has achieved in recent years a very important understanding with the international issue. The debate that took place here shows the interest and importance that is being given to it. I think it is crucial, more in this stage that we have to live, be an increasingly internationalist party to understand what is happening and to act in reality. And I think it's very good that progress is being made in that direction.. We present a minute that, Of course, It is a complement to the materials that we discussed at the last world congress. Let us remember that we had a world congress in March of last year, that is exactly one year ago. I call you to read some of these materials because they are still current., They have passed the test of events and are very useful to deepen some of the debates we have had here.

Now I want to take up some debates that are not in the minutes, that we owe each other, especially those of us who come from the Argentine current, of the callmorenoism. It is difficult to define who is a morenista? who isn't? There are already many families within Morenoism. Thus, For me it defines and does not define anything that topic anymore. But there are debates that are anchored in that past and I think it is important to face them in a non-dogmatic and even critical way if necessary., because to interpret reality one has to have the courage to be critical, even of one's own, among other things, also because the elaborations of Morenoism are from a different stage than the current one.. Moreno died in '87.. There are still some currents that call themselves morenistas, who continue to repeat like parrots what Moreno said in a completely different stage, that has nothing to do with current events. Perhaps the maximum expression is to continue defining the situation asrevolutionary. The sea, a definition that works for all stages, the times, moments of retreat, in advance, it's useless. Because what good is a definition that never allows you to specify the relationship of forces at the moment and see reality as it is?? Nevertheless, There are currents that call themselves morenistas that continue with that chant.

I think we have to rediscuss some things.. This does not mean that we abandon all our baggage. But Marxism is a living science, not dogmatic, that is constantly encouraged to change. Es, in a sense, an elaboration that also has empiricism in the middle, in which one makes hypotheses and the hypotheses are fulfilled or not fulfilled. One does not fall in love with the hypotheses that one makes and maintains them for decades.

For example, a fact that is evident and that some colleagues touched, which is our very own creation, that we have to continue working and it has to do with thenormalization of the revolutionary process. It is evident that in the period from '45 to '90, a series of phenomena occurred that caused much debate and many problems for Trotskyism., because there was a combination of elements that, in a sense, they went against what had been the fundamental experience, What was the Russian Revolution?. For example, We who are Trotskyists armed ourselves with a characterization of Trotsky that there was no possibility of revolution without the industrial working class as the fundamental factor and a revolutionary party, a bolshevik party. If either of the two were missing, revolution was impossible. Nevertheless, What happened? Ojo, Trotsky made other predictions that were also wrong., such as for example that the Second World War was going to strengthen the revolution and Stalinism was going to go into crisis.. And the opposite happened. Analyzing these facts is very important, because one, If you repeat like a parrot and do not see reality as it is, cannot be assembled.

Now, What happened from '45 to '90 was that without a revolutionary party, revolutions were made that ended up expropriating the bourgeoisie., and without the working class at the forefront in many cases, with the peasantry. We can discuss China and a series of countries that expropriated the bourgeoisie. A third of humanity ended up in “real socialism”. With many problems, because the elemental success of Marxism, and of Leninism and Trotskyism, was that without a revolutionary party and without a working class, Those processes were born flawed from the beginning and they got it right. But the Fourth International entered into a brutal crisis after not understanding this., why, for example, how the Communist Party ended up leading processes, There was a tremendous process of adaptation to the communist parties. That's where revisionism began in the Fourth, which ended in an outbreak and disintegration into several currents, permanent depression, etc.

We are not going to do the historical balance of all that now, but we do have to see that there is a new stage, different, that it is important to analyze it. Because today, at least from the '90s until now, There was no process where a non-revolutionary leadership without the working class advanced to expropriate the bourgeoisie. This has also made many who were used to the previous stage dizzy.. It has made many fall into skepticism as well."What's happening, there are no revolutions that triumph, the bourgeoisie is no longer expropriated?” In this, a campaign is also mounted that“Socialism is a thing of the past”. There is no model. Before there was a model, deformed, but model at last. They are new problems, we have to make them. Yo, for example, I believe that the current from which we come, the morenistas, fruit of the issue that there were addresses that, pressured by the masses and by the existence of the USSR, They advanced more than their own program said, we fell into very objectivist traits. I think that we around the end of the '90s, for example, We fell into objectivism and believed that rise and crisis led to the possibility of new revolutions., even some triumphant, without a mass revolutionary party at the helm. We have to discuss it, because I believe that even today there are objectivist traits in some of the currents that come from that past.

Now we are in another world stage, which in a sense is more like prior to 1914. Because before '14 there were no models either. There was the Paris Commune, but it was a model for few, who on top of that didn't do well. The Bolsheviks drew fundamental conclusions, without whichThe state and the revolution of Lenin and a series of elaborations would not have been possible. But there was no triumphant model either.. One of the complexities of this stage is not having a model, and even that the models that existed are not well regarded by the mass movement, because they ended in tremendous catastrophes, like the USSR, that ended in capitalist restoration. We can say that Trotsky had got it right, but that is for us nothing more, because that does not mean that people become Trotskyists. The same thing happened with the issue that “socialism in one country” was going to fail..

These are issues that need to be discussed., above all to see how even a critical analysis of ourselves allows us to better equip ourselves for the stage we are in.. I believe that we are returning to a stage where without a revolutionary party and without the working class at the forefront, the revolution is not planned.. This we mean bynormalization. This raises new tasks and complexities that we have to discuss.. An important debate is whether we are in a stage that has already exhausted its forces and therefore, after the '90s, So many years have passed since the revolution did not happen that it will no longer be considered., or if we are in a transitional stage in which we have to have confidence in the working class, in which the process will lead to more and more conditions beginning to exist to resolve these contradictions. I believe the second. But they are debates that we have to do. We have to avoid objectivism and have policies to resolve contradictions and problems.

I believe that we must also rediscuss a concept that has an explanation, especially in the early 80's, due to a series of phenomena that occurred in the world, but I think that today, extrapolated, confuses. What is the famous concept ofdemocratic revolution. I personally believe that this definition is useless.. Why doesn't that concept work for me today?? Because I believe that today raising too many expectations in mobilizations for democratic aspects, at a time when capitalism is in a brutal crisis and cannot make any democratic conquests, It leads you a little to have illusions that there is going to be a step-by-step path that will lead you to socialism., And it is not like that, and leads you not to warn about the weaknesses of the processes.

For example, I believe that the failure of the Catalan revolution has to do with the fact that there is no possibility of democratic change without a fundamental debate that leads to socialism.. The Palestine debate has to do with the same thing.. There is almost no possibility today of provoking reforms without going directly to the shock. And we have to build ourselves in that reality, not in believing that a democratic triumph, it's hard to see, It will take you and open the door for you to go towards socialism.. I do not pass, apart. reality is reality. I do not pass. The famouspolitical revolution What we expected did not happen. It was not given. The Trotsky thing did not happen, that the crisis of the bureaucracy was going to lead to a process where mobilization was going to defeat the bureaucracy and the USSR could be recovered without social revolution. It was not given. And we have to assimilate that it did not happen. There are some who are still waiting for the second stage. Things are as they are in reality and we have to arm ourselves from reality, precisely because Marxism is that: It is not a dogma. And none of this happened because there were no strong and structured revolutionary parties in the working class..

exaggerating a little, because one exaggerates in the controversy, I always say that in reality the most Marxist in the Russian Revolution were the Mensheviks. Because in a sense Marx had predicted that revolution was impossible in a backward country like Russia., and that was what gave a certain scaffolding to Menshevism and the majority of the Bolshevik leadership. That's why Lenin came and had to kick them in the face in April 1917 and tell them no and adhere, without saying it, to what Trotsky said: that the socialist revolution was planned in Russia and that not fighting to take power was a crime. Because Marxism is not a dogma, where one has a scheme and tries to fit reality into that scheme. No: It is a living science. And the schemes that you make yourself, because we need schematics, You have to have the courage to throw them to hell when reality doesn't match those schemes and think, open your head to think, To elaborate.

We still have a lot to work on, a lot, a lot to elaborate. I believe that we have to do this elaboration on the basis of regrouping with others., because it is very difficult to fully elaborate reality from each of the small sectors that come from one current or another.. And this has to do with the LIS project, to achieve a more complete elaboration, even knowing that we can make mistakes again, friction is essential, the collision with other currents, with other colleagues who come from other experiences, that have been built in other realities. It is very difficult, from Latin America, at the end of the world, get it right and believe that you are going to get it right about what is happening in a very complex world and that on top of that from here you are going to export “the potato” for those who speak in Urdu, those who speak in languages ​​that it is difficult for us to even pronounce. I believe that contact with the other currents of Marxism and Trotskyism that have been formed from other points of view is essential.. That is why the LIS project is not just about putting together for the sake of putting together: It is because we believe that it is the only way to try to solve the management problem, which is the most acute problem we have, but we are not going to solve it from here or from there, but in a process of confluence, of debates, to listen to us.

That is why the LIS project is not self-proclaiming the LIS, although we believe that it is important to build the LIS: is to build the LIS and work with other colleagues who are not from the LIS, but with those of us who have the perspective of common work, like the companions of France, like our colleagues from Australia, be open to working with others. That's why we give importance to going to events like the one in Milan., that if you see the resolutions you say“Why did I come here?”. But it allows you contact with others, allows you to discuss, to debate, don't cook in your own sauce.

We are going to go to an event in Brazil organized by MES, for example. We have very important agreements and differences with the MES. Now; We do not have to avoid debate and discussion.. The MES in Brazil is a very important force. For the perspective of overcoming the PSOL, which is in a process of accelerated degeneration, You have to have a policy for those colleagues too.. Why, the truth, The desert outside the PSOL in Brazil is tremendous. It is a kilometer-long desert without water to build. Working to see if we can connect with others to see if there is any perspective is very important..

It is the same as the definitions. For example, I think we could define the situation aspre-revolutionary. But there are colleagues who tell you that and they don't understand a damn.. They think you drank a liter of tequila. When you speak in the world and see the weight they give to the rise of the right. Then it can be for our consumption, those of us who come from some current. But for me, Polarization define better, It is more understandable and allows you to jump into a debate to get to the content of the situation., that does not deny the positive elements that exist, but it does not give the impression that everything is going on a bed of roses towards the revolution, when everything that happens is more complex.

I think thatPolarization It is a concept that better defines the situation. Because on the one hand it clearly locates the extreme right, which is a problem that we cannot minimize. Because although we do not see fascism today as a consolidated project, we cannot deny that, in perspective, If the working class and the revolutionaries do not manage to gain footing, can advance. Because if it is not socialism, it's barbarism. Because in the sentence we only like the socialism part, not that of barbarism. Good, but the barbarism is there, is on the door, it's in the corner.

However; I think it is important not to see only that pole, but also see the other. Because the other is what opens the possibility that the alternative is also socialism. Because there are tremendous struggles and as long as there are struggles, while heavy battalions of the proletariat like the one in the United States are incorporated, like Europe, like england. In England there was a tremendous defeat that was the miners' strike with Margaret Thatcher, that marked the beginning of neoliberalism and brutal attacks worldwide. And that stage ended. There is a recomposition that is beginning in the working class and they are the heavyweights. The United States is no small feat., because it's worth it 50 Argentines, companions, that the United States begins to move as it is beginning to move. For the definition of the world situation, it is qualitative that in the United States socialism stops being a bad word among young people and among sectors of the mass movement.. It is a qualitative thing, although it is still in the reform stage. They are elements of the situation. In France, colleagues were talking about there being an almost pre-French May situation at one point, that did not end in a triumph, but it opened a tremendous political situation.

Now; it is not easy to build a party. Is a reality. There are problems in consciousness that we have to analyze. We must also know that the advance of the extreme right is a shock that causes swaths of the mass movement to also polarize to the other side and advance and enter into crisis with the reformist leaderships., what we have to take advantage of. Nor can we be backwards objectivists and expect problems to be solved on their own.. The politics of the revolutionaries also intervene there.. I believe that in many places there is no progress because of the mistakes that revolutionaries make..

For example, I believe that the PTS policy, who is the one who orders from here what the French have to do, leaving before the NPA was criminal, because the NPA congress could have been won, a very important defeat of reformism could have been caused and there would have been a huge party. But that is not their policy., because they are skeptical, They don't think it's raised. They just want to see if they catch four or five. The policy they are having here is criminal, because to try to have the fashionable figure they block the possibility of creating a militant force of 30 O 40.000, and even the possibility of transforming the Left Unity Front into a great movement, where the parties act as trends and the political debate is the one that defines who is right, but at the same time encourages the revolution in Argentina and transforms the left, that has stagnated.

The companions who come from outside, who see the potential of the Front, They have to know that the Front has a problem, because sectors that supported you yesterday, today they tell you“bueno, I supported them, but I don't see that you solve it.". In some places, in some provinces, the elections were won. It was won in Salta capital, the election was won, there was a majority in the Deliberative Council. And then you backed away. Why? Many people who tell you“bueno, I supported them, but what happened to you?” That was for the Workers' Party. He didn't call all the leftist forces to see what the hell we do with this, that we are riding in a powder keg. The same thing is happening in Jujuy. There the responsibility is more of the PTS. It is an electoral project, when I should have called everyone, to intellectuals, to all. We take out the 25% of the votes of the Left Front and they tried to ignore us, Let's see how we don't cut or puncture. When in reality what had to be done was to convene a large plenary session, an assembly, call intellectuals from all sides, because you also have to show that you are an alternative. The sea, the politics of the revolutionaries has weight in reality. It's not that we can't because the objective closes everything to you.. There are opportunities that you have to know how to take advantage of. Of course, In some places there is more accumulation than in others.

Mira's, I was impressed with Portugal. That example that Gil told of how a group of Trotskyists, a small group of trotskyists, achievement, from a success, What is the formation of a small union, mobilize, I think twice, about 100.000 people in Portugal and shake the entire bureaucratic system because STOP has become a tremendous pole. We must follow the STOP phenomenon in Europe to see if we cannot learn from this phenomenon elsewhere.. And of course, It has been difficult for my colleagues to translate that success into politics.. Rotten sects have also acted to avoid that., because the ITU, in the middle of that topic, to win a partner, campaigned against the STOP leaders. He ran a campaign, notice you, a current that calls itself revolutionary, going to the assemblies to say that STOP was directed from behind by the MAS, to grab the most backward part of the union movement and to block. This has demoralized our leaders there., has put them on the defensive. A current that, to win one, tried to destroy the possibility of it becoming a political alternative. The sea, management policies act. I believe that Portugal is not lost and that we all have to work to see how we reverse that., because it is still STOP, there is still an opportunity, and we have to work to find a way to translate that into politics.. And we all have to help. Even, if necessary, in an act of internationalism, the colleagues from Brazil sending young colleagues to help in the construction. We have to discuss how we do, because that's what it's about. When there are opportunities, we are all Portugal, because otherwise, there is no true internationalism.

So, I think the situation is very contradictory., but we revolutionaries can act and we can accumulate forces. It is very complex to achieve mass influence. But it is not complex to accumulate strength, make vanguard matches, strengthening ourselves so that a turn in the class struggle, what's going to come, allows us to take a leap in some places and transform them into a focus. But I think we cannot do this from a national perspective.. I believe that we can only do this from an international perspective and helping each other among revolutionaries to take advantage of opportunities where they are given to us., to strengthen us. Because the strengthening of one place is the strengthening of all.

That's why we are obsessed with this project that tries to break with a past where the only thing you were interested in was capturing one.. You have to capture, not just one, but two, ten and 100, because we want to build a revolutionary party. But about responding to the tasks of the class struggle and the moment in which we are, which is trying to see if we can start making small poles and we can only do that internationally.. We can't do it locally, We can't even do it in Argentina. Let's be clear. The LIS has been a help to us, to position ourselves politically. Sin the LIS, the MST would not be politically located. Even with his weakness, the international debate, the opinions of colleagues, They are essential to train cadres. The sea, there is no possibility of forming cadres within a solely national framework, without friction and collision with others. There is no chance.

There are debates that we have to deepen. Yo, for example, I see the comrades from Costa Rica accelerated on the issue of inter-imperialist friction. Because although I believe that friction exists and there is a process, World War III is not just around the corner. And this is important, because it has to do with politics. We can't even, like marxists, say“There is going to be a third world war.”. We raise a hypothesis. There are other contradictions too. Because beware, the nuclear bomb also acts, why, when a bomb goes to one side, a bomb comes out for the other one too. And that is a fact of reality that, for example, It prevented a third world war and the war was cold for a long time until the USSR fell. Now there is a growing inter-imperialist dispute and we cannot say that there will not be, but we have to see the rhythms. There is a sector of the world left that practices politics as if there were already a third world war. Then he states that the center is defeatism everywhere. What if, but defeatism in Russia is strong, defeatism in imperialist countries is fine, But is it also necessary to do defeatism in Ukraine?, which is allowing Putin to get to kyiv and put a puppet? No, It is not a correct policy. And if there was a third world war it would be right. But, eye, because Lenin, analyzing the First World War, He stated about Serbia that it was a disgrace that the beginning of the First War had covered up the national problem that existed in Serbia.. Let's not believe that they are all new phenomena. There have been many similar phenomena in the world. But they are debates that are complex.

The Ukrainian Maidan was against a government that was a satellite of Russia. A process that was in a backward sense. But it has points of contact with what happened, For example, when the Soviet Union fell, what, due to the absence of revolutionary leadership, even counterrevolutionary forces became strong. By having a unilateral analysis of the Maidan, one can fall into being against mass mobilization and end up supporting a government that was a puppet of Russia.. The problem is of revolutionary leadership. I believe that these are issues that must be analyzed well., not superficially. Even Putin's own campaigns are falling apart in relation to this issue, like Ukraine is a unique case in the world where an entire country is fascist and right-wing when it is not like that, is more contradictory, more complex. Oh well, These are debates that we have to do..

We have to continue writing about China, because there is an issue that is the issue of imperialism. But there is another issue, which has the permanent concern of Pakistani comrades. And China is closer to Pakistan than to Argentina or Latin America, and the debates are much more concrete. They are elements that we have to use at the service of our proposal. It is evident that China developed as a capitalist power and very rapid imperialism., partly, because it benefits the centralization of the economy. It is a fact of reality. And we defend economic centralization, at the service of a socialist project, not at the service of an imperialist project. But it is a reality that we have to use this, like at some point, I don't want to get into controversy, we used“socialism with democracy” to try to explain. Here we had a problem with Cuba because we had it there, and try to explain Cuba's defense and say that it was missing something. One constantly juggles to dialogue.

Then there is the tactical issue of the name, of socialism and how we use it. The central problem for me is that we have to lift socialism, the program. Ojo, In Ukraine our comrades are called the Ukrainian Socialist League and they have survived for quite a long time. It will depend on the class struggle, how it evolves. I believe that if the war is lost, a process is going to be initiated against Zelensky and against everything. When all the combatants return to ask for a job that does not exist, Let's see what happens in Ukraine. Of course, if you won, For me it would be a shock wave: would go over Russia, about other places. Oh well, It's a matter for another topic..

I think there are many weaknesses in the LIS that we have to attack. For example, we have to better attack the issue of social networks, we have to better attack the issue of campaigns. We have done campaigns, but it has cost us. We do not have circulation and that prevents there from being more socialization of many things. We have given a lot of importance to the web, but less than that. We have to move forward. The LIS is a project that is starting, that we all have to improve together.

But I believe that in the few years of the LIS we have shown some things. Nobody has imposed on any national leadership the policy that was developed elsewhere. We have been patient to do some of the discussions because we really believe in this project. We do not believe that anyone, for bigger or smaller, has to impose policies on another. What we want is to create instances of debate and discussion so that there is conviction in the policies that must be applied. And that for me is a fundamental point. Because we need to build a project that even listens to others.

I believe that the Pakistani party is a fundamental party within the construction of the LIS, because it is very complex to build in Pakistan. Its alot, much more difficult than being built in countries with a certain democratic stability, beyond what is now being lost, with very different economic situations, with more backward societies as a result of fundamentalism and the economic development of the country. And what does it have to do with what I said about the English?. I believe that the English built parties even in very complex places.

Now, at the same time, The international projects of the English flew through the air. Why did they fly into the air? Why is Peter Taffe lonely and sad today?, after having been one of the leaders who had built a great international? Why did they blow up all the parties and leave him alone? It was a rebellion against the English party and everyone left. They formed something else called the International Socialist Alternative.. Because Peter wanted to continue imposing politics from England on each of the sections.. Particularly the Irish, that they had developed with an important force and took up a very important cause that catapulted them up, what was the feminist house. And since Peter Taffe was against, He tried to organize a faction against the Irish and it backfired. A distinct and majority fraction was made, but against him. The sea, the theme ofmother party It's political. I think that, for example, the small french party, from 200, What was left of the Mandelists?, It remains amother party. Because it doesn't just have to do with the number.: it has to do with believing, those addresses, that continue to be the fundamental direction to build the international project and that from there they will make policy here or there. That leadership imposed in Greece that it had to go to the side of Syriza when it was against the Greek leadership and the party they had there., who wanted to go the other way with Antarsya. And so with each of the groups. And that's what blows up the games: the imposition. How is it correct, for example, In England, defend against xenophobic attack against Muslims. And it is right to defend, like in France, bring candidates with that characteristic. But it's wrong, as the english wanted to do, impose the same policy on Muslim countries, where in those countries you fight against Islamism and you don't have to follow it.

Our base, and there must be social control of all parties, is knowing that we have a hyper weak direction, who didn't direct anything, that can only export a weak experience of what we do and that will only be able to transform its directions the day we direct something. And for that we need to work as a team among all of us., with the parties, with the militants and with each of the largest or smallest groups that we have.

31.03.2024 – Approved unanimously

(next to the LIS document)