Traditionally, crises of overproduction are accompanied by deflation, i.e. a fall in prices. This is quite understandable, since overproduction means a surplus of goods, which pile up on the shelves of sellers who can no longer sell them, unless they lower their prices.
Capitalism is constantly in a situation of disequilibrium: on the one hand, the accumulation of capital pushes production to increase more and more, but on the other hand, it is necessary to sell the goods produced to realize their value and to allow the accumulation of capital. But in a society where appropriation is private, where each producer and consumer is independent of the other, the balance between production and consumption is constantly made through chaotic readjustments. When the firm sees that it can no longer sell its production, it reduces its production by putting its workers to “rest”, which leads to financial difficulties for the workers and the firms, and even to bankruptcy.
During the “thirty glorious years”, these bankruptcies remained localized and were compensated by growth in other localities and in other branches. On the other hand, before the alarm bells went off, goods had already accumulated on the merchant’s and wholesaler’s shelves; stocks were swelling beyond measure.
The crisis is generally preceded by price pressure, i.e. by a rise in prices, particularly of raw materials as a result of strong demand from industry, and by a rise in interest rates. This is what we saw, for example, with oil, just before the great crisis of overproduction in 1974-1975. Oil prices will rise again at the end of the next cycle.
Silently, business bankruptcies are increasing and with them the number of unpaid bills. Bills of exchange, whose interest payments are over three months overdue, are increasing considerably, putting financial institutions at risk. These financial institutions, which in order to lend, borrow on a daily basis on the interbank market – the repo market. For example, Lehman Brothers, before its bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, for 1 dollar of equity lent up to 30 dollars. In other words, all this money lent was not its own. To meet its cash outflows, this large investment bank was totally dependent on daily borrowing on the repo market. But when the first cracks appeared, the other banks realized that the king was naked, and nobody wanted to lend him money anymore.
When the crisis arrives, it may first manifest itself as a commercial crisis, due to the accumulation of unsold goods, but it may just as easily begin as a financial crisis, as in 2008, or as a stock market crisis, as in 1929. In all cases, the crisis of overproduction leads to a collapse in the price of goods and even more so in the price of all securities – shares, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. – which have seen their prices soar. – In all cases, the crisis of overproduction leads to a collapse in the price of commodities and even more so in the price of all securities – stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. – which have seen their prices soar as a result of the tremendous speculation which preceded the crisis of overproduction.
The crisis of capital is often referred to as a disease. Thus a healthy organism would be struck by a disease, which sometimes could be fatal unless a remedy is found. For the great mass of people – proletarians or petty bourgeois, but also for the big bourgeoisie and its economists – the capitalist relations of production – wage labor, capital, profit, interests, etc. – appear as something natural. And so if there is a crisis, it is either because somewhere there has been manipulation – the crisis is intended, because it benefits a few – or it is due to causes external to capitalism; accidental factors provoke a crisis. For bourgeois economists, every crisis is due to contingent factors: bad management, greed, an exaggerated rise in the price of raw materials, etc. But never for them is it inherent to the capitalist mode of production; they do not understand that the capitalist mode of production, like any mode of production, is a historically transitory social form. The crisis is not a disease, but it is due to the fact that capitalism, in its development, produces its own negation: the economic basis of communist society. The accumulation of capital leads to the ruin of the small producer and the socialization of the productive forces, replacing the mass of small producers with an army of proletarians who work collectively in a centralized way, and who do not possess the property of the product, nor that of the means of production, and whose collective work uses instruments, whose use and production require a whole social organization and require the latest technical and scientific knowledge.
It is the antagonism between this economic basis and the private appropriation resulting from the relations of production, which leads to the crises of overproduction. This is why the dilemma can only be solved definitively by moving to communism. This antagonism is reflected in the permanent imbalance between production and consumption and in the fall in the rate of profit: the more the productive forces are developed, the more the productivity of labor increases and consequently the rate of profit falls. The remedies applied by the bourgeoisies to solve the crisis: deregulation, subcontracting, relocation, unbridled speculation, the race for debt, etc., all end up aggravating the crisis of capital.
As for inflation, there is nothing new about it: it was born with the monetary system. What determines the price of money is the ratio between the money supply in circulation and the supply of goods whose value it is supposed to represent. The greater the money supply in circulation for the same quantity of goods, the lower the value of the money. On the contrary, if the money supply decreases to represent the same quantity of goods, each unit of money will represent a larger fraction of goods and therefore prices will decrease because less money is needed to buy the same quantity of goods. The value of money therefore increases, i.e. each unit of money reflects a greater value.
In times of crisis, such as wars, in the past have repeatedly resorted to printing money to pay for their expenses. That is to say, they started to issue more money to meet their expenses that they could not pay, because the treasury was empty. The result each time was a significant inflation, because the multiplication of coins or banknotes does not lead to an increase in production: there is more money in circulation for the same quantity of goods, hence the inflation, i.e. the rise in prices due to the devaluation of money that results from its greater mass in relation to the goods whose value it is supposed to reflect
This is what happened in Germany in 1923: since the Social Democracy did not want to force the big bourgeoisie to pay the debt, Germany did not have enough currency to pay for its imports, to pay the war debt and to reimburse the German petty bourgeoisie who had subsidized the war effort. Inflation cleared all accounts with the petty bourgeoisie, cancelling the debt that the Germany owed to them, which had become ridiculous as a result of the monstrous inflation. The petty bourgeois class came out of it ruined, which we Marxists appreciate, but the big bourgeoisie came out of it unscathed and even strengthened, because the German proletariat did not know how to take power in those terrible postwar years.
Closer to home, inflation in Venezuela, Lebanon or Turkey is the result of the fact that these countries are unable to repay their debts and pay for their imports, following, for some like Venezuela, a collapse of exports. The coffers are empty, the central bank has no more reserves or very few, imports can no longer be paid and capital flees the country, the currency collapses. Imports expressed in the national currency become more and more expensive; exports, seeing their price fall, compensate less and less for the imports. Everyone wants dollars, but they are becoming more and more expensive. The central bank is forced to print money. In Turkey, the central bank, in order to deal with capital flight, is raising interest rates, but since the government is blocking this increase, the result is a collapse in the value of the Turkish lira. During the crisis of 2015-2016, China, in order to stem the fall of its currency, following the flight of capital, had to disburse 1,000 billion good dollars!
Classically, liberal capitalism – that of Marx in the days of the British Empire – saw prices fall as a result of competition and the increased productivity of labor. But with monopolies the situation has changed. Competition is reduced and growth is accompanied by inflation and a race between wages and prices. This is what happened throughout the post-war period. Economic growth went hand in hand with inflation, obviously to the detriment of the proletariat.
So what about the return of inflation in the major imperialist countries? Before answering the question, let’s start by looking back.
The great international crisis of 1974-1975 definitively ended the almost crisis-free cycle of capital accumulation that followed the post-war period. There followed, every 7 to 10 years, as in Marx’s time, crises of overproduction. Until the crisis of 2001-2002, all these crises of overproduction, unlike the classical ones, were with inflation. This is because states and monopolies managed to organize the withdrawal, by distributing production quotas within a single branch, in order to avoid a collapse of prices. This was the case, for example, for steel in Europe; after bargaining, the European Commission succeeded in distributing production quotas among the different European Union members.
But the great crisis of 2008-2009 turned things around. After the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, then of AIG, saved in extremis by the American State, all the stock exchanges collapsed, the prices of real estate, especially in the United States and in Spain, fell sharply, the price of raw materials collapsed bringing with them the fall of all prices. In this post-war period, the recession of 2008-2009 was the first major crisis with deflation. Without the energetic intervention of central banks and governments, which did not hesitate to go into heavy debt to save their economic system, we would have had a deflation like in the 1930s. With difficulty, production has recovered, especially in 2017-2018. However, almost all the major imperialist countries, apart from China, have a lower level of production than before the crisis of 2008-2009. And above all, if the world bourgeoisie has avoided a collapse, as in the 1930s, it is at the price of a colossal debt, interest rates close to zero, even negative for some countries, and a monstrous inflating of the balance sheet of all the big central banks. Global capitalism is maintained in a state of survival thanks to the flood of trillions of dollars by the central banks! Such a flood of money in a “normal” situation would lead to high inflation; this has not been the case, as deflationary forces have proven to be more powerful.
Especially since all this virtual money did not end up in the pockets of the proletariat or the petty bourgeoisie for consumption, but in those of the big bourgeoisie, which used it largely for speculation; this drove up the price of securities on the stock market, which are once again reaching record highs, and the prices of bonds and real estate, which are skyrocketing in the world’s major cities. So it has been securities and real estate that have driven inflation. But as this valuation of securities is purely artificial, all it takes is the slightest piece of bad news for everything to fall back like a soufflet. This explains the chaotic trend in world stock market prices.
The “boom” of 2017-2018 has turned into a bust, because in 2019 there is once again a worldwide recession, including in China, with a fall in production and international trade. The containment due to the virus from March to May 2020, more or less extensive depending on the country – Japan has not imposed a containment – has aggravated a recession already underway.
This recession was followed by a strong recovery in March and April 2021, but since May the recovery has slowed everywhere: apart from the United States, where industrial production growth is still high – 5.1% in October 2021 – thanks to massive government stimulus packages. Everywhere else – apart from China, for which we have no reliable figures – growth is close to zero, or even negative, as in Germany and Italy. We report below the graph for the United States, where we can see the bell curve of the recovery.
The table below shows the current situation of the major industrialized countries other than the United States.
It can be seen in the fifth column that everywhere, except England, production is lower than in 2019, itself a year of recession. And that compared to the maximum reached in 2007, production ranges from -3% in Germany at almost -28% for Portugal, without forgetting the -18% for Japan and the almost -20% for Italy. For the latter, Mario Monti cannot do much about it. The current inflation is therefore not due to high demand, but to the fact that oil and gas production is kept below the level necessary to keep prices high, and is above all due to the anarchy inherent in this mode of production. For agricultural products, we must also add the poor harvest due to bad weather, which has caused an increase in the price of certain foods.
Since the crisis of 74-75, companies, for cost reasons, have maintained very little inventory. When production started up again at the beginning of the year, all the companies in the world began to order parts produced in Asia, the necessary raw materials and oil at the same time. The result is that the international merchant fleet, which is in the hands of a few monopolies, cannot keep up, and the congested ports cannot load and unload quickly enough to meet the brutal and colossal demand. In the United States, dockworkers have to work 24 hours a day to unload ships. The imbecility of this chaotic mode of production is on full display.
And for energy, the European multinationals, in order to save money, have waited until the last moment to fill their tanks, making the price of gas explode, which of course is aligned with the least profitable well – this is what they call the law of the market: it is in fact the law of monopolies allowing some to pocket a real rent. And the famous wind turbines, which should provide some electricity, have provided very little this year due to the lack of wind, making the situation even worse.
The whole thing is further aggravated by the system of plundering that the various bourgeoisies have put in place for thirty years now with liberalism. For example, French nuclear electricity, the cheapest in Europe, after Finland, a small country where hydroelectric production is sufficient for its needs, has been aligned with the price of gas so as not to compete with other producers! This is what they call free competition. And it’s not over yet: EDF is forced to sell half of its electricity production below its cost price to subsidized suppliers who produce nothing, but are just there to shear the wool of the sheep.
Thus it is the proletarians who pay for the enrichment of a whole band of parasites. The bourgeoisie has become, with its mode of production, a totally parasitic class incapable of the slightest long-term forecast. It functions at sight.
The proletarian masses of Kazakhstan have led a courageous uprising that has shaken the bourgeois order in that country to its foundations.
Even though these days ended in carnage, the top of the state apparatus, unable to cope with the force of shock deployed by the workers, had to resort to foreign intervention to quell the revolt. Machine guns and a rain of lead were needed to restore order. First, the armed forces of their bourgeoisie fired on the insurgent Kazakh proletarians without restraint. Then, when these were not enough – demonstrating how thin the “nationality” of any bourgeois army is – the troops of the six countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – intervened, sparing no munitions to re-establish through terror the “normality” of capitalist exploitation.
The bourgeoisie, faced with the loss of control over a world that it has deformed in its own image and likeness, has shown that it has no other resources than terror and lies to keep the workers, cornered by the worsening of their living conditions, subjugated. In order to keep up the crumbling edifice of the ignoble regime of capital, the murderous bourgeoisie administers incredible lies to a public already fed by decades of increasingly caricatured and fantastic representations of the real world.
Thus, the processions of workers coming out of the factories and the impressive demonstrations of proletarians rushed from the suburbs in the heart of many cities of the country to storm the institutional buildings have become “terrorists” for President Qasym-Jomart Toqaev, who did not hesitate to give the order to shoot without warning to kill anyone who dared to defy the ban on demonstrations and the curfew imposed throughout the country after the first days of the revolt.
The myth of the conspiracy, omnipresent in these years of agony of the capitalist world order, has been ignobly proposed again: for the Kazakh rulers, for their Russian and Chinese cronies, and for the countless political groups inspired by the decomposed Stalinism, the uprising must have been hatched by foreign powers and organized by well-trained terrorist provocateurs from abroad.
Actual terrorists from abroad, fully armed and well-trained, did arrive in Kazakhstan, in the form of regular troops of neighboring capitalisms – not to support the revolt, but to smother it in blood. 3,000 Russian soldiers, together with hundreds more from the CIS countries, in the most acute moment of the uprising, defended the installations and the palaces of power, as well as the security of the most prominent elements of the political regime and the bourgeoisie.
Various elements contribute to remove any credibility to the thesis of a staging planned by foreign powers, or by organized Kazakh groups inspired by nationalist or Islamist ideologies, in order to carry out a coup d’État. Numerous videos document very great participation by the proletariat in the demonstrations in the city centers and imposing processions of workers coming out en masse from the factories and mining plants, demonstrating that the protest was born spontaneously in a climate of genuine proletarian anger.
This is confirmed by the context in which the revolt matured. Its economic motivations are obvious, beyond the immediate trigger – the doubling of the price of gas decided by the government on January 1st – it is no coincidence that the protest broke out at the height of a long season of workers’ struggles, which have gained in magnitude in recent years, in the wake of a tradition of trade union conflict well rooted in the country. In recent times, workers’ discontent has been growing: in 2021 the number of strikes was higher than in the previous three years. In this upsurge of workers’ struggles, the rise in gas prices has exacerbated widespread concern about a trend of inflation that already significantly erodes the purchasing power of already very low wages. In Kazakhstan, the minimum wage is just over $100 a month, while the average wage is just over $300.
In addition, although the economy has undergone a long and almost uninterrupted phase of development over the last three decades, due essentially to the extractive industry which exploits the resources of very rich deposits, this has not improved workers’ salaries in the slightest proportion. The fruits of development have gone to the restricted oligarchy of the lords of the mineral rent, linked to the multinationals of the sector, mostly contiguous with the same state apparatus.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the proletarian revolt has thrown the local and international bourgeoisie into panic, worried about seeing the rich cake of the mining income recede and terrified by a proletariat out of control, willing to descend to the battlefield with the most radical means even at the price of extreme sacrifice.
The spark of the revolt was ignited in the province of Mańğystau, in the south-west of the country, facing the Caspian Sea, immediately after the announcement of the gas price increase, with the first gatherings occurring on Saturday, January 1st. The protest developed in the city of Zhanaozen, the epicenter of a solid tradition of workers’ struggles. Already in 2011, the workers of the Ozenmunaigas oil field had carried out a strike declared illegal by the authorities, but which lasted more than six months and ended with the massacre of 16 workers.
Once again, the Ozenmunaigas workers were among the first to start the protests. They were soon joined by those from the North Buzachi, Karazhanbas and Kalamkas oil fields, and the cities of Aqtau, Atyrau and Akshukur. On January 4 the revolt spread throughout the country involving Almaty, Nur-Sultan, Aqtobe, Uralsk, Qyzylorda, Shymkent, Kokshetau, Kostanai, Taldykorgan, Ekibastuz, Taraz and many other cities.
After the first clashes with the police forces, the protests took on an insurrectionist character, overwhelming the repressive apparatus of the State and forcing it to withdraw. On January 5th, the rioters attacked the institutional offices in Almaty and Nur-Sultan, penetrating the palaces of power and devastating them. At the same time in many other cities the town halls were stormed.
President Toqaev sent the government home, accusing it of incompetence for having improperly doubled the price of gas, he calmed the price, but at the same time he defined the demonstrators as “bands of terrorists”.
In the meantime, the rioters took up arms, disarming and kidnapping soldiers and policemen, and shooting began, with the first deaths on both sides.
While the international prices of raw materials underwent a jolt, the first operations of the Russian special forces began, saving dozens of members of the Kazakh nomenklatura with their families. The demonstrators occupied the international airport of Almaty, probably in an attempt to prevent the most prominent elements of the enemy class from getting to safety. The arrival of Russian troops, who promptly took control of the airport of the most important city in the country, came as a rescue for Toqaev and his cronies. The bourgeois terror quickly took over causing, according to official sources, 164 deaths and proceeding in the following days to mass arrests up to the current figure of 12,000 imprisoned.
The re-establishment of the dystopian order of capital received the explicit or tacit applause of the political representatives of the bourgeoisie of every latitude. Beijing’s open support to the butcher Toqaev is equivalent to Washington’s implicit one, even in the tired repetition of the hypocritical mantra for the respect of “human rights”. We saw on January 10 at the talks between the U.S. and Russia in Geneva this great concern of the Democrats in Washington for the fate of the Kazakh proletarians massacred, oppressed, and persecuted: Kazakhstan was not mentioned while talking about the entry of Ukraine into NATO. In the meantime, gas prices, after a flare-up due to the revolt, fell to previous levels in acknowledgment of the averted danger.
The sad Toqaev resumed the reins of the country, proceeded to appointment a new government, dismissed those responsible for security, and unloaded on his predecessor the responsibility of the situation, accusing him of having favored the creation of “a class of people rich even by international standards.” He admits what everyone knows, that elements of the old “Soviet” nomenklatura have smoothly accomplished the metamorphosis from state boyars into capitalist oligarchs, in perfect continuity with their membership in the bourgeois class.
If the ruling class needs a rag to cover its shame after the bloodbath, here is added to the flood of lies a daring work of mystification, to erase from the eyes of the masses the real meaning of what happened, making them believe that the problem lies entirely in the nepotism of the corrupt former president.
But the fire of the class struggle is never completely extinguished and will return to set the cities of Kazakhstan on fire. The Kazakh proletarians have done everything in their power, demonstrating the heroism of which the proletariat is capable when it comes to struggle, confronting the violence of the state apparatus, seizing and disarming policemen and soldiers, arming, defending and attacking, blocking factories, mines, roads and even an airport. They could hardly go further, deprived as they are of the revolutionary party at their head, and of the solidarity of the proletariat in other countries, first and foremost of the working class in Russia.
The proletariat, wounded and beaten this time not by deception but by brute force, will inevitably rise up in a new revolt and will go towards victory if it knows how to unite above all national frontiers, equipping itself with its indispensable organ of struggle: the International Communist Party.
Because the sword of the communist revolution, sharpened by the force of history, is stronger than the lies of the bourgeoisie
The Turkish lira was hit by a number of crashes in recent weeks. Since the beginning of the year, it lost 90% against the US dollar, dropping another 40% in the month of November alone, the declining trend continuing in December. In recent months, due to general unfavorable conditions, high inflation, the sharply rising energy prices – oil in particular – and higher costs due to the pandemic, the lira has been under pressure.
One of the reasons why is in the policies of the Turkish government itself. The government is holding on to its interest rate cut policy while requiring the Central Bank (CBRT) to lower the price of money in the belief that this is going to stimulate investments, keep the economy vibrant and create jobs.
International financial institutions, on the other hand, claim that in order to combat inflation an increase to the interest rate would be necessary and they are pressing the Central Bank to act accordingly. However, President Erdogan seems determined in continuing his economic policy. To enforce it, in recent months he replaced CBRT’s top management and the finance minister three times, also replacing several undersecretaries and two deputy ministers. Erdogan thus lowered the interest rate from August’s 19% to the current 14% while stating the intention to lower the rate even further.
Worse comes to worst, the stubborn defense of the exchange rates has led to international speculation upon the Turkish currency. Some financial analysts have declared that the Turkish lira has entered “uncharted territories”.
In December, the CBRT intervened several times by placing part of its foreign currency and gold reserves on the market, only for the lira to recover a few percentage points against both Euro and US dollar. In the meantime, inflation keeps on growing – by 20-ish% yearly, according to the government. According to independent economists however, it seems that the inflation rate is over 58%.
Its effect on the population is the increase of prices, and those who are hit the hardest are the workers as the spending power of their wages and pensions shrinks. In the bigger cities, long queues of retirees and poor people form every morning in front of the “Halk Ekmek” bakeries – which are managed by the cities – where bread can be bought at a reduced price – they would pay double or more shopping at privately owned bakeries. The huge foreign debt of Turkish banks and companies exposes the country to international speculation. As the Turkish currency loses international value, the price in liras of imported products rises, however, it has so far favored exports given that made in Turkey commodities are being sold at a lower price in foreign currencies. Nonetheless, even that benefit is diminishing as price volatility slows trading.
One of the sectors that made the most out of the current situation is definitely the new Turkish arms industry. Aided by the government’s unscrupulous warmongering policy, the arms industry is thriving. Dearsan shipyards sold two offshore patrol ships to Nigeria. In the port of Karachi, Pakistan, the keel-laying ceremony for a Milgem Ada-class corvette was held on November 5. The corvette is the byproduct of a joint venture between Turkey and Pakistan.
It was reported in late November that Turkey is going to supply the Niger Armed Forces with attack aircrafts, Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as well as armored vehicles. The Bayraktar TB2 UAVs, manufactured by Baykar Technologies, have played a key role in several recent conflicts, in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Azerbaijan. To date, Baykar Technologies has contracts with 13 countries, including a joint production deal with Ukraine. On Nov. 12, Ukrainian firm Ivchenko-Progress and Turkey’s Baykar Technologies announced a deal that will supply Ukrainian-made engines for new military attack drones. On the sidelines of the military equipment exposition held in Istanbul last October, the 2021 Saha Expo, Baykar explained that their new TB3 drone model is designed to take off and land from the deck of the TCG Anadolu, a light amphibious, multi-role assault aircraft carrier and 2022’s largest ship of the Turkish Armed Forces.
Turkey is one of the top four drone manufacturers in the world, along with the United States, Israel and China. Turns out that the Turkish ones, however, cost less! Nonetheless, the drones’ success, used by the government to justify its policy, is not enough to keep the country’s economy going.
The government’s latest attempt at boosting the economy is the opening of a new alternative canal to the Bosphorus. The Turkish government is hoping for capital investments from Qatar which Turkey has strong military ties with. The plan has led to protests, not only by the environmentalists, but also by international diplomacy. The canal’s management system would in fact invalidate the Montreux Convention, which regulates naval transit between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
Lira’s crisis is not just determined by economic and financial reasons but also by international politics. Turkish bourgeoisie’s open policy is to swing Turkey’s neighborhood states. Despite strong economic and military ties with Europe and the United States, Turkey does not hesitate turning to Russia, China and Gulf countries in search of support in its role of regional ruling imperialism.
In central-eastern Mediterranean, Turkey’s intention is to participate in the exploitation of the underwater gas and oil fields, clashing not only with Greece, but also with Egypt, Israel, the UAE and France. Turkey also intends to challenge the current international agreements regarding the Cyprus dispute.
Ankara is also directly involved in the war in Libya where it is opposed to Russia, Egypt and France. By reopening the Cyprus dispute, Turkey refueled its tensions with both the Republic of Cyprus and Greece. In Syria, the state of tension continues between Ankara on one side and Russia and the Assad regime – but also the United States, accused of supporting the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria (AANES) and its armed forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), considered a terrorist organization by the Turkish government – on the other.
Furthermore, Turkey is in a dispute with the United States over the purchase of Moscow’s S400 missile system. The US then refused to supply F35 fighter jets, which could make Ankara turn to Moscow to renew its air fleet as well.
A militaristic and warmongering spiral that can only lead to further tragedies for the Turkish and international working class.
Like a poker player, the head of the Turkish government is raising the stakes but he will have to uncover his cards at some point. That is what the U.S. is waiting for, pressing, also using financial ways, for Erdogan to return to the ranks and to his role in NATO.
Meanwhile, the working class has reacted to the worsening of its conditions, although to an insufficient extent so far. The union “DISK’’ – supported by the union “KESK” – has organized rallies in major Turkish cities under the slogan “We can’t make ends meet”, demanding minimum wage’s increase.
On December 12, a new union rally was held in Istanbul. The protesters mainly demanded for minimum wage, which is currently the equivalent of 179 euros, to be raised to 331 euros. According to the Social Security Institute more than 40% of all the workers in the country are on minimum wage. For 2021, monthly minimum wage amounted to 2,826 liras. At the beginning of the year that was worth 380 US dollars but is currently worth less than 186.
In four cities, KESK, the Confederation of Public Workers’ Unions, organized demonstrations on the last weekend of December. Izmir and Diyarbakir’s rallies was held on Saturday, Istanbul and Ankara’s on Sunday, both under the slogan “We can’t make ends meet”.
These mobilizations have yielded a first important result as the government, to avoid the growth of union rallies, but also keeping an eye on the 2023 elections, announced that starting from January 2022 minimum wage will be increased by 50% and public workers’ wages by 30%. The increase will not even cover last year’s wage loss also because it will cause a new increase in inflation. However, it will momentarily alleviate the condition of workers and retirees.
Semi-spontaneous demonstrations were held in the neighborhoods of the cities governed by the opposition. Because of the lira’s collapse the resignation of the government was demanded. The bourgeois opposition (made of the Kemalist social democrats, their dissident fascist allies and the Kurdish nationalists) is organizing rallies to benefit from the discontent caused by the government’s policies but to also prevent an independent class reaction by the proletariat, banking everything on 2023’s distant electoral victory. But if the opposition ends up leading the government, the balance of power between classes won’t change and the Turkish proletariat will certainly not experience significant changes to its conditions.
The current government is keeping the country under a repressive cloak, continuously employing the state of emergency, continuously calling for national unity. Both would be required as Turkey is facing a war on its southern borders, an internal war against the Kurds and a diplomatic situation that has the country engaged on many fronts.
In this situation, Turkey’s proletariat must take care not to be dazzled by the promises of the parties of the bourgeois left and of the nationalists, understanding that it has no allies in other classes. Its ally is other countries’ proletariat. Militarism and war only benefit the bourgeoisie and the ruling classes while for the proletariat they only bring death and hunger.
On December 10, an Amazon warehouse collapsed in Edwardsville, Illinois, near St. Louis. Six workers died there, according to the company, but perhaps many more. As a series of widely-announced tornadoes passed through, the structure was partially leveled.
The workers inside had no chance. Despite warnings issued by the weather service, the bosses at Amazon’s, who had be informed a half an hour before of the danger coming and to get to safety, prevented the workers from leaving their posts.
Amazon’s employees are like the slave rowers chained to galleys. In the terrible and murderous capitalist mode of production, death is imposed on the proletariat to maintain bourgeois profits.
The ever contemporary Karl Marx said: Capital runs from tumult and quarrel and is timid by nature. But grant it ten per cent and it will be employed everywhere; for a hundred per cent it will trample all human laws; and give it three hundred per cent and there will be no crime that it does not try, even on threat of the gallows
– For an increase in wages and a reduction in the workday! – Unity of the struggles of the workers! – Grassroots organization for the struggle! – For real class unions! – Prepare for mobilization and strike!
Workers can no longer believe the lies of bourgeois politicians, whether they dress up as leftists or rightists. All these politicians are agents of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, who maintain starvation wages, make the rich richer and throw the workers into misery.
Even the current unions are on the side of the exploiters and are committed to keeping the workers passive and divided.
The only way for workers is to mobilize and strike, organizing from the grassroots and overruling the leaders of the current unions.
Workers must refuse to go to the polls to elect their executioners. Don’t be confused with calls to defend the homeland and the national economy. When the economy does well, the workers do poorly: that is the rule of capital.
La testata Il partito comunista e la rete organizzata di militanti che si raccoglie e che si raccoglierà intorno ad essa sono il frutto di una selezione operatasi nel corso della «dura opera di ricostituzione della teoria e dell’organo rivoluzionario a contatto con la classe operaia, fuori dal politicantismo personale ed elettoralesco», che la Sinistra comunista d’Italia ha intrapreso dopo il crollo nel 1926 dell’Internazionale Comunista, preda dello stalinismo e della deforme teoria del “socialismo in un solo paese”.
La storia della ricostituzione reale del partito rivoluzionario di classe non può non essere contrassegnata da queste periodiche selezioni che esprimono in campo organizzativo il chiarimento, la messa a punto o semplicemente il porsi all’ordine del giorno di grandi problemi di teoria, di programma, di tattica, di metodo di lavoro interno e di organizzazione che la realtà stessa e non la volontà di uomini porta il partito ad affrontare, a dover ribadire e precisare.
La Sinistra comunista d’Italia dopo il 1926 riprese il cammino di restaurazione del partito, prima di tutto riaffermando in tutta la loro portata quei dati che erano stati alla base della vittoria di Russia e della costituzione della Terza Internazionale al suo secondo Congresso nel 1920. Necessità assoluta del partito politico di classe, organizzato alla scala mondiale, in maniera centralizzata e non federalistica, e fondato sulla teoria e la dottrina marxista considerate invarianti; necessità della rivoluzione violenta e della dittatura del proletariato, diretta in prima persona dal partito di classe; riaffermazione, contro lo stalinismo imperante, della tesi, ben viva al tempo di Lenin, che il proletariato vittorioso in un paese deve subordinare tutti i suoi sforzi alla vittoria proletaria mondiale: di conseguenza la gerarchia del partito comunista mondiale deve essere Internazionale comunista – Partito al potere – Stato proletario.
Riaffermando queste posizioni chiave la Sinistra doveva necessariamente marciare contro lo stalinismo, separata da tutte quelle posizioni e raggruppamenti che, dal crollo dell’Internazionale, avevano tratta la lezione contro la necessità del partito centralizzato e dello stato dittatoriale a partito unico, posizioni e raggruppamenti “antistalinisti” che si ricongiungevano di fatto alle posizioni kapedeiste, già battute al secondo Congresso.
Altra, determinante posizione della Sinistra d’Italia fu che le cause della degenerazione dell’Internazionale andavano ricercate non solo nella serie di eventi oggettivi sfavorevoli che avevano contrassegnato il cammino del proletariato rivoluzionario nell’arco 1917-1926, ma in una serie di debolezze soggettive, ascrivibili a gravi lacune nel processo di formazione dell’Internazionale stessa e dei partiti aderenti, processo che la necessità della battaglia immediata aveva reso imperfetto: una mancata elaborazione e sistemazione del campo della tattica, pari a quella magistrale che si era avuta per opera dei bolscevichi nel campo della restaurazione teorica e programmatica; in una non corretta pratica organizzativa fin dal quarto Congresso, da noi denunciata come pericolosa e foriera di disgregazione (fusioni, noyautage, partiti simpatizzanti ecc.); infine in un non corretto metodo di funzionamento e di lavoro interno che cominciò a farsi strada almeno dalla risoluzione del problema tedesco del 1923 e diventò predominante nell’Internazionale sotto il termine aberrante di “bolscevizzazione”.
Le lezioni della tragedia storica andavano tratte, per la Sinistra, facendo un bilancio critico di tutta l’opera dell’Internazionale dal 1920 al 1926, bilancio, del resto, già contenuto nelle nostre Tesi di Lione al terzo Congresso del P.C.I.
Questa impostazione della questione provocò necessariamente un’altra separazione di strade storiche: quella fra la nostra corrente e quelle di Trotski e dell’Opposizione di Sinistra russa, che questo bilancio rifiutava, per ragioni materiali e non certo per mancanza di volontà.
Nel 1945, giunto materialmente a compimento il processo del passaggio nel campo controrivoluzionario della Russia e dei partiti stalinizzati, si pose all’ordine del giorno la ricostituzione del partito comunista rivoluzionario sulle basi suddette. Ormai la nostra strada e quella della “Internazionale” trotskista o dei ritornati allo spontaneismo divergevano su tutti i punti ed irreversibilmente. A base della ricostituzione organizzativa non poté dunque essere posto il generico antistalinismo di vari raggruppamenti. Fu posta invece, con la Piattaforma Politica del 1945, l’esperienza storica elaborata dalla Sinistra italiana e su questa strada si cominciò la “dura opera” con il quindicinale Battaglia Comunista e la rivista Prometeo.
L’epoca aperta dal secondo dopoguerra dettò al partito la necessità di risolvere diversi problemi reali, di prospettiva e di tattica. Il punto cruciale di questo mastodontico lavoro, condotto dal 1945 al 1952, furono le Tesi Caratteristiche del partito, del 1952, che costituirono la base per l’adesione al partito. Coloro che non accettarono in blocco le Tesi Caratteristiche si trovarono automaticamente fuori dell’organizzazione. Nessuno ebbe a cacciarli: da soli se ne andarono non condividendo i risultati a cui era giunto il lavoro del partito nei diversi campi. Poterono, secondo le parole delle nostre Tesi del 1965, prendere “qualunque altra strada che dalla nostra diverga”. La presero, e la stanno seguendo, a quanta distanza dal partito non ci importa stabilire.
La situazione stessa del crescere e del solidificarsi dell’organizzazione di partito, intorno al quindicinale Il Programma Comunista ed anche alla scala internazionale, pur permanendo una situazione morta ed amorfa dal punto di vista della crisi rivoluzionaria, pose all’ordine del giorno nel 1964 la necessità di affrontare i problemi relativi ai compiti perenni del partito ed al modulo di funzionamento interno della organizzazione. Ancora una volta la situazione, non la volontà di Tizio o di Caio, fecero venire in primo piano problemi che, già contenuti in cento nostre enunciazioni databili fin dal 1920, dovevano ora trovare una sistemazione definitiva: i problemi dell’organizzazione del partito ricostituito, seppure come ridotta rete. Si procedette a questa necessità secondo il nostro metodo che non conta le opinioni dei singoli o dei gruppi, ma ricerca nel passato e nel futuro la risposta ai problemi dell’oggi e del domani. Furono, dal 1964 al 1966, allineati, con metodo marxista, le esperienze e i bilanci della vita organizzata del partito comunista mondiale dal 1848 al 1926, rimettendo al loro posto i vari fattori che definiscono l’essere del partito comunista, teoria, programma, tattica ed organizzazione. E da queste esperienze furono tratte conclusioni oggettive e definitive riassunte nei corpi di Tesi 1964-1966, che sono anche esse da accettare o da rigettare in blocco, perché costituiscono non il frutto del parere opinabile di qualcuno, grande capo o gregario, ma un risultato di tutto il modo di vedere della Sinistra nell’arco di cinquanta anni.
Posta sul cammino della ricostituzione del partito quest’altra pietra miliare, secondari ed in un certo senso indifferenti ne furono i riflessi organizzativi. Alcuni, molti o pochi, se ne andarono. Erano anch’essi liberi di prendere qualsiasi altra strada diversa dalla nostra. Non avevamo da prendere nessun provvedimento né per spingerli fuori, né per trattenerli dentro. Le nostre strade divergevano e divergono, e la divergenza è rappresentata da un blocco monolitico di tesi ed enunciazioni che sono quelle tipiche della Sinistra.
Nelle Tesi del 1964-1966, e nella storia reale del partito che abbiamo tratteggiato e che esse riassumono, è contenuta una descrizione della dinamica organica del partito che si può riassumere in questi termini:
«Nella concezione del centralismo organico la garanzia della selezione dei suoi componenti è quella che sempre proclamammo contro i centristi di Mosca. Il partito persevera nello scolpire i lineamenti della sua dottrina, della sua azione e della sua tattica con una unicità di metodo al di sopra dello spazio e del tempo. Tutti coloro che dinanzi a queste delineazioni si trovano a disagio hanno a loro disposizione la ovvia via di abbandonare le file del partito. Nemmeno dopo avvenuta la conquista del potere possiamo concepire la iscrizione forzata nelle nostre file; è perciò che restano fuori dalla giusta accezione del centralismo organico le compressioni terroristiche nel campo disciplinare, che non possono non copiare il loro stesso vocabolario da abusate forme costituzionali borghesi, come la facoltà del potere esecutivo di sciogliere e di ricomporre le formazioni elettive – tutte forme che da molto tempo si considerano superate non diremo per lo stesso partito proletario, ma perfino per lo Stato rivoluzionario e temporaneo del proletariato».
È sempre, dunque, per Marx, per Lenin e per la Sinistra, il lavoro di scolpimento dei cardini teorici, programmatici, tattici del partito che può portare come conseguenza a lacerazioni e scissioni dell’organizzazione. Quando la scissione avviene su questa base essa è il risultato del delinearsi di posizioni politiche divergenti ed è fatto naturale, organico, storicamente positivo. Ma nella concezione del centralismo organico, cioè in una concezione correttamente marxista della dinamica interna del partito, la compressione organizzativa non può essere ritenuta un metodo per risolvere problemi e divergenze interne senza che questo metodo non arrivi pian piano a snaturare la stessa concezione del partito. Tanto le Tesi sanciscono senza esitazioni come risultato dell’esperienza storica.
Dal 1970 al 1973 la storia ha posto all’ordine del giorno del partito diversi problemi. Secondo il nostro classico metodo si doveva procedere alla ricerca oggettiva e razionale della soluzione, dal che soltanto poteva scaturire o l’accordo unanime di tutta l’organizzazione o il delinearsi netto di opposte posizioni e di conseguenza la spontanea, naturale ed organica separazione organizzativa. Tutta una serie di ragioni materiali hanno impedito che il metodo rivendicato da sempre e codificato nel 1965 fosse praticamente applicato alla risoluzione di questi problemi reali. Si è usato il metodo opposto, riportando all’interno dell’organizzazione i metodi della lotta politica, del terrorismo ideologico, della pressione organizzativa verso militanti i quali si dichiaravano assolutamente d’accordo sul blocco di posizioni fondamentali del partito ed accettavano nella maniera più assoluta la disciplina esecutiva nell’organizzazione. L’uso di questi metodi ha fatto sì che la selezione che dà ora vita alla testata Il partito comunista si sia manifestata, per la prima volta nella storia del partito, non come un’uscita volontaria di militanti in disaccordo su qualche fondamentale posizione, ma come espulsione d’ufficio di chi dichiara di accettare tutto intero il patrimonio teorico, programmatico, tattico della Sinistra Comunista.
L’uso di questi metodi contravviene praticamente alle tesi del partito sul centralismo organico, il che significa che contravviene, dato che queste tesi non sono un lusso teorico, all’unico metodo che la storia ha selezionato per costruire in pratica la forte e compatta organizzazione rivoluzionaria di cui il proletariato ha bisogno per la sua emancipazione. Con questi metodi non si costruisce il partito – è l’esperienza storica che lo insegna con sanguinose lezioni – anzi si apre il partito ad ulteriori deviazioni anche nel campo programmatico e tattico, venendogli meno una delle principali “garanzie” di mantenere la giusta rotta: il metodo di lavoro interno, terza direzione in cui la Sinistra denunciò il risorgere dell’opportunismo nell’Internazionale di Mosca.
Non la nostra volontà, ma i fatti materiali tracciano a questo punto la nostra rotta: difesa aperta ed integrale delle posizioni classiche di sempre della Sinistra come le sole sulle quali possa ritessersi la rete organizzata del partito di classe compatto e potente. Costretti a prendere atto dell’esistenza di due organizzazioni, che non abbiamo voluta né provocata, non abbiamo da scrivere sulla nostra bandiera nient’altro che la completa adesione e fedeltà alla tradizione di Marx, di Lenin, della Sinistra Comunista, codificata nei corpi di tesi che si chiamano: Tesi di Roma, Tesi di Lione, Tesi caratteristiche del 1952, Tesi sul centralismo organico del 1964-66. E da rivendicare che solo su quelle basi intangibili ed immodificabili è nato, si è sviluppato e deve vivere e potenziarsi il Partito Comunista Internazionale.
Faced with the impact of the capitalist crisis on the wage-earning masses and the growing social unrest in the American countries, opportunists of all sorts assume that now’s the moment to reinforce their calls to form fronts that express the unity of different parties that proclaim themselves to be of the left, under slogans that they put forward as a solution to the vicissitudes of the workers, the advent of a workers’ and popular government, of a government of national salvation, of a truly democratic government, that puts an end to corruption, that takes care of the majority with social programs, that defends national sovereignty and that remains independent of imperialist countries and organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that is to say, a “progressive” bourgeois government. But these political fronts promoted by opportunism, which end up being variants of bourgeois politics and their nationalist government programs, which they go so far as to call “socialist”, are only an illusion, a lie, which ends up giving continuity to capitalist exploitation. The resumption of the class struggle of the workers in the countries of the American continent and in the whole world will necessarily pass through the rupture with these fronts whose so-called unitary fronts only channel the workers’ discontent towards class conciliation, for the benefit of the bourgeoisie and imperialism that they ostensibly want to fight. Likewise these fronts end up leading the workers towards electoral participation, constitutional reforms, legalism and the defense of bourgeois democracy.
In Venezuela the bourgeois government of the Bolivarians, who proclaim themselves leftists, has its own front of parties, the “Polo Patriotico”. Integrated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and several parties and movements of the parliamentary left. From the government, Chavismo has promoted movements under its control, which are integrated to the electoral campaigns, such as the Local Supply and Production Committees (CLAP). Chavismo also has trade union organizations and organizations in different segments of the population which, although they do not have many real affiliates, have the full backing of the government and are added to the electoral media structure. At present, this front has been changing its economic policies, giving more space to private enterprise in the control of the economy and developing attractions for transnational capital. It is a reactionary political front, which defines itself as leftist, which has been guaranteeing the continuity of capitalist exploitation in an atmosphere of social peace, ideological confusion and repression.
The Popular Revolutionary Alternative (APR) groups a set of parties and movements, most of which were previously part of the Patriotic Pole but split from it due to criticisms of the current bourgeois Bolivarian government, led by Nicolás Maduro. This front included the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), Patria Para Todos (PPT), Izquierda Unida (IU), Lucha de Clases, Partido Revolucionario del Trabajo (PRT), Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario – 200, Red Autónoma de Comuneros, Compromiso País (COMPA) and Somos Lina, among others. This front emerged to participate in the parliamentary elections of 2020 and presented its candidates in the regional elections of November 2021. From a political point of view, they propose to return to the program led by the late Hugo Chávez, a program of State Capitalism and with populist components, which was weakened with the significant drop in oil revenues. As in the case of the Polo Patriotico, it is a reactionary political front, which defines itself as leftist, whose program and political orientation aims at giving continuity to capitalist exploitation.
In the end, the electoral results in Venezuela, without going into details, allow giving continuity to bourgeois domination and the quotas reached by each political front only give the bourgeoisie alternatives to continue confusing and exploiting the workers. The workers will continue to be subjected to an intense electoral agitation that will be maintained in the coming years for the election or recall of the president of the republic, with which the bourgeois power will try to keep them on the sidelines of the struggles for their demands and interests.
In Mexico (Morena’s alliance with other parties), Chile (“Frente Amplio” where the socialist party participates and another where the communist party is integrated), Uruguay (Frente Amplio), Argentina (Frente de Todos), Nicaragua (Alianza Unida Nicaragua Triunfa), Honduras (where the new president declares herself “chavista”), fronts dominate in which reformist parties that call themselves “socialist” and “communist” participate together with right-wing parties that call themselves “centrist” or “moderate”. They have evolved to channel the discontent of the masses and their programs do not represent the slightest threat to capitalist exploitation. In Brazil we see the PT of Lula Da Silva and its alliances with parties and personalities of the right wing that were already in previous governments; and the possible critics of this course will not take long to present the proposal of a “truly leftist” alternative front or to remain within the current fronts, with greater electoral possibilities, as a current that would coexist with them in a “struggle” to change their course in the future. In Colombia, a possible front could be around the presidential candidacy of Gustavo Petro, whose political movement has not been legalized; and the opportunist left could end up integrated in this Front, including the demobilized members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In the end, electoral calculations weigh heavily in these “leftist” fronts.
In Argentina we can also observe the Left and Workers Front – Unity (FIT-U), which is a left-wing electoral coalition that boasts of having become the “third national political force” and of representing in parliament a “left-wing bench” and with “class independence from the bosses’ parties”. It is made up of the Partido Obrero, the Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas and Izquierda Socialista, as well as other adherents. The Left Front has a program with twenty-seven points, paying attention to the minimum wage, the rejection of the payment of the foreign debt, the nationalization, without compensation, of the banks, oil, mining, telecommunications and agrarian foreign trade, the surrender of the railroads under workers’ control, among others. This Front calls for a “workers government” which, in spite of the allegedly “Marxist” discourse, ends up being a road for the integration of these parties in the bourgeois governments and parliament.
The historical experience accumulated by the revolutionary movement shows the disastrous course taken by those parties which, pretending to broaden their influence among the workers or to join forces to confront the positions of bourgeois reaction, built political fronts with other supposedly proletarian movements. Those who took this road sacrificed their autonomy and abandoned their vanguard role; they fell into the pool of activism, of economism, of the distorted idea of the role of the vanguard, putting themselves at the tail of the mass movement (See in Lenin: “What Is To Be Done?”). All these fronts promoted by the so-called “left”, by international opportunism, always ended up leading to the deviation of the class struggle and the channeling of all the discontents towards the bourgeois democratic “solution”: the electoral participation to conquer a supposed workers’ and popular government. All these fronts proclaiming “socialism” claim democracy (bourgeois, there is no other democracy!), reject the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only support to make the socialist transformation viable and demand reforms and social adjustments that do not disturb the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
It is true that part of the proletariat tends to organize itself in other parties and particularly in parties that proclaim themselves to be of the left and the need to “join forces” will always be present. But the revolutionary method to join forces is based on wielding the weapon of criticism and confrontation with the different opportunist positions and this is not possible through the different fronts presented by the opportunists throughout the world. “If it is an essential aim of the Communist Party to win ground among the proletariat by increasing its strength and influence at the expense of proletarian political parties and currents with which it disagrees, this aim must be achieved by taking part in the reality of the proletarian struggle upon a terrain which can be simultaneously one of common action and of mutual conflict – always on condition that the programmatic and organizational physiognomy of the party is never compromised.” (Theses of Rome, 1921).
ON THE REVOLUTIONARY ROAD
The whole opportunist policy of forming fronts of supposedly “leftist” parties, to “confront the capitalists”, “the neo-liberals”, “the right”, is a policy common to the different strata that make up the different groupings that in America call themselves “left”, “socialist” and “communist”, but which practice a treacherous policy, of deception and confusion of the proletariat, in short, a counter-revolutionary policy.
Generally these fronts end up concentrating on electoral participation, to the point that the unity to assume any mobilization for any demand or legal reform ends up being put at the service of the search for the vote and parliamentarism; although there are many examples, we can mention in this case the so-called “Fora Bolsonaro” movement in Brazil, with a deep electoral background supported by different unions and social movements. Likewise, the activism that characterizes these fronts ends up integrating in a single program the aspirations of different classes and social strata. Participation in these alliances of parties means the renunciation by the party of the proletariat of its role as revolutionary vanguard and its prostration before programs alien to the class position of the proletariat.
These fronts equally tend to converge in the call for the conquest of “workers’” or “workers’ and peasants’ governments” or governments of national salvation, all in defense of the homeland and national sovereignty, which is the same as the defense of capitalism and bourgeois democracy. And it is common for socialism to become the adjective for the promotion of such eyesores as “socialist fatherland”, “socialist democracy”, “socialist market”, “socialist enterprises”, etc. The proletariat does not fight to take control of the bourgeois parliament or the bourgeois State; the proletariat fights to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and destroy all its political, economic and social institutions. No program that claims to be revolutionary, however progressive and anti-capitalist it may seem, makes sense if the proletariat does not establish and exercise its dictatorship. The calls to conquer these workers’ and popular governments and governments of national salvation are siren songs that turn the proletariat away from the historical course discovered and determined by Marxism.
The revolutionary movement of the proletariat, in this epoch, the imperialist epoch, will have to rise up apart from the different courses presented by opportunism, badly disguised as “leftist”, in different countries. Among the coordinates of the revolutionary road to travel, are the following:
1) The strengthening of fascist mechanisms in bourgeois governments, even and especially if in these participate reformist, laborist or so-called “progressive” parties, should not be used as an argument to call the working class to demand “true democracy”, “participatory democracy”, “popular democracy” or the illusory return to the liberal forms of bourgeois democracy. The only dictatorship facing the proletariat is the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, regardless of whether it assumes the figure of parliamentary democracy or dictatorial or authoritarian government.
2) Recognition of the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru and other governments led by reformist parties, which proclaim themselves “leftist”, “socialist” and even “communist”, as governments that administer the interests of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, as occurs in the rest of the countries of the American continent.
3) Rejection of any invitation to national solidarity of classes and parties, of support “governments of national salvation”, of calls for the defense of the fatherland and the national economy. Struggle against any media and ideological campaign that tends to integrate and mobilize the working class in patriotic fronts of the various countries in the face of the possible new imperialist war, in which they are asked either to fight in favor of imperialism dressed in red, or to support imperialism in democratic clothing; calling for revolutionary defeatism.
4) Rejection of the maneuver and opportunist tactic of united fronts, that is, of the invitation to the false socialist and communist parties, which have nothing proletarian about them, to leave the government coalition to create so-called “proletarian unity” or “revolutionary unity”. This includes, without exception, the different “leftist” fronts that try to confront the fronts that today control the governments in Argentina, Venezuela, etc., and the parties that want to coexist in these party fronts as internal currents. Only the fronts that constitute the organizations of economic struggle of the working class are admissible, formed and with the active participation of the workers and not of supposed “class-based” vanguards and as long as these fronts do not mix organizationally with the so-called “social movements” or with organizations that group together non-proletarians and that end up fostering inter-classism.
The alliance of communists with socialists in proletarian struggles (united front) and even worse, in the parliamentary field for the legal conquest of power in common (workers’ government) is an erroneous tactic. In America and throughout the world, alliances and proposals for alliances with socialist and petty-bourgeois political parties (political united front tactics) must be totally discarded. We must tend to broaden the influence on the masses by being present in all economic and local struggles and inviting the workers of all organizations and of all creeds to give them a greater development, but we absolutely deny that the action of the party, even if only in public declarations and not in the intentions and instructions to the internal apparatus, can ever be committed to subordinate itself to that of political committees of front, of bloc and of alliance between various parties. Even more vigorously the international communist party rejects the supposedly “Bolshevik” tactic when it assumes the form of “workers government”, that is, the launching of the agitation slogan calling for the parliamentary conquest of power with mixed majorities of communists and socialists of various hues.
5) One of the most dangerous currents in the ranks of opportunism is that which calls to fight for a “workers government”, “workers and peasants government”, “workers’ and popular government” as substitute entities for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The workers’ movement must follow the course traced by the proletarian party, turning away from the opportunist call to fight for the constitution of workers’ governments, which end up forming part of electoral slogans and which only lead to the continuity of capitalist exploitation.
6) Through its media apparatus and its parties (right or left) the bourgeoisie proclaims the thesis that any nationalization or expropriation of enterprises is a socialist measure. Nothing could be further from reality. The means of production that become the property of the bourgeois State do not lose the character of capital. The bourgeois state is the ideal collective capitalist. And for this all the nationalizations touted as “socialist” are based on the maintenance of the same relations of production, of exploitation of wage labor, of appropriation of surplus value extracted from the labor force applied to different processes. In these cases the State, as collective capitalist, is the boss against whom the workers must confront just as they must do against the private bosses. The nationalizations applied by some bourgeois governments have generally responded to the need to save bankrupt capitalist entrepreneurs, or to respond to the demands of the masses in the area of services whose operating costs and prices cannot be assumed by the private sector and do not generate profits. That is why we recurrently see governments that for a time nationalize companies and at other times, depending on the behavior of the economy, privatize them and return them to the private sector. On the other hand, the movements that call on workers to confront privatizations fall into an erroneous position promoted by the opportunist parties. For workers, no matter whether the employer is public or private, the united struggle of the working class should focus on the demand for wage increases, reduction of the working day and rejection of layoffs.
7) The emancipation of the working class from capitalist exploitation is only possible with political struggle and with the political organ of the revolutionary class: the communist party. And this communist party will not be able to emerge and assume its vanguard role, integrated in multi-party fronts, interclassist and much less if they are oriented towards electoral and parliamentary participation and towards the administration of capitalism through “workers’ and popular governments”.
8) No anti-capitalist program can be implemented without the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. All the economic struggles of the working class must converge in the political struggle, that is to say, in armed insurrection followed by civil war, by means of which the power of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, will be destroyed. This struggle cannot be victorious if it is not led by a party organization.
9) Just as the struggle against the power of the exploiting class cannot develop without a revolutionary political party, neither can the subsequent work of extirpation of the preceding economic institutions develop without it. The dictatorship of the proletariat, necessary in the not brief historical period of transition, will have to be exercised openly by its party, the international communist party.
10) The policy of forming fronts of left parties has included in Latin and Central America guerrilla movements, which have proclaimed themselves to be revolutionary and which have ended up raising interclass and nationalist programs and sponsoring all kinds of alliances which reinforce this opportunist tendency. We have seen the experiences of El Salvador, Colombia, Peru, Nicaragua and others and it is important that the proletariat not allow itself to be confused by this type of movements which, even with their “radical” appearance, are also alternatives for the continuity of the bourgeoisie in power.
To accelerate the new class ascent there are no ready-made recipes. To make the proletarians hear the voice of the class there are no maneuvers and expedients, which as such would not make the party appear as it really is, but would disfigure its function, to the detriment and prejudice of the effective resumption of the revolutionary movement, which is based on the real maturity of the facts and the corresponding adaptation of the party, enabled for this only by its doctrinaire and political inflexibility.
The proletarian party, on the line of past experiences, refrains, therefore, from sending or accepting invitations, open letters and agitation slogans to form committees, fronts and mixed agreements with any movement and political organization. This course of action is valid for America and for the whole world.
