Since
the mid-1970s a deterioration of the balance of forces between
the classes has taken place on a worldwide scale. The main
reason has been the onset of a long-lasting depressive wave in
the capitalist economy with a continuing increase in
unemployment. In the imperialist countries, unemployment has
increased from 10 to 50 million people; in the Third World it
has reached 500 million. In many of the latter countries, this
means that 50% or more of the population find themselves without
work.
This
massive rise in unemployment, and in the fear of unemployment
among those who have jobs, has weakened the working class and
facilitated the worldwide capitalist offensive aimed at
increasing the rate of profit through pushing down real wages
and cutting social and infrastructural costs. The
neo-conservative offensive is only the ideological expression of
this social and economic offensive.
The
large majority of the leaderships of the mass parties who claim
to be socialist have capitulated before this capitalist
offensive, and have accepted austerity policies; this has been
seen in countries as diverse as France, Spain, the Netherlands,
Sweden, Venezuela and Peru. This has disoriented the working
class and, during a whole period, has made it more difficult for
the masses to undertake defensive struggles.
This
capitulation of the Social Democracy has been coupled with the
ideological and political impact of the crisis of the systems in
eastern Europe, the ex-Soviet Union, the People's Republic of
China and Indochina, which is fomenting a profound and near
universal crisis of the credibility of socialism.
In
the eyes of the great majority of the population of the planet,
the two principal historical experiences in constructing a
classes society - the Stalinist/post-Stalinist/Maoist and the
Social Democratic - have failed.
Of
course, the masses understand very well that this is the failure
of an overall radical social objective. But that does not imply
a negative assessment of the important concrete changes in
social reality in favour of the exploited that have taken place.
In this latter sense, the balance sheet of more than 150 years
of the activity of the international workers' movement and all
its tendencies, remains positive.
But
this is not the same as a belief by millions of workers that all
immediate struggles will increasingly lead to the struggle for
the overthrow of capitalism and the advent of a classless
society without exploitation, oppression, injustice or mass
violence. In the absence of such a conviction, immediate
struggles are fragmented and discontinuous, without overall
political objectives.
The
political initiative is in the hands of imperialism, the
bourgeoisie and its agents. This is clear from what is happening
in eastern Europe where the fall of the bureaucratic
dictatorships under the impact of broad mass struggles has led
not to a political initiative in the direction of socialism but
rather, towards the restoration of capitalism. The same thing is
beginning to happen in the ex-Soviet Union.
The
masses in Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union, not to mention
countries like Cambodia, identify the Stalinist and
post-Stalinist dictatorship with Marxism and socialism, and they
reject all of these equally. Stalin murdered a million
Communists and repressed millions of workers and peasants.
This
was not the product of Marxism, socialism or of the revolution;
it was the result of a bloody counter-revolution. But that the
masses still see these things differently is an objective fact
that bears heavily on international political and social
realities.
This
crisis of the credibility of socialism explains the principal
contradiction of the world situation at a time when the masses
are fighting in many countries, often on a larger scale than
ever before.
On
the one hand, imperialism and the international bourgeoisie are
not capable of crushing the workers movement as they did in the
1930s and the beginning of the 1940s in the big cities of Europe
and Japan and in many other countries. But, on the other, the
working masses are not yet prepared to fight for a global
anti-capitalist solution. For this reason we are in a period of
worldwide crisis and disorder in which neither one of the
principal social classes is capable of assuring its historical
victory.
The
principal task of socialists and communists is to try to restore
the credibility of socialism in the consciousness of millions of
men and women. This will be possible only if our starting point
is the immediate needs and concerns of these masses. Any
alternative model of political economy must include these
proposals. Such proposals must give the most concrete and
efficient aid to the masses to fight successfully for their
needs.
We
can formulate these in near biblical terms: eliminate hunger,
clothe the naked, give a dignified life to everyone, save the
lives of those who die for lack of proper medical attention,
generalise free access to culture including the elimination of
illiteracy, universalise democratic freedoms, human rights, and
eliminate repressive violence in all its forms.
None
of this is dogmatic or utopian. Although the masses are not
ready to fight for socialist revolution, they can wholly accept
these objectives if they are formulated in the most concrete way
possible. They can unleash broader struggles in the most diverse
forms and combinations. For this we must try to be as concrete
as possible in our propositions. What type of food production is
possible? With what agrarian techniques? In which places? Which
materials can be produced? In which localities or nations on the
largest international scale?
But
when we examine the conditions needed to achieve these goals, we
arrive at the conclusion that such a program implies a radical
redistribution of existing resources and a radical change in the
social forces that hold the decision making power over their
use. We should be convinced that the masses who are struggling
for these objectives will not abandon the struggle when reality
demonstrates these implications.
Herein
lies one of the historical challenges facing the socialist
movement: to be capable, without prior conditions, of leading
the broadest mass struggles to achieve humanity's most pressing
current needs.
Is
such an alternative model possible in today's society without a
short or medium term goal of taking or participating in concrete
power, in the short or medium term? I believe that this is the
wrong way to put the question. It is clear that there is no way
of avoiding the problem of political power. But the concrete
form of the struggle for power and, above all, the concrete
forms of state power, must not be decided beforehand. Above all,
the formulation of concrete objectives and concrete forms of
struggles for definite needs must not be subordinate to
objectives realisable on the political plane in the short term.
On
the contrary, the objectives and forms of struggle must be
determined without any political prejudices whatsoever. The
formula must be that of the great tactician Napoleon Bonaparte
which was repeated many times by Lenin: "on s'engage et
puis on voit" (we join the battle and then we'll see).
This
is how the international workers' movement in the period of its
most impressive mass activity conducted its campaigns for two
central objective: the eight-hour working day and universal
suffrage.
Cannot
imperialism today or, more accurately, imperialism allied with
big capital, impede the realisation of these same objectives in
the countries of Latin America? Cannot imperialism block the
influx of capital and the transference of technology even more
than is already being done through the pressures of the IMF and
World Bank?
Again,
I believe that posing the question in these terms can lead us
into a trap. The truth is that nobody can give an answer to this
beforehand. In the final analysis, all depends on the balance of
forces. But these are not predetermined and are constantly
changing.
Furthermore,
the struggle for realisable, precise objectives by mass action
is precisely one way to change the balance of forces in favour
of the workers and all the exploited and oppressed.
It
must not be forgotten that imperialism is undergoing a profound
crisis of leadership. While consolidating its military
dominance, Yankee imperialism has lost its technological and
financial dominance. It is no longer capable of imposing its
will on its principal competitors, Japanese and German
imperialism. Neither can it control the possible reactions of
the masses in the United States nor on an international scale.
Under
these conditions there are many possible forms for a successful
struggle for the immediate cancellation of payments on the
foreign debt. It is highly unlikely that the Latin American
governments and those of the Third World will take any such
step. But if a country like Brazil in the event of a PT [Workers
Party] victory were to do so, we cannot beforehand predict the
reaction of imperialism. They could impose an economic blockade,
but it is far more difficult to blockade Brazil, the most
developed country in Latin America, than smaller countries like
Cuba, not to mention Nicaragua.
And
Brazil has the capacity to respond with a political offensive,
with a politico-economic Brest-Litovsk and to lead many
countries and masses of all countries by saying: Do you agree
that our people are being punished for wanting to eliminate
hunger, sickness and violations of human rights? The answer of
the working masses of the world is not a foregone conclusion; it
could be insufficient, it could be positive. But it is a great
battle that could change the world political situation. It could
allow a further change in the balance of forces; it could help
restore faith in a better world.
These
themes are the fundamental methodological approach of Karl Marx:
the struggle for socialism is not the dogmatic and sectarian
imposition of some pre-established objective on the real
movement of the masses. It is only the conscious expression of
this movement out of which the constituent elements of a new
society can grow out of the seeds of the old.
We
can illustrate these themes in relation to the central problems
of today. Multinational companies exercise a greater and greater
domination over ever larger sectors of the world market. They
represent a qualitatively superior form of the international
centralisation of capital. This leads to a greater
internationalisation of the class struggle.
Unfortunately,
the international bourgeoisie is much more prepared and coherent
in this sense than the working class. In a fundamental sense
there are only two possible answers for the working class to the
actions of the multinationals: either it retreats into
protectionism and defence of so-called national competitiveness,
that is, class collaboration with the bosses and the government
of each country against "the Japanese", "the
Germans" or "the Mexicans"; or solidarity with
the workers of all countries and against all national and
international exploiters.
In
the first case, an inevitable downward spiral of cuts in wages,
social protection and labour conditions in all countries would
occur, because the multinationals could always exploit a country
with lower wages, transfer production there or blackmail the
worker's movement into giving concessions beforehand.
In
the second case, there is at least the possibility of a rising
spiral that can steadily raise wages, increase social protection
of the less developed countries and reduce differences in living
standards in a positive direction.
This
second possible response is not at all opposed to economic
development or the creation of jobs in the Third World. It
implies, rather, another model of development which is not based
on the exporting of low wages, but rather, on the growth of the
national market and the satisfaction of the basic needs of the
people.
The
struggle for this internationalist response to the offensive of
the multinational companies requires immediate common concrete
initiatives on the union level, especially between delegates;
and independent and militant rank-and-file initiatives in all
the factories of the world that work for the same multinational
or in the same industrial branch. This has already begun in a
small but real way; the North American Free Trade Agreement, the
attempt to transform Mexico into a vast maquiladora [low- wage
"free economic"] zone, opens the road to this response
and can be extended to all of Latin America in opposition to the
so-called Initiative for the Americas.
At
the same time, the so-called new social movements merely reflect
the anguish of large social layers abandoned by the dynamics of
late capitalism. This dynamic involves the danger that these
layers will increasingly depoliticise and could constitute a
social base for right- wing attacks, including neo-fascist ones,
against democratic freedoms. Any policy of "social
peace" or of pseudo-realistic consensus with the
bourgeoisie produces the impression that there are basically no
other political options, and thus makes the danger worse. This
is why it is vital for the workers' movement to establish
structural alliances with the " underclass", the
unorganised, and help them organise, defend themselves and
achieve dignity and hope.
In
all of these instances, this must be done in a non-dogmatic way,
free of the attitude that one possesses all of the truth - the
definitive answer. The building of socialism is a huge
laboratory of new experiences which are still undefined. We must
learn from practice, especially from these same masses. For this
reason, we must be open to dialogue and fraternal discussion
with the entire left, with all firmly defending the principles
of their current and organisation.
In
a larger sense, we must take into account the fact that the
stakes in the world today are dramatic: it is literally a
question of the physical survival of humanity. Hunger,
epidemics, nuclear power, the deterioration of the natural
environment: all of this is the fundamental reality of the new
and old capitalist world disorder.
In
the Third World, 16 million children die of hunger of curable
diseases a year. This is equivalent to 25% of the deaths of the
second world war, including Hiroshima and Auschwitz. In other
words, every four years, there is a world war against children.
This is the reality of imperialism and capitalism today.
This
inhuman reality produces inhuman political and ideological
effects. In north-east Brazil, the lack of vitamins in the diet
of the poor has produced a new species of pygmies, of men and
women who have undergone physical changes that make them 30
centimetres smaller than other people in the same country. There
are millions of these unfortunates, called by the ruling class
and its agents "human rats", with all the
de-humanising implications of such terms, reminiscent of those
developed by the Nazis.
With
the gradual restoration of capitalism in eastern Europe and the
ex- Soviet Union, everything that is barbaric and socially
retrograde is beginning to be reproduced. The privatisation of
the large enterprises could produce up to 35-40 million
unemployed and a 40% fall in workers' earnings. Socialism can
regain its credibility and validity if it is ready to totally
identify with the struggle against these threats. This supposes
three conditions:
1.
The first is that under no circumstances does it subordinate its
support for the social struggles of the masses to any political
project. We must be unconditionally on the side of the masses in
all their struggles.
2.
The second is that we carry out propaganda and education amongst
the masses for an overall socialist model that takes into
account the experiences and new forms of consciousness of recent
decades.
We
must defend a model of socialism that will be totally
emancipatory in all areas of life. This socialism must be
self-managing, feminist, ecological, radical-pacifist,
pluralistic; it must qualitatively extend democracy, and be
internationalist and pluralist - including in terms of
multiparty system.
But
it is essential that it emancipate the direct producers, which
is impossible without the progressive disappearance of the
social division of labour between those who produce and those
who administer.
The
producers must hold the real decision making power over what
they produce and receive the best part of the social product.
This power must be exercised in a completely democratic manner;
that is, it must express the real aspirations of the masses.
This is impossible without party pluralism and the possibility
of the masses to choose between various concrete variants of the
central economic plan. It is also impossible without a radical
reduction in the daily and weekly work load.
More
or less everyone agrees about the rising level of corruption and
criminalisation in bourgeois society and the disappearing
post-capitalist societies. It is utopian and unrealistic to hope
for the moralisation of civil society and of the state without a
radical reduction in the importance of money and market
economies.
A
coherent vision of socialism cannot be defended without
systematically opposing selfishness and the pursuit of
individual gain in spite of their consequences for society as a
whole. Priority must be given to solidarity and cooperation. And
this presupposes precisely a decisive reduction in the
importance of money in society.
3.
The third condition is the total renunciation on the part of
socialists and communists of all substitutionalist, paternalist
and top-down practices. We must reflect upon and transmit Karl
Marx's principal contribution to politics: the emancipation of
the workers will be the work of the workers themselves. It
cannot be done by states, governments, parties, supposedly
infallible leaders or experts of any kind. All of these are
useful, even indispensable, for the struggle of emancipation.
But they can only help the masses to free themselves; they
cannot be a substitute for them. It is not only immoral, but
impractical, to try to secure the happiness of people against
their own beliefs. This is one of the principal lessons that can
be drawn from the collapse of the bureaucratic dictatorships in
eastern Europe and the USSR.
The
practice of socialists and communists must be totally consistent
with their principles. We must not justify any alienating or
oppressive practices whatsoever. We must, in practice, realise
what Karl Marx called the categorical imperative: to struggle
against all conditions in which human beings are alienated and
humiliated. If our practice is consistent with this imperative,
socialism will once again become a political force that will be
invincible.
|