|WHAT DISTINGUISHES OUR PARTY – The line running from Marx to Lenin to the foundation of the Third International and the birth of the Communist Party of Italy in Leghorn (Livorno) 1921, and from there to the struggle of the Italian Communist Left against the degeneration in Moscow and to the rejection of popular fronts and coalition of resistance groups – The tough work of restoring the revolutionary doctrine and the party organ, in contact with the working class, outside the realm of personal politics and electoralist manoevrings|
- After the Nightmare of the Election in the USA and the Dissection of its Corpse
- Against Trump or Against Capitalism: Democracy is Fascism, Fascism is Democracy - Community or Class? - Immigration - Build Working Class Resistance: Class Unionism - Build Working Class Resistance: Need for Class Party
– United Kingdom:
- Strikes on Southern Rail: Trouble on London Underground - The Fundamental Issue of Safety of Driver Only Trains
- Report by our Comrades: Crisis, Inflation and Workers Struggle - On the Situation in the Coast of Carabobo State (Puerto Cabello and Moron)
- Plain Speaking about Chavismo and Anti-chavismo: A path to Socialism? - A Struggle Against the Bourgeoisie? - Anti-imperialism? - Do they Govern in the Workers’ Interests? - A Struggle Between Capitalism and Socialism? - Nothing New under the Sun
After the Nightmare of the Election in the USA and the Dissection of its Corpse
After the nightmare of the election in the USA and the dissection of its corpse - It is obvious to Marxist theory, and backed by abundant historical evidence, that whenever any of the political actors takes their turn in power they become the most impotent person on Earth, unable to deviate from the prescribed and catastrophic trajectory of US capitalism by even a fraction of a degree.
Democracy, or rather its periodic orgiastic electoral rites, which have survived it and replaced it for more than a century, is now a mystifying word, empty of meaning, but highly useful for distracting workers from their real problems.
Anti-fascism and anti-populism are both forms of fascism and populism. The only real historical alternative is between us - the communist party and the trade union movement - and the whole damn lot of them together: today, there is only one party of the bourgeoisie.
We understand the recurrence of the term “post-democracy” as a sign of the times, but it is clear to us that the bourgeoisie will continue obsessively to apply its media apparatus, projecting fake oppositions and simulating social struggle, so it can avoid the real class struggle.
Against Trump or Against Capitalism
The election of 2016 represents the true contemporary existence of capitalism. Clinton’s manipulation of the Democratic primaries, the “leaks” by the Republicans, the Russian “hacks” and the manipulations against minority voters in many States. Here is your democracy. To the buyer beware!
Democracy is fascism, Fascism is democracy
All governmental positions taken in the present society are there to maintain the status quo of property relations. The only allowed question is how to best maintain those relations? That range falls between leftist populism and fascism. The decision of whether to have in place a liberal populist of the FDR stripe or authoritarian populist of the Trump variety is a reflection of the needs of capitalism to deal with specific issues.
What remains is the need to prop up the dictatorship of capital – the system itself.
Community or Class?
All over the world, bosses and bourgeois governments of all colours attack the living conditions of the working class, because an increase in its exploitation is the only real option they have to keep the capitalist economy holding together, as it is inevitably heading towards a breakdown and a world war between the States.
Likewise for racism, the question is not race but of class; and that’s why the immigrant proletarians should not be deluded that they can solve their problems by relying on abstract bourgeois ideals. To fight sickening racism with anti-racism, in terms of superficial moralism and respect of cultures, is not only helpless but is harmful because it does not challenge any of the profound material bases of this reactionary ideology. The only true anti-racist struggle is and will be the class struggle, because it unifies workers beyond races and nationalities, and it leads them to going beyond capitalism.
While it is an illusion for foreign workers to expect that racism is defeated through the abstract ideals of bourgeois equality, the class-conscious proletariat should embrace and sincerely welcome the struggle for total extension of civil and labour rights to anyone who sells their labour power to Capital. To win this struggle, immigrants as well as native workers must recognize themselves as members of the single world class. The struggle will have many facets, but it can only be pursued within a strong class trade union movement, tending towards a single defensive front for the entire working class, both indigenous and migrant. A trade union organization that will fight against the threat of the loss of the migrant workers’ residence or work permit in case of dismissal.
Build working class resistance – Class unionism
Only the revolutionary movement of the proletarians of all countries, united in the same struggle against the common enemy, the bourgeoisie, will solve the problems of forced migration but also those of the exploitation of man by man, laying the necessary foundations for future Communist society.
Movements like Fight for $15 and OurWalmart have been positive for working class efforts to improve its conditions. But the benefits of these groups have been undercut by the needs of business unions such as SEIU and UFCW. These unions put their efforts into elections and not what workers can accomplish through their own efforts. So the significant efforts of Fight for $15 were diverted – pre-nomination! – to supporting Hillary Clinton, who is hostile to unions and working class organization.
These days, ‘Class Unions’ like the ILWU, UE and IWW are needed – unions that are run by their memberships and which fight hard to the end for their causes. Worker Centers, like Coalition of Immokalee Workers and the Solidarity Network movement are also important movements building an independent working class resistance to immiseration.
Build working class resistance – Need for class party
The party emerges as the centralizing organ of the working class, understanding and responding to events, and building resistance to the attacks of capitalism in preparation for the final assault on power and the transformation of society. This party is the International
Communist Party. If you are curious as to how to
move the working class forward towards this transformation of society, please contact us.
Strikes on Southern Rail
The Southern Rail franchise, owned by the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), which controls about a fifth of the British railway network, operates the passenger train services from the South East Coast of England to the London area. Govia's proposal to alter the role of train guards on Southern Rail by transferring the closing of train doors to drivers provoked resistance from members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), commencing April 2016.
The issue of Driver Only Operated (DOO) trains as demanded by the bosses of Southern Rail is viewed as the start of a campaign by other rail companies to introduce the same changes on other train lines, especially in the North and Midlands.
In June RMT announced two industrial actions which would hit Scotrail and Southern Rail services. A series of strikes affecting Scotrail was announced for June/July, which were then deferred to August, and later called off by RMT to allow further negotiations between Scotrail and the RMT leadership. The rail bosses tried campaigns using social media and delivery of letters to individual train guards, in order to bring pressure to bear on them, which only led to a much larger vote for strike action.
RMT stated it had a policy for no extension of DOO on any route or service and for the guard to be in full operational control of the power-operated doors. The RMT has made it clear that the union is totally opposed to any proposals for extending DOO, reducing or abolishing the safety role of the guard in operating the doors. It is one thing for union leaders to voice opposition to changes – it is clear that it is the guards who are the ones whose future is under threat, and it is the rank and file who are the motivating force sustaining the opposition to implementing DOO.
The strike on Southern Rail by RMT guards, against the implementation of a new “on-board role” of On Board Supervisors (OBS) from 21st August, was set for 21st June. The change of roles between drivers and guards had already taken place on modernised trains running on other lines, which had been agreed by Aslef, the train drivers union. Most of the trains used on Southern Rail are anything but modern.
RMT are reported to have offered a seven-point plan based on retaining the guards’ role as at present, but suggesting changes to the Revenue Protection Officer (RPO) role. The role of the RPOs is usually to target people who are leaving stations who have not paid the full fare (whether by mistake or not) or trying to pay the fare at the end of their journey.
On 7th Jul the RMT offered to defer all action for three months providing the employers pulled back from implementation of the changes to door closing procedures, in order for negotiations to take place. This was rejected by the rail bosses.
GTR had confirmed plans to implement the new on-board role from 21st August to be undertaken by guards in their revised roles, which GTR say will protect all jobs and bring benefits to passengers across the Southern network.
Trouble on London Underground
As if to counter preconceived notions that the attacks on rail workers is only by private sector rail bosses, conflict started to move to locally-controlled public sector services. Merseyrail has already stated that it too wants to introduce DOO especially when new modernised trains are introduced.
During the summer the introduction of a Night Service on London Underground was presented and the new Labour London Mayor Sadiq Khan was out and about on the Brixton Underground station.
Members of RMT and Aslef were balloted on whether to launch a campaign of industrial action. The Night Service was introduced in August with train drivers having been recruited for a 16 hour per week contract to run that service. It then emerged that the Night Service train drivers had been “blocked” from applying for other work on London Underground (LU) for at least 18 months. With a fixed period of employment for 16 hours per week they would not be paid overtime for working at night while other employees who worked on London Underground and also for the Night Service would be paid overtime. This was condemned by RMT leadership as “blatantly discriminatory” against the train drivers. An Aslef official stated: «The vast majority of Night Tube drivers took up the job because they saw it as a stepping stone to a fulltime train driver’s job. They believed LU’s assurances that they would have opportunities to progress, not to just spend year after year working every Friday and Saturday night».
Subsequently a planned 24 hour strike was called off while the issues went to arbitration. The London Mayor Sadiq Khan welcomed the suspension of strike action saying «negotiations can now continue without unnecessary disruption for commuters».
The Fundamental Issue of Safety of Driver Only Trains
The issues in dispute revolve around different terms, that is Driver Only Operated (DOO) and Driver Only Controlled (DOC). The rail bosses keep using the DOO term as being perfectly safe for the train to leave solely under the control of the driver, and by implication that the train can be run with only the driver present. The opposition to DOO, in favour of DOC, is that there needs to be a second person on the train in case of safety issues arising. It is in fact misleading to put it as “it is safe for the train to leave under the sole control of the driver” when the issue would be “who deals with an emergency when it arises?”.
The chief concern of train drivers is what would happen if the only competent person present is the train driver after the train departs. If an emergency arises, no matter what is the cause and whether there is a threat to life or limb or not, the train driver would have to stop and secure the train first before leaving the cab and find out what has happened. The driver would then have to go down the train, that is if the train is not jam-packed with passengers (which could then necessitate getting down from the train and walking down the track to the carriage(s) concerned) to deal with the emergency. Then the crucial dilemma would arise: does the driver stay to deal with the emergency or get the train to the next available station for assistance. The consequences of such a situation could lead to the train driver concerned being blamed for the consequences of delays. Ultimately the pressure will be on the train drivers to concede taking out the train without a guard being present. The present situation is that there has obviously has to be a driver present for the train to be ready to leave, but if a guard is not present, the train is cancelled. “Overcoming this problem” could very well be the hidden agenda in this whole dispute, and not just the introduction of modernised trains at some future date.
The train drivers are well organised in their own skilled union, Aslef. Aslef are well used to protecting themselves as a trade union, without qualms about disadvantaging other unions on the railways. Aslef resorted to an overtime ban and with the shortage of train drivers available, this led to many cancelled trains.
Before taking on the train drivers the rail bosses would naturally try to get the guards to agree in principle to the proposed change in role of closing the train doors. The train guards continued to resist changes, making public announcements about the consequences of trains running without a competently trained second member of the train crew – access for disabled passengers with wheelchairs, especially at undermanned stations, became an important issue.
By the middle of December Aslef was warning the Government of a decade of strikes and industrial unrest on the railways. On 13th Dec the Southern Rail network was brought to a halt by a strike by train drivers, affecting 300,000 commuters in the South East of England.
On 14th Dec the RMT started a “Safe trains for all” campaign, warning that there would be attempts by other train companies to introduce DOO trains, and that rail companies will use this as an opportunity to force staffing changes. The disputes involving RMT members had only affected up to a third of the train services of Southern Rail.
The dispute by now had moved decisively between Aslef and Southern Rail bosses. Southern Rail was insisting that trains could be operated safely with DOO, but by now there was no mention of modernised trains or that the present trains would be operated with only the driver controlling the train. Arguments were batted backwards and forwards over the reliability of on-board cameras, which in many cases were 15 years old.
On 22nd Dec Southern Rail bosses tried going over the heads of the Aslef leadership by sending an earlier offer rejected by the Aslef leadership in a letter delivered to all the train drivers.
On 8th Jan Aslef imposed an overtime ban on the Southern Rail network. About a quarter of the trains did not run because of the unavailability of train drivers. Two days later Southern Rail was brought virtually to a halt by the train drivers' strike. The following day a second successive strike by 1,000 train drivers led to the cancellation of nearly all of the 2,242 train services. Another strike was planned for 13th Jan – and three more strikes were announced for 24, 25 and 27th Jan.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party Leader, had been seen swanning around Aslef leaders with talk about joining their picket lines, but was apparently silent about the RMT, which is not affiliated to the Labour Party. Aslef puts money into the labour Party while RMT doesn’t.
On 18th Jan the Aslef three day strike was called off by the union leaders, along with the overtime ban being lifted, so that negotiations could be held with the bosses of Southern Rail.
Secret negotiations took place at the headquarters of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) over an eleven day period. The TUC was playing the role of arbitrator between the employers and the Aslef leaders. Significantly RMT leaders were not involved. On 2nd Feb Aslef announced that an end to the dispute was in sight after winning a “significant concession” from rail bosses. The details of the bosses-union leaders deal was being kept secret, and the nearly 1,000 train driver members of Aslef were to be balloted on the terms of the TUC sponsored peace deal. RMT leaders were declaring this deal to be “a shocking betrayal”.
As the terms of this secret rail bosses/Aslef leadership deal began to be released to the Aslef members there was real anger expressed by rank and file members of Aslef. Aslef leaders had agreed to eight “exceptional circumstances” where trains could leave without a second train staff member being on board. The agreed accepted absence of the present role of the guard is where the second crew member is rostered (down on the schedules as due for work) and is not present for reasons of sickness, lateness, delay (a previous train being late) right through to... being accidently left behind at a station. There was also an intention to train the On-Board Supervisor to deal with emergencies. It seems as if the role of the guard is to be transformed, if not eliminated.
Real anger was expressed by Aslef train drivers when the terms of this secret deal were made known to them. On 16th Feb the results of the Aslef members’ secret ballot were released – almost three-quarters of the members voted and the bosses/union leaders deal was rejected by a 54%-46% majority.
New negotiations have been promised between Southern Rail bosses and the Aslef leadership. It seems certain that the RMT will not at present be invited.
The instinctive solidarity of train drivers and guards on the railways, and resistance to the attacks on living and working standards of the workers on London Underground, provide a basis for a real rank and file movement, tending to overcome sectional and industrial divisions, and keeping their struggles out of the hands of trade union leaders who side with the bosses and their state.
In May 2016, collective bargaining agreements in some public and private companies were being negotiated, while others had been already signed. Since higher inflation rates are expected in 2017, most owners are interested in signing these agreements before the end of 2016: it is very likely that such wage increases will largely be absorbed by the coming inflation, thus leading to production cost reductions for the companies.
In many cases, during the negotiations between the unions and the
employers, wage improvements and bonuses were granted in return for
staff reductions.This type of agreement, only made possible thanks to
the betrayal of trade union leaders, backed by "labor consultants", has
led to significant employment reductions in different companies.
Workers in the meantime were offered compelling economic incentives if
they left their employment.
In the case of Traylog, which provides logistics services at the
Nestle warehouse in Moron, the number of workers who accepted the
incentive offer, was so great that the few remaining workers didn’t
reach the minimum number required by law to have their union
recognized. Now the situation is such that Nesltè may dismiss
all workers and resume its activity with a whole new staff.
The Ferralca, Tripoliven and Produven workers are meeting to discuss
the collective bargaining agreement. Our comrades are proposing a joint
meeting of the workers of these companies to unify all the demands and
Meanwhile Ferralca broke with their "employment consultant", who also works for Traylog.
At Ferralca bosses attempted to push through a bonus wage tied to
the productivity of each worker. Union leaders and workers have
discussed the bonus and came to the conclusion that: a) it generates
divisions between workers, in the midst of the of collective bargaining
negotiations; b) it encourages the intensification of the working day
and the attitude that makes workers to steal other workers’ jobs; c) it
won’t be counted for social security funds; d) it would hold back the
recruitment of new workers as the company would produce more with the
same number of workers. Although a minority of workers remained willing
to accept the bonus, a majority of the assembly voted to refuse the
bonus and drew up a report to be delivered to the owner. Given the
forthcoming negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, the
union has expressed the need to maintain unity and focus on the fight
for a wage increase: this direction is shared by all workers.
The workers of Ferralca, alerted to the arrival of the Servicio
Bolivariano de Inteligencia (Sebin), i.e. the government’s political
police, made it clear to the owner’s representatives that if their
union leaders should get arrested, they would have stopped work. The
company denied it had anything to do with the political police Sebin
visit, although everybody knew that if Sebin showed up it was because
the boss had called them. The provocative intervention of Sebin against
the union leaders occurred immediately after Ferralca workers had
blocked shipments for one shift following demands regarding work
As for the PDVSA trade union workers, the union elections that were
scheduled for the 22th of September have been suspended and will take
place, if they will take place, in 2017, after the hypothetical
presidential referendum. The postponement of trade union elections
meets the need of the fraction of the PSUV [the ruling party] in the
Unitary Federation of Venezuelan Oil Workers, represented by Wills
Rangel, to gain time to make up for lost support of the majority of
workers in the sector. Postponing the elections also took place with
the complicity of the most important opposing current, that of
Trotskyist, Jose Bodas.
Unfortunately, the various rank and file groups of workers ended up interested in the different options presented in the bourgeois elections, ignoring the discussion of a program for the recovery of the workers’ struggle. Comrades are preparing a leaflet about this.
Plain Speaking about Chavismo and Anti‑chavismo
In Venezuela, most of the reformist parties and groups active on the left, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary, along with those who describe themselves as center-left and as the “left” wings of the conservative and right-wing parties, have accepted the notion that the country has lived through a genuine “Bolivarian revolution”, which raised the flag of “21st Century Socialism”, in the words of its ‘great leader’. Outside the country numerous groups, movements and parties have rushed to support “the march of change” which, beginning in Venezuela, will supposedly spread to Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador, and thus link up with the old Stalinists in Cuba.
Due to the diplomatic pressure exerted by the United States and in the wake of the devastation wrought by the capitalist crisis, the reformist currents in Argentina, Paraguay, Honduras and (we think) in Brazil, after having benefited in recent years from the accumulation of capital mainly from China but also from Russia and elsewhere, have now lost control of the government in these countries.
The fact is, more so even than in Cuba, China and Russia, the “Bolivarian revolution” is a total farce and its program has nothing at all to do with socialism, even if we are fed the idea, day in day out, about how opposed it is to the “right wing”.
In Venezuela there is just State capitalism. Even before Chavismo got into government Venezuela was based on State capitalism, dependent on oil revenue. But Chavismo talks about using this revenue in the people’s favour. In fact the only new thing about it is its capacity to drug the masses with the democratic credo, with fame-seeking and popular participation and with the illusion that the government represents the interests of the poor. Chavismo was the political solution to the economic crisis in the 80s and 90s, which allowed the national bourgeoisie and foreign imperialism to maintain capitalist exploitation against a background of social peace.
Learning from the experience of those who rule Cuba, the Venezuelan bourgeoisie spread the same lie: that the economic crisis is just the product of the economic war conducted by a few “anti-patriotic” entrepreneurs, by “right-wing” parties, and by imperialism. It’s exactly what they want people in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia to believe as well.
A path to socialism?
No. It isn’t. The course of the Venezuelan economy is capitalist in every sense. Businesses, whether private or state-owned, produce commodities on the basis of the exploitation of wage labor. The possibility of accessing services and obtaining products is linked to monetary exchange, even when the State is directly involved in their distribution.
A Struggle against the bourgeoisie?
No, it isn’t. Despite the demagogic, high-flown speeches of the Chavista leaders against “the bourgeoisie”, the government has always managed to ensure that conditions are such that bankers, industrialists and merchants can continue to appropriate high profit margins. By imposing a cocktail of Keynes, Rooseveltian New Deal, liberalism, corporativism and fascism, Chavismo has transferred the oil revenue to the bourgeoisie.
State purchases, dubbed “social” or “socialist”, have allowed national and multi-national firms (Cuban, Argentine, Uruguayan, Nicaraguan, Brazilian, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, American, etc,) to access Consumers previously beyond their reach. To Venezuela’s badly paid population big business is now flogging food, medicine, mobile phones, white goods, utility vehicles, health care, public housing units, etc, etc.
But this major market is today menaced by the drop in oil prices.
This explains the launch of the “Great Mission” for “Food Self-sufficiency” advertised under the aberrant brand name “socialist commerce”, put into effect by organizing the inhabitants of the various districts into Local Committees for Supply and Production (CLAP) charged with distributing, at administered prices, food and personal hygiene products, which are in short supply, from various firms. This demagogic mobilization, as well allowing the government to scrape something together to compensate for the reduced oil revenue, and the capitalist impresario to empty his warehouse, serves to placate the masses, who are increasingly unhappy about food prices and the high cost of living in general.
In fact the local elections, the referendum (if it actually happens) and the presidential elections are all coming up soon. The unique ability of these opportunists lies in combining populist petty political wheeler-dealing, by manipulating the means of information, with the guarantee that the population will continue to receive a basic minimum of staple goods, at the same time as it guarantees the profit margins of the national capitalist production and the multinationals.
And yet despite presenting the CLAPs as the “alternative to capitalism” long queues form in front of the shops and stuff is sold on at speculative prices. Large-scale rioting and looting has also taken place.
Not even the CLAPs can avoid getting caught in the web of corruption as faction fights inside the Chavist movement and the government party continue, which are minimized by the media and transformed into an argument for an electoral contest between the Chavistas and the opposition.
Every time that a national or multinational company hits a crisis, closes down or threatens to close down, the government steps in with funding, or acquires the bankrupt firms, “expropriations”, which allow the capitalists to firms from the marketplace which are no longer competitive whilst obtaining a corresponding compensation. Sometimes a demagogic “workers control” is declared. While the bourgeois government dons a socialist mask, in fact it is providing financial assistance and perpetuating capitalist exploitation, taking the burden of failed companies off the bourgeoisie.
Meanwhile there is an increased military presence in almost every area of government administration, although it hasn’t prevented a new mafia of corrupt officials from replacing those of the 4th Republic: soldiers and civilians enrich themselves from dawn to dusk, despite the sharpening of the economic crisis.
No, it isn’t. The whole of Chavista economic policy is geared towards attracting foreign investment, with exploitation facilitated on easy terms, and guaranteed profits to the multi-nationals. And although they may define China and Russia as “socialist” and “progressive”, their fight against the North American government is only in words, and the oil trade continues unabated.
Do they govern in the workers’ interests?
No, they don’t. The Chavista bourgeois government has been anxious to “modernize” existing laws by redefining workers’ protests of all types as common crimes, regulated by the penal code. What is more the government has placed a ban on demonstrations and protests in a number of urban and industrial areas referred to as “security zones”. Although the regime unions, which disorganize the workers by collaborating with the bosses, undoubtedly predominate, the list of trade unionists arrested and charged is getting longer. Instead of the reduction in working hours promised by the government the working day has actually been intensified and lengthened. Already under the legal framework all-out strikes have been rendered impossible by insisting that minimum services be maintained. In addition there is a range of activities which have been classified as “essential” and therefore subject to strike bans. The Chavistas, constantly using as pretext the imperialist “menace” and the threat of a military coup, have both threatened the use of force against the workers’ struggles and actually used it, dependent as ever on the co-operation of the trade union bosses and federations.
The aim of the government’s wages policy, which sets rises by presidential decree, which run in parallel with the delay in signing collective contracts, and with the complicity of the trade unions, isn’t to improve the living standards of workers, but rather to set a minimum standard of living to head off working-class mobilization. The bourgeois government increases the nominal minimum wage each year, but the underlying tendency is that of a constant reduction in real wages.
Under capitalism a “workers’ government” is not possible; it is just a trap invented by the opportunists. The only workers’ government possible is the dictatorship of the proletariat which can only arise from the violent insurrection of the working class under the leadership of its communist party. Its task will be to bring the insurrection to a close by establishing the domination of the proletarian class and to lead the socialist transformation towards a society without classes, without private property, without commodities, without money, without states, without bosses.
A struggle between capitalism and socialism?
No. it isn’t. The struggle between the Chavistas in government and the right opposition is not between capitalism and socialism, despite all the waffle being put out in the propaganda campaigns of these two bands of political speculators. They are just fighting for control of the government in order to administer the interests of the bourgeoisie, reflecting inter-bourgeois and inter-imperialist contradictions over the control of the country and its oil revenue.
Nothing new under the sun
By declaring the bourgeois republic to be communist, by maintaining the relations of capitalist production, by seeking to hide behind a revolutionary phraseology which includes counter-revolutionary terms: “socialist fatherland”, “socialist market”, “socialist form”, etc, the so-called “Venezuelan revolution” offers nothing to the working masses which opportunists in other parts of the world haven’t offered it already.
The international capitalist crisis takes its course, increasing the contradictions between proletariat and bourgeoisie. The working class will necessarily have to resume class struggle by lining up with its party, the international communist party, by breaking with the regime unions, by resisting appeals to defend the country, and by rejecting all the false socialisms which try to breath life back into the bourgeoisie and its capitalist regime.