ALTAMIRA: "If you look carefully, capitalist bankruptcy didn’t enable ‘a
rise of the left’, but a 'decline' of it" ("2013 elections, a
strategic matter", November 1st 2011, Prensa Obrera No. 1246)
CRFI’s Latin American Conference: the "degree zero of strategy"
in favour of PSOL and against catastrophism, the Anti-Imperialist United Front
(FUA) and the Permanent Revolution
To defend the CRFI, the TPR requests its re-incorporation
and calls the International Secretariat to take position
Christian
Armenteros
In
September, Jorge Altamira participated in the Symposium of the Left in Latin
America organized by the USP in Brazil. As a part of it, the PO called on a
"Latin American Conference of the CRFI". As a result of it, there is
a document entitled "The capitalist bankruptcy shakes Latin America: let’s
go for a worker’s and socialist alternative. Let’s go for the fusion of the
revolutionary left with the labour movement", signed by delegations of the
Partido Obrero (PO) from Argentina, the Partido de los Trabajadores (PT) from Uruguay;
Tribuna Classista from five Brazilian states, personalities and militants from
Brazil, Paraguay and Chile.
“LATIN
AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF THE CRFI”: NO PUBLIC CALL, NO DIFFUSION AND IN ORDER TO
RESCUE PSOL
Facing this, it’s appropriate
to make two remarks:
1. Regarding the call, it was
a farce because of its null previous existence (no one knows about any public
work, meetings and discussions with the Latin American left to join it) as of
its reduced effective participation of sections that are members or
sympathizers of the CRFI in Latin America (Venezuela wasn’t present nor Mexico
or Bolivia, or Chile and participated only Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina). All
this with the caveat that the conference was in Brazil and obviously there wasn’t
even half a line dedicated to PCO (ex Brazilian section of the CRFI).
2. Regarding the content, it
does nothing more than repeat some common places from PO's political tradition.
That’s why in the exposition in which Altamira participated in Porto Alegre, he
dedicates himself to explain that the real objective of the document is to
propose “a Latin-American work, in order to prevent anyone from thinking that
it’s a political manoeuvre in that country but a task with general, broad
characteristics, etc”. That means, his pose of a “united front of the
revolutionary left” is aimed “to join the left that was united in Brazil and
broke up (as it was the case of Heloísa Helena)”, that is, a front populist parliamentary
formation that doesn’t overcome programmatically Lula’s PT and, because of
that, in Belém its part of the popular front with PCdoB (governmental), Edmilson
Rodrígues (ex mayor of the PT) and, in the second round, it was supported by PT itself.
Only when you can see this political struggle, you can really read the text.
The document voted by the “CRFI's Latin American Conference” doesn’t seek
to intervene to make workers draw conclusions and break up with PSOL but, on
the contrary, it seeks to rescue PSOL by a frontist position that omits to take
position about PSTU, LER-QI or any other Brazilian party. This is so clear,
that the document doesn’t devote even a single line to study the problem of the
left in order to have free hands for any agreement.
ANTI-CAPITALISM AND
ANTI-IMPERIALISM: ONLY A METHOD ISSUE?
However, the document doesn’t
have only a pragmatic aim. Being consulted during his speech about its connection
with the tactic of Anti-imperialist United Front, Altamira pointed out what TPR
is denouncing since our expulsion: his anti-capitalist turn and the
substitution of POs’ programmatic tradition to the “zero degree of strategy”
made by Daniel Bensaïd and the USFI. With the little difference that they’re
importing the anti-capitalism from an imperialist country to an oppressed one,
so it is worst.
The first definition Altamira
takes is that “talking about struggle against imperialism in Latin America
outside from capitalist world bankruptcy doesn’t exist”. This is relatively
true as capitalist bankruptcy strengthens NATIONAL OPPRESSION and as it NEVER
ATTENUATES IT. However, said by Altamira this is to justify exactly the
opposite because: “each time the imperialism attacks we will make unity but the
strategic perspective of world proletariat and Latin Americas one appearing as
class to face the capital in this crisis depends on a strategic issue, not on
punctual things. If it doesn’t present itself as class we will end up on
fascism and, paradoxically, the weakness of the left doesn’t allow fascism to
arise because today the left is not a danger. For the bourgeoisie it’s better
to support democratic reactionary governments. We won’t slide away from the
rule. We want to do the best contribution to the rule. So we clarify what is
the central issue. In any case, it’s confirmed that left world crisis isn’t
deal properly, which is a problem that is being put apart”.
The easy way to explain this
“complexity” is overwhelming: “The strategy (anti-capitalist) doesn’t depend on
punctual things (imperialist oppression and the punctual country where you pose
revolutionary struggle). We won’t slide away from the rule (the FUA) but we
want to do the best contribution to the rule (anti-capitalism). In any case,
(if we’re wrong this shows the necessity of discussing against us)”.
This furious revision of
historical program of Partido Obrero has no improvisation on it, knowing that
in his book “No es un martes negro más” (cited by Altamira in his exposition) it’s
published and vindicated a foundational text of our historical organization
named “Las ‘tesis del Comité Internacional’” written by Jorge Altamira and
Julio Magri in August, 1981 (Internacionalismo N°3) as members of the Tendencia
Cuarta Internacionalista (TCI). So, the publication of that text isn’t casual
but it has the objective to point out that the tactic to separate working class
from nationalists’ directions is the Anti-imperialist United Front. The fact of
being “under capitalist bankrupt” (and not national oppression) is what is really
anecdotic, because if the FUA is only useful for moments of capitalist
stability and not for crisis, it would be totally impotent and it must be
denied categorically. A tactic (FUA) and a strategy (Permanent Revolution)
useless for intervening in the capitalist bankruptcy aren’t useful at all. Now
Altamira seems, by citing his own book which vindicates openly the FUA and
Permanent Revolution, pretends to make us arrive to the contrary conclusion, but
without having the courage to say it.
In his exposition Altamira entirely
erases the distinction between oppressor countries and oppressed by imperialism
ones by posing: “The principal issue in Latin America is the same that in the
whole world naturally with program particularities, with demands (…) It is a problem
of methods. So you have a method. Others have other methods. That’s absolutely
normal. I think it is a comrades’ discussion. Naturally after the first
discussion it may seem confusing but then it clarifies and ways of acting are found,
etc…”
ARGENTINA, CATASTROPHISM AND
ANTI-IMPERIALISM
Be careful, because what seems
to be a kind of “aggiornamiento” or “revolutionary pragmatism” by Altamira,
really covers his eclecticism and a lot of theories that no revolutionary can
allow. According to the “new Altamira”: “Anti-imperialism in Latin America has changed
its shape. Because 100 years ago in Latin America there were no workers.
Argentine was an industrialized country (suddenly, contributions of Milcíades
Peña and Liborio Justo are thrown away to be substituted by poses like
Mariátegui’s or apologists of bourgeois nationalism) but in the other countries
working class was a minority. Brazil was a coffee dealer oligarchy. Today
Brazilian working class is much bigger and the relevance of its struggle
against bourgeoisie makes itself felt. So the issue of imperialist domination
appears mediated by a big internal working struggle. We would never sacrifice,
in any anti-imperialist struggle, working class’ fight against national
bourgeoisie of its own country. This has to do with world capitalist crisis.
For someone this may sound complex”. As can be seen, Altamira insinuates that
FUA is “sacrificing worker class interests” but he seems to ignore the ABC of
Permanent Revolution: working class can’t face its social emancipation without
solving at the same time national oppression. If not, socialism is drawn back
to narrow corporatism or to pure socialism as a caricature of “class against
class” denying that working class must be an authentic national caudillo in
democratic-bourgeois revolution (permanent revolution thesis).
Moreover,
in the ending-speech Altamira gave to the XXI Congress of Partido Obrero, it
can be seen with clarity that the thesis “Argentina is an industrialized
country” (and so, there’s only place for a pure socialist revolution) was
already outlined in these affirmations: “World crisis’ history had showed, at
least since 1828s’ crisis which paved the way to Rosas, that Argentina’s been
developed by shocks of world crisis. The fall of Rosas’ régime is a late result
of world crisis of 1848. This country was being industrialized after ‘30s’
crisis, the first signs of industrialization happened with the big crisis of
1890 (only overcame by 2001s’ collapse) and in any text book you can read that
the First and the Second World War, as there was nothing to export, helped
industrialization. This is a dialectic view of the crisis, which requires one
development more. The crisis, while it breaks established relations, offers an
opportunity to nations submitted by those relations to begin a relatively
autonomous development. This is not only Argentine history but Turkey and
Brazil too, or even German itself or Italy which are bourgeois nations which
arrived late to world market. However, to conquer the opportunity of a
relatively autonomous development as a consequence of the crisis, firstly the
crisis must burst; it must do its labor of partial destroyer of precedent
relations. Because ‘30s’ industrialization didn’t obey a plan of Argentinean
oligarchy with the dictator Uriburu and with the shameless of Justo later, as
it is proved by the treaty of Roca Runciman, which defended to death farmers’
quota in Smithfield market, in benefit of imports and profit remittances from
Britain companies. Only when all these fell down and Argentine economy fell a
20%, the oligarchy itself started opening some factories and starting a partial
industrialization process”.
This way, at bottom of the
abandonment of Anti-imperialist United Front tactic is the denial of
catastrophism and the conclusion that the development of capitalism was
possible because imperialism crisis enabled a way of autonomous capitalist
development in parallel (and even helping partially) to imperialist system.
HISTORYCALLY
PROGRESSIVE BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM OR “BONAPARTISM WITH ANTI-IMPERIALIST
PHRASEOLOGY”?
This way,
with a logic absolutely alienated under morenoism ideological pressure, the
conclusion drawn is that “the main problem in Latin America is to unmask
bonapartism that behind anti-imperialist phraseology is submitting the working
class”. The reasoning is crystalline: as there’s a mature capitalism, the
bourgeois nationalism is deprived of any historically progressive character and
only remains its reactionary and bonapartist character. This is why it’s no
longer mentioned “sui generis bonapartism” but bonapartism “with
anti-imperialist phraseology”. This is, the famous “double speech” denounced by
anti-capitalist sects. This leaves totally orphan of a coherent tactic and a
strategy and gives place to one and a thousand empiricist manoeuvres.
On one hand, it’s suggested
that “revolutionaries’ task is make the working class lead the anti-imperialist
struggle”, which is correct as it has to be the national caudillo but it is
unilateral because it’s suggested in confrontation to the working class
competing with nationalism under a united front to dispute worker and peasants
masses. Moreover, it has an essential inconsistency which is that the
“anti-imperialist struggle” isn’t accessory to the “anti-capitalist struggle”
but it sums to programmatic and scientific characterization of which is the
presupposed character of the revolution proposed. If the problem was to “lead
anti-imperialist struggle”, so the tactic of the anti-capitalist regrouping
reveals as a sectarian and self-marginalization politics which boycotts the
struggle for permanent revolution.
On the other hand, FUA wants
to be replaced with “unity in anti-imperialist action”, this is, the old
morenoism misrepresentation that says that “in streets we did a united front
with governments’ youth against the coup d'état in Paraguay”, as if that
was the same to an Anti-imperialist United Front. On the contrary, as Altamira
himself points out in his speech, “punctual actions never brought unity but they
have always been a field of maneuvers to steal militants” and, on the other
side, the tactic of FUA isn’t about to simulate anti-imperialism to win a
couple of nationalists militants but to oppose or overcome bourgeois
nationalism limits in its own field to delimit masses from native bourgeoisie.
As it can be seen, to be real, a tactic must pave the way to the strategy.
CRFI MUST PRONUNCE ON DEFENCE
OF ANTI-IMPERIALIST UNITED FRONT AGAINST MORENOISM REVISIONISM
The tactic of Anti-imperialist
United Front is a part of the program of Partido Obrero since the 3rd-4th
number of Política Obrera in 1964 and it’s a part of a principled delimitation
inside Trotskyst organizations worldwide. In fact, in his ending speech of XXI
Congress, Altamira posed: “One of the most complex struggles that a socialist
party as ours have, is against dirigiste attempts by nationalist bourgeois
parties. Now I believe that the Partido Obrero will publish a very important
book, which will reproduce workers’ programs since the Manifesto of 1848 up to
thesis of the Fourth International of 2004, passing through the foundation of
Partido Bolchevique, the foundation text of German social democracy, the
foundation text of Rosa Luxemburgos’ party, Bolivian thesis of Pulacayo of
1946, the thesis of the COB of 1970 which inspired the Asamblea Popular”.
As can be seen, claiming as your
own that theoretic and programmatic arsenal is absolutely incompatible with denying
the FUA in name of the “Revolutionary United Front” characteristic of morenoist
revisionism. With this article we don’t want Altamira to change his opinion
because what we’re pointing out is what he taught us, so he knows better than us
what we are talking about. What we hope is a bit of intellectual honesty and programmatic
sincerity, in order to allow clarifying the strategy inside left. If
Anti-imperialist United Front and Permanent Revolution are no longer the tactic
neither the strategy because we’re in front of a plenum capitalist country that
can move on to a pure socialist revolution, Altamira would do well to say this once
and for all. After all, Sartelli and RyR guys came out from somewhere.
BOX:
LET US AGREE: IS THERE A RISE
OR A DECLINE OF THE LEFT?
As it can be appreciated, the
inconsistence is not only related to theoretic and programmatic discussion
about the FUA but to the appreciation of immediate conjuncture in Europe
itself. After writing his book “The rise of the Left under capitalist bankruptcy”,
now, Altamira seems to discover that it really wasn’t quite like that.
Precisely as we pointed out in our letter “The bankruptcy of the
anti-capitalist left under the rise of the popular front".
“If you look carefully,
capitalist bankruptcy didn’t allow a ‘left rise’, but a ‘decline’ of it. Its
place, where there’s a turn of the masses, has been occupied by the wing of
reformism that has captured popular desperation and gave it a whole expression,
even though not a strategic one at all. That’s the case of the slogan ‘Left
Governemnt’ in Greece, or the call to dissolve the Court and the monarchy in
Spain, and convene a constituent assembly. Reformism, by definition, can’t pose
a strategy; it clings to reconcile historical irreconcilable contradictions.
The strategy lies, nowadays, on the objective of historical change, and
consists on mobilizing the driving forces of that change” (“2013 elections, a
strategic matter”, November 1st, Prensa Obrera Nº1246).
So, the
task is to deepen the political struggle in order to make the CRFI take position
about the letter and our re-incorporation as TPR so that we can fight on
defense of the CRFI against its dissolution under Syriza and the popular front.
NOVEMBER 23RD,
2012
Compañerxs: ¿podrían ser un poco más generosos -y rigurosas con el lenguaje informativo- y
ResponderEliminar1ro: poner el el nombre y LUEGO su SIGLA de las organizaciones, agrupaciones, corrientes politicas, etc?
2do- Escribir el texto que envían en español, porque textos como los que envían -.complejos- ameritan una atenta lectura y no una que tenga la robótica traducción de google y en la cual se debe ir 'imaginando', interpretando, ya no el contenido, sino la traducción del mismo
y 3ro: si se trata de construir partido de masas, el dar por supuesto que TODXS conocemos y estamos o pertenecemos a la cocina interna con sus consecuentes SIGLAS que muchxs no sabemos de qué tratan, pues bien, ustedes se quedarán cocinados en su propia cocina, y muchxs de nosotrxs afuera. Loco, abran el juego, es imposible leerlos de este modo tan 'endógeno!!!!
Unx lectora ya harta de leer jeroglíficos de ver cómo se pierde el poder leer discusiones que sí le interesan!
gracias
Saludos
Compañera:
ResponderEliminar1. El artículo en español está aquí: http://tpr-internet.blogspot.com.ar/2012/12/la-conferencia-latinoamericana-de-la.html
2. En este artículo, al final de todo, puede encontrar un glosario que incluye muchas de las siglas a la que usted hace referencia: http://tpr-internet.blogspot.com.ar/2013/01/grecia-articulo-de-la-tpr-en-el-blog-de.html
3. Luego de leer el artículo con estas facilidades, nos interesaría conocer su opinión sobre su contenido político. Puede enviarnos un mail a correotpr@gmail.com.
Saludos