Pedro Fuentes

 

For the first time in many decades, the US is not only the center of world hegemony (in steady decline), but it is also the political center, the most important class struggle reference in the world for workers and peoples. What happens in that continent in the struggle between Trump’s fascist neopopulism and the Republican right that supports it, and the progressive antiTrump democratic movement, that is, the democratic struggles of the American people, women, immigrant, blacks and the working class, will be very important in the coming years. Somehow they are going to put a more definite sign to the long interregnum or critical global impasse that we live. The internationalists have to take in our hands the building of an counter-hegemonic antiTrump front .

 

//////

 

In the compact notes we mentioned that the world was in a critical global impasse. To this characterization must also be added the fact that the epicenter, the center of the political struggle to give a sign to that impasse, (to one side or another), is in the US. The United States is for the first time a long-standing political center. [1] That is why we can say that after Trump the contradictions, the inequalities of this historical period that we live, and the possibilities of accumulating forces to overcome them, are intensified and concentrated. As we said in the notes: (there’s inequality between the crisis and anticapitalists alternatives). The internationalists need a common policy to confront Trump; More forces can be accumulated there towards the revolution or more forces towards the counterrevolution.

 

The Trump phenomenon (such as May, Le Pen, and all national protofascist populisms) is explained by the global crisis that globalization, or the new phase of imperialism, has led to the world. That right does not arise from nothing, but from the discontent of sectors of the xenophobic middle classes (which exist in all countries where there is immigration), and from sectors of workers displaced by globalization. The first are the most organic on the right, the least oscillating. The seconds if they can do it. It capitalizes an important part of the discontents for objective and also subjective reasons; Situation of discontent of workers sectors provoked by the unemployment in central countries result of the internationalization of the production; Impoverishment of the middle classes, the presence of migratory masses caused by misery and hunger in dependent countries and wars.

 

The populist national right appears as an alternative for the total loss of credibility of the people in the parties and the old regimes built in the postwar period, which have had as their pillars the social democracy and the liberal bourgeoisie (in the case of the USA was the Historical bipartisanship between Democrats and Republicans) who have been the managers of globalization. Financial capital and large corporations made them their agents, and the governments of these parties put the states to their services. This has also closed the cycle of social democracy and the parties that based workers as was the case of the PT, who ruled for them.

 

///////

 

This situation of global crisis and smear of the reformist parties should be a favorable situation for the development of a consistent anti-capitalist and internationalist, socialist left. As we speak in the notes this process is not easy. New progressive political processes have emerged (Sanders, Podemos, Corbyn, growth of the Parti de Gauche in France, PSOL and Nuevo Perú in Latin America), positive to offer alternatives to protofascism and neoliberalism in crisis, helping to rebuild a counter-hegemony, that is to create awareness for the regrouping of exploited and oppressed sectors and to grow an alternative.

 

In our opinion, in all of them, the most advanced program that has been given is that of Sanders. These processes are tools to combat the racist and nationalist ultra right who wants to put walls between the peoples, and that defends an ultra reactionary program to the democratic freedoms in general and especially to the women, LGBT, and the races of color. It is a third field that must be strengthened (and not weakened) by the failure of social democracy and the old Stalinism, a new option, which we encourage.

 

With Social Democracy and Stalinism, and of course with the leadership of the Democratic Party of the Clintons, only a precarious and very limited unity of action against the right is possible. We have the example in Brazil; For example, Lula in Brazil never spoke against Temer and the coup, (on the contrary he advises him), and what can be done with them is to have some point in common against retirement reform that threatens to increase the minimun time to retire. On the contrary, with the processes in broad parties there is a more solid united front for a whole process, in the construction of a new hegemony. Something also possible can occur with the break-ups of Social-Democracy provoked by the crisis as it is the case of Corbyn labor.

 

//////////

 

The focus of these processes now shifts to the US. Trump’s triumph rocked the country and triggered a new mobilization process, of women, of the democratic movement, of the community movement to defend immigrants. We have before and after Women’s March in the class struggle situation in the US, though the workers’ movement is still divided and an important sector has expectations with Trump. The Women’s March was one of the greatest in history. In recent years there was an accumulation of forces that was expressed later in the Sanders campaign and now explodes in the mobilizations. With this also the vanguard, intellectuals, militants and the left are asked what to do, how to group new forms in it.

 

We agree very much with the article by Nancy Frazer that we published in Portal de la Izquierda / [2] / arguing with Brenner about the 1980 women’s activism; acoordind to her, it wasn’t able to create a counter-hegemony against liberal progressivity and she says, referring to the activism of 1980s, that what can happen now: “didn’t present itself as a credible alternative to neoliberal progressivity, much less for its replacement (…) one thing is clear: to challenge the neoliberal versions of feminism, anti-racism and multiculturalism , Leftist activism could not (at that time) reach out to so-called “populist reactionaries” (ie the white industrial working class) who (now ended up voting for Trump)”.

 

Nancy continues: “Bernie Sanders is the exception that confirms the rule. His electoral campaign, despite being far from perfect, directly challenged the tectonic plates of the political class. Pointing to the “multimillionaire class” stretched the left hand to the sectors abandoned by neoliberal progressivism. (…) “Sanders was a turning point in relation to the supporters of neoliberal progressivism.”

 

And she ends the reasoning by saying: “Although defeated by Clinton, Bernie Sanders paved the way for the construction of an anti-hegemonic power; Instead of an alliance of progressives with neoliberalism, Bernie Sanders opened the perspective of a new “progressive-populist” bloc that combines emancipation with social protection. ” “In my opinion, Sanders’ choice is the only winning strategy in the Trump era. Those who are now mobilized under the banner of “resistance”, I suggest that flag as a project.

 

Wise words that show how to move forward. The article by Al Jazeera in Portal de la Izquierda, on the advance of socialism, [3] / shows how dynamic the awareness of important vanguard sectors in the USA has become. At the same time, we know that Sanders’ program is not enough to present a complete anti-hegemonic model; it is unfinished to have a definite anti-capitalist position against the nationalist ultra-right or neoliberalism. There is a problem (of course very difficult to solve) to end the concentration and financialization (both the neopopulism of Trump or the globalization of the Clintons, which is not solved by Sanders, or Iglesias or Corbyn, is to overcome the National frontiers and the expropriation (social democratization) of large corporations and financial capital (although Sanders attacks it with force), since the USA is the center of that dominion. A project counter hegemonic project to the globalization and economic oligarchy that Dominates the world needs to raise these two flags.

 

Internationalist socialists can do much to help in this direction. On the one hand, to avoid characterizing Sanders and the other progressive processes as “neo-reformist”; They are also an expression of the process of development of the consciousness of the masses has reached. That is why they are not crystallized but, on the contrary, dynamic, moving phenomena that depend on the evolution of the class struggle of workers’ action, progress in their consciousness and our own role. This is possible if we are part, if we are from within them to develop them, to strengthen them with patience.

 

That does not mean abandoning our program, but to strengthen it we have to do it within these processes. It is not an “entrista” or “fractionalist” policy with the aim of capturing within them for the revolutionary party and later destroying them, as sectarian fractionalist currents think. We want to strengthen the consequent sectors, as the best way to build the anti-hegemonic project of which Nancy Fraser speaks; This is only possible with a broad political organization that reaches the masses, who knows how to combine institutional struggle with the direct action of the masses and at the service of the masses.

 

Many currents thought as liquidated the Podemos experience, comparing them to the capitulation of Syriza. But Podemos is alive as Vista Alegre’s Congress has shown, where the right wing had 33%, Iglesias 54% and anti-capitalists grew to 13%. And in which Miguel Urbán of from the former played a prominent role. Izquierda Anticapitalista has known to have patience and to have tactics linked to a strategic politics, the same we say of the MES which has grown within the PSOL because always puts ahead the construction of the party, giving the necessary political battles inside the party and in public form, as should be the method within a true party democracy. Recently the PSOL has been strengthened with the decision of the CE authorizing the entry of “Esquerda Marxista”, an organization formed in the revolutionary Marxist tradition that once founded PT.

 

//////////

 

It is a fact that the most consistently internationalist (Trotskyist) anti-capitalist organizations are in a period of dispersion that seems to have not yet reached a turning point. What is most serious is that this prevents in these days the formation of a consistent international anti-capitalist pole; There is not in spite of the rich world situation that is lived. And on the other hand, the new processes are not in a point of maturation to carry out an international coordination. Only PSOL has demonstrated its willingness to do so.

 

Around which points can we group or regroup internationalists? The first and most important is in the resistance and developing this AntiTrump Front. Trotskyism made its experiences in the last two decades. The experience of the last two decades can serve for this. From Seatle the left had incidence and disputed the antiglobalización movement. In France it emerged on the initiative of the LCR “Agir contre le chomage” (action against hunger) that achieved European repercussion and made important marches. The WSF was an important place to try to group, but the reformers deformed it. The movement against the war in Iraq grew in Europe after the massive mobilizations against the war. At that time there was an important rapprochement between the French LSR and the SWP of England, which we saw with great sympathy; it would have been an important step but did not progress [4]. The Bolivarian movement, which held the flag of the struggle against imperialism to a certain extent, stopped and now receded. The call to form a Vth international was only a call. [5] In addition to the reformists (and the concessions they made to a sector of the extreme left), there were other factors that influenced. The massive marches against the Iraq war lost mass character because they were affected by the terrorist actions of Islamic fundamentalism.

 

/////////

 

Can there be new conditions  now? We can’t say it categorically, but we have to explore and try it and especially around the need to face Trump’s policy internationally. The United States became the political center. The Trotskyism that has its tradition in the USA, (and in the whole world it has to be opened). The process in the US is very much alive, and it is there where the best conditions are likely to take the steps to build around the antiTrump Front, the new counter-hegemonic project of which Nancy Frazer speaks.

 

On our part we will contribute. The youth group Juntos, which is tied to the PSOL and also to the MES, has taken the important initiative of convening an (Inter) national Camp of the Youth in Fight. Many young people, including from the Democratic Socialist or America, are waiting for the anticapitalist current of Podemos, anticapitalists from England and from many Latin American countries from Mexico (again insurgent) to Tierra del Fuego. Accepting our invitation Winnie Wong organizer of the Women for Sanders movement wrote on her Facebook page “I want to thank Juntos for taking me to Brazil and for making a program that seems amazing. I hope to learn from all the young people who look at the Nancy Pelosi [6] of the world in the eyes saying: “Capitalism is crisis, kills all our dreams.”

 

That camping is an example that can very well be followed. It would be formidable if they could convene an international conference in the USA. The DSA (Democratic Socialist Party), Jacobin Magazine, ISO (International Socialist Organization), Socialist Alternative, and other forces could encourage such an event in which feature the great organizers of the 21N Women’s March. The left of the United States has the peculiarity of not being sectarian, they do not have among them the level of confrontation and fractionalism of other countries where the internationalists have developed. They have a long history, from Dobs, Canon, Harrington and many others. It is an experience worth trying.