INTERNASYONALISMO

ADMINISTRASYON AT OPOSISYON : PATALSIKIN SILANG LAHAT!

Tuloy-tuloy ang paglala ng krisis pampulitika sa bansa dahil sa lalupang paglala ng pandaigdigang krisis ng kapitalismo.

Ang tumitinding bangayan sa loob ng nagharing uri – kampong maka-GMA at kampong anti-GMA – ay ginagatungan ng mga alitan sa loob ng kampong maka-Gloria at ganun din, sa loob ng kampong anti-GMA. Ang mga alitang ito sa loob ng magkabilang kampo ng nagharing uri ay pinaliliyab ng pang-ekonomiyang krisis na kongkretong makikita sa pagtaas ng presyo ng langis sa pandaigdigang pamilihan na nabunga ng pagtaas ng presyo ng mga pangunahing bilihin. Ito ang hindi maiwasang mangyari sa nagharing uri sa panahon ng permanenteng krisis ng sistema – “isa laban sa lahat”.

Ang mga isyu ng korupsyon, panunuhol, katiwalian, paglabag sa karapatang-pantao at iba pa ay PAREHONG ginagawa at patuloy na gagawin ng administrasyon at oposisyon. Walang pagkakaiba ang Lakas-CMD at Kampi sa PMP ni Erap, sa United Opposition ni Binay at maging sa nabubuong United Forces. Ito ang naranasan ng masang maralita sa nagdaang tatlong “Edsa Revolution” — ang dating oposisyon ay nalagay sa administrasyon at ang dating administrasyon ay naging oposisyon – subalit walang kaginhawaang naranasan ang mga manggagawa at maralita.

Hindi malulutas ng administrasyon at oposisyon ang mga mabibigat na problemang pinapasan ng mga manggagawa at maralita – patuloy na pagtaas ng presyo, mababang sweldo, kontraktwalisasyon, kawalang trabaho, pabahay, panlipunang serbisyo at iba pa. Kapwa ang administarsyon at oposisyon ay may parehong layunin – ipagtanggol ang mapagsamantala at nabubulok na kapitalistang sistema.

Isang bitag ang “fighting one enemy at a time” o “choosing the lesser evil”. Isang ilusyon ang paniniwala na ang pakipag-alyansa sa isang paksyon ng burgesya ay makapagpahina sa buong nagharing uri. Ang tunay na makapagpahina sa nagharing uri hanggang sa tuluyan itong maibagsak ay ang paglakas ng independyenteng kilusan ng manggagawa at maralita.

Ang panawagan ng iba’t-ibang grupo ng burges na oposisyon at Kaliwa ng “pagkakaisa” ng lahat ng grupo laban sa paksyong GMA ay walang ibig sabihin kundi ang ilagay sa Malakanyang bilang kapalit ng paksyong GMA ay isa na namang paksyon ng mapagsamantalang uri na “suportado” ng malawak na masa. Hindi na dapat pumasok ang masa sa ganitong patibong ng burgesya dahil tiyak na mauuwi na naman ito sa kapahamakan ng mga mahihirap at muling makapagpalakas sa ilusyon at demoralisasyon sa kanilang hanay.

Nararapat lamang na muling babangon ang militansya at diwang palaban ng uring manggagawa at maralita para sa tunay na pagbabago sa kanilang aping kalagayan. Nararapat lamang na muling magtiwala ang malawak na masang api sa kanilang sariling pagkakaisa at lakas sa pakikibaka. Subalit ang enerhiya ng militansya ay kailangang nakatuon sa pagpapalakas sa SARILING kilusan ng uring manggagawa at maralita na HIWALAY sa alinmang paksyon ng nagharing uri – administrasyon man o oposisyon.

Nasa paglakas ng INDEPENDYENTENG KILUSAN ng masang api ang pwersa para mahatak ang panggitnang uri sa tamang daan para sa pagbabago ng lipunan. Ang kongkretisasyon ng independyenteng kilusang ito ay makikita sa sumusunod:

Ang sentral na mga islogan ng kilusang ito ay:

ISULONG ANG KILUSANG MASA LABAN SA ADMINISTRASYON AT OPOSISYON!

GAWING PAMPULITIKANG PAKIKIBAKA ANG MGA PANG-EKONOMIYANG PAKIKIBAKA!

ITAYO ANG MGA KONSEHO NG MANGGAGAWA BILANG MGA ORGANO NG KAPANGYARIHAN MATAPOS MAIBAGSAK ANG PAKSYONG ARROYO!

Sa ganitong mga islogan lamang hindi na mauulit ang masaklap na karanasan ng nagdaang tatlong “Edsa Revolution” kung saan pinaaasa ang mga mahihirap na ang kanilang kaligtasan ay nasa mga popular na burges na lider ng oposisyon at rebeldeng militar.

INTERNASYONALISMO

(kung sang-ayon ka sa pahayag na ito ay pakibigay sa iyong mga kaibigan at kasamahan)

We recently held two conferences in two of the country’s universities, Santiago de los Caballeros (the second-largest city in the country) and Santo Domingo (the capital city), on the theme ‘Socialism and the Decadence of Capitalism’. These debates were made possible by the efforts of an internationalist discussion group. We are sincerely grateful for the work they performed. There was nothing academic about these meetings. Just as during a similar conference held in a Brazilian university , participants expressed concerns about the future that capitalism offers, about the way to struggle for a new society that can overcome the contradictions of the present system, about the social forces capable of bringing about this change…

These debates represent a moment in the efforts being made by proletarian minorities to develop class consciousness. The international dimension of these efforts is indisputable. The publishing of a summary of these discussions has two objectives: to participate in the development of an international debate, and to help to move these discussions which have developed in one country towards the only potentially fruitful framework: the international and internationalist framework.

Following our presentation, many questions were asked, some of which evoked lively discussions. In the following summary we have organised the discussions thematically and in a question-and-answer format.

The issue is not denigrating the struggles of the oppressed and exploited classes, but understanding what revolution is truly on the agenda since the beginning of the 20th century. According to this point of view, a fundamental change occurred with the explosion of the First World War. That war, unprecedented until then in its barbarity, showed the world that capitalism had become a decadent social system that could offer nothing to humanity but war, famine, destruction and misery. It brought to a close the period of bourgeois revolutions - of popular democratic, reformist and national revolutions. Those movements became simple resurfacings of the facade of the state. Since that war, the only revolution capable of bringing progress to humanity is the proletarian revolution whose aim is to establish a communist world. The Russian Revolution in 1917 and the whole revolutionary wave that followed it expressed this new state of affairs. The first congress of the Communist International in March of 1919 thus affirmed: "A new epoch has been born. Ours is the epoch of the breakdown of capital, its internal disintegration, the epoch of the communist revolution of the proletariat".

The bourgeois revolutions had a national character and could survive for long periods of time within national borders. This is how the English Revolution triumphed in the 1640s and survived in a feudal world until the bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century. The proletarian revolution will either be global or it won’t be. First of all because production today is global. But also because capitalism has created a global market, and the laws of this market, the problems engendered by capitalism, have a global character and can only be resolved through the unified struggle of the entire global proletariat.

Trotsky was a life-long revolutionary militant. He played a very important role during the Russian Revolution of 1917. He also struggled against the degeneration of the Russian Revolution by defending internationalist positions. He was the principal animator of the Left Opposition, which led a heroic struggle against the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia and within the Communist parties of the world. However, Trotsky and the Left Opposition never understood the nature of the USSR, considering it to be a bureaucratically deformed workers’ state that nonetheless needed to be defended. The consequences of that error were tragic. After his cowardly murder by Stalin’s assassin Ramon Mercader, those who claimed to be his heirs called for participating in the Second World War and became a political current that always defends, ‘critically’ of course, and using a radical lingo, the same postulates as the Stalinists and social-democrats.

The Chavism/anti-Chavism choice is a trap, as was demonstrated recently by the student mobilisations in Venezuela that are trying to free themselves from this sterile and destructive polarisation between Chavism and the Opposition.

Chavez supports the strengthening of state intervention in the economy as well as the concentration of powers into the hands of a single person (the constitutional reform to permit his perpetual re-election). He launches ‘social’ programmes that may momentarily address the situation of some marginalised layers, but in reality reinforce the exploitation of workers and the impoverishment of the vast majority of the population. The function of such programmes is to make the population accept the most degrading poverty. We are talking about formulae that have been repeated throughout the 20th century, and have all been resounding failures. They didn’t change capitalism; they simply helped to maintain capitalism and to maintain the sufferings of the masses.

Chavez claims he’s "anti-imperialist" due to his vigorous opposition to the devil Bush. Chavez’s so-called anti-imperialism is nothing but a smoke-screen to cover his own imperialist designs. Workers and oppressed peoples cannot base their struggles on feelings of hatred or vengeance against an all-powerful empire like the United States, because these feelings are manipulated by the Latin American bourgeois fractions, be they government or opposition fractions, to make the people sacrifice for the interests of the rulers.

There is no national solution to the global crisis of capitalism. The solution can only be international and based on the international solidarity of the proletariat, through the development of its autonomous struggles.

Regardless of its numerical importance in each country, the working class is the only class whose interests are global. Its struggles as a class represent the interests and the future of all the exploited and oppressed. The working class tries to win over the peasants and the marginalised layers of the cities to its struggle. This doesn’t entail the formation of a front of social movements because the real interests, the authentic liberation of workers, peasants, and the marginalised people of the cities isn’t a sum of corporatist grievances, but the destruction of the yoke of wage slavery and the profit system.

The working class has never been limited to industrial workers. What characterizes the working class is the social relation based on the exploitation of wage labour. The working class is not a sociological category. Industrial workers, farm workers, public employees, and ‘intellectual’ workers are part of the proletariat. We must not forget all the workers that have been thrown into unemployment or who are forced to survive by peddling on the streets.