The article below is one of two articles the IWL is publishing in response to the Trotskyist Faction (TF). One article was written by our comrades in the Brazilian PSTU, and the one below was written by comrades in the IWL and its sympathizers in the U.S. Although they address the same issue, they do so from different perspectives, highlighting some aspects that differ from one another.
— Eduardo Almeida, Fabio Bosco, and Florence Oppen
The “Trotskyist Faction” (TF) published a polemical article against Moreno and the IWL (“The Dilemmas of the IWL in Its Self-Criticism of Nahuel Moreno and the Current Situation of the Permanent Revolution”), written by Danilo Paris.
This article uses a document written by us in 2020 (“On the situations of the class struggle at the national and international level”), which makes specific criticisms of Moreno, to erroneously conclude that Moreno was a “stageist” for using the concept of “democratic revolution.”
The IWL has indeed made significant efforts to develop its program in recent years, as evidenced by various articles and internal documents. In addition to the article cited by TF, notable works include “Marxism and the Struggle Against National and Colonial Oppression” (2021), an International Mail issue dedicated entirely to environmental issues (2023), and the Marxism Alive magazine, whose latest issue (21) features articles on emerging Chinese imperialism, the consolidation of Russian imperialism, and documents on oppression.
In this process of development, we engage in criticism and self-criticism, which are necessary and normal in healthy revolutionary movements.
As we will see, Moreno was never a stageist. In fact, he was a pioneer in the struggle against the Stalinist stagist conception in Latin America. In his text “Four Theses on Spanish and Portuguese Colonization in America” (1977), he analyzes the uneven and combined development of the continent.
He sought to understand the reality of the postwar period. From there, he sought to update the theory of permanent revolution in a healthy way. In our opinion, this effort was and is valid. In the process, Moreno made some mistakes, as we point out in the aforementioned text. However, he never advocated for a stageist position.
This is demonstrated in Revolutions of the 20th Century itself, as well as in the programs defended by Moreno and our current organization in the face of major class struggles.
The TF’s accusation is part of a mistaken methodology used by this current on several occasions, which consists of attributing to an opponent a position he does not defend and arguing with that fictitious position. This sectarianizes and sterilizes necessary debates that could be productively developed between currents using a healthy method. One real issue of debate between the IWL and the TF is that the TF fails to translate theoretical and programmatic approaches to permanent revolution into analyses, characterizations, and concrete programs for reality.
The TF has made and continues to make serious mistakes in its understanding of, and programmatic and political response to, the main events of the class struggle. This is particularly evident in mass struggles involving democratic issues, such as in Palestine and Ukraine.
The importance of self-criticism
First and foremost, we want to highlight a stance taken by Moreno that, in our opinion, sets an example for serious revolutionaries: being self-critical. Moreno valued the Leninist tool of self-criticism as a method for correcting the inevitable mistakes in revolutionary politics. He corrected himself in the early days of the Cuban Revolution, for example. He also laughed at Trotskyist leaders who considered themselves new Lenins and claimed to never make mistakes.
As the current leadership of the IWL post-Moreno, we make mistakes much more often than Moreno did. For example, we made mistakes regarding the fall of the Morsi government in Egypt. The TF harshly criticized us for this. There really was a mistake, but it was not Moreno’s; it was ours, the leadership of the IWL post-Moreno.
At that time, there was a huge mass mobilization against the Morsi government. Before the mobilization could bring down the government, however, the armed forces did so. Therefore, there were two elements to Morsi’s fall: the mobilization of the masses and the army’s action. We mistakenly characterized Morsi’s fall as essentially progressive because of the mass mobilization. However, the military coup was the determining factor. It took advantage of the Muslim Brotherhood government’s weakening due to the mobilization of the masses.
The coup ended Egypt’s first democratically elected government in decades. The masses did not understand this because they trusted the armed forces. However, it was the beginning of a dictatorship that continues to this day.
It was an important misjudgment based on an objectivist view that exaggerated the importance of the mobilized masses, who were manipulated precisely because they trusted the armed forces, and the coup was imposed. The IWL congress corrected this error.
It is important to note that this error has nothing to do with Moreno’s understanding of the democratic revolution, as we will see below.
In this area, the TF has an opposite position. It never self-criticizes. It does not acknowledge any mistakes.
Moreno was never a “stageist”
He sought to understand reality as it unfolded, applying the Leninist maxim that “the concrete analysis of the concrete situation is the living soul, the essence of Marxism.”
He analyzed reality using the theoretical tools Marxism has accumulated, always seeking the multiple factors involved in progressively approaching concrete reality. At the same time, he sought to corroborate or critically reevaluate those tools. This is the proper method for enriching Marxism.
For example, on the ninetieth anniversary of The Communist Manifesto, Trotsky wrote a text vindicating Marxism’s most famous programmatic document. However, he also compared it with the evolution of reality and offered critical observations on some of its conclusions. For instance, he corrected the hasty characterization of the disappearance of the middle classes, pointing to the emergence of the “new middle class.”
Moreno offered a critical assessment of Trotsky’s statement in the Transitional Program:
“Is the creation of a workers’ and peasants’ government by the traditional workers’ organizations possible? Previous experience shows, as we have already said, that this is unlikely.”
“However, one cannot categorically deny the theoretical possibility that, under an exceptional combination of circumstances (war, defeat, financial collapse, a mass revolutionary offensive, etc.), the petty-bourgeois parties, including the Stalinists, might advance further than they intend on the path to breaking with the bourgeoisie. In any case, one thing is beyond doubt: even if this unlikely scenario were to occur somewhere and at some point, and a ‘workers’ and peasants’ government’ were to be established—in the sense indicated above—it would represent nothing more than a brief episode on the road to the true dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Moreno noted that new workers’ states had emerged in the postwar period, including China, Cuba, and Vietnam, as well as those of Glacis. He added that none of these revolutions had the proletariat as their social subject or a revolutionary party as their political subject. This historical fact had to be evaluated.
As stated in the quoted text:
“Moreno was right in noting that the revolutions that expropriated capitalism and created new workers’ states in the postwar period did not have the proletariat or revolutionary parties as their social or political subjects, respectively.”
“However, we believe it is wrong to project a necessary continuity of this process into the future.” What subsequent developments showed was that victorious socialist revolutions led by reformist parties were not repeated.”
The TF article mistakenly relies on our text to claim that Moreno was a “stageist” :
“Herein lies one of the roots of what, if developed as a theoretical conception, can lead to a logic of separating ‘revolutions within the regime’ (or even revolutions within the government) into stages, especially in the case of regimes characterized as ‘counterrevolutionary.'”
However, Moreno’s definition of ‘democratic revolution’ is explicitly discussed as part of the process of permanent revolution in the same text. He characterizes the imperialist era as one of revolutions and counterrevolutions and notes that there were fascist and Nazi regimes (e.g., Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco) as well as semi-fascist Bonapartist regimes, which are sometimes defeated by generating revolutionary processes. How can we characterize these revolutionary processes that are part of the process of permanent revolution?
“What Trotsky did not propose, despite drawing a parallel between Stalinism and fascism, was that a revolution in the political regime was also necessary in capitalist countries: fascism must be destroyed to regain the freedoms of bourgeois democracy, even within the realm of the bourgeois political regime and state. Specifically, he did not address the need for a democratic revolution that would eliminate the fascist totalitarian regime as a preliminary step toward a socialist revolution. He left this significant theoretical issue unresolved.”
Moreno began with the idea that revolutionary processes that confronted and overthrew bourgeois dictatorships should be understood within the framework of permanent revolution. He criticized that these processes had not yet been identified as a specific moment within the conception of permanent revolution.
Just as wars of national liberation, such as those in Ukraine and Palestine, are specific, concrete moments within permanent revolution, the revolutionary processes that occur in confronting bourgeois dictatorships can be understood as “democratic revolutions.”
What does this have to do with “stageism”? Nothing. Revolutions of the 20th Century, published in 1984, was used as a basis for cadre schools and may contain inaccuracies and shortcomings. However, the accusation of “stageism” is absurd.
The real content of this controversy
In reality, the polemic with the TF in terms of their definition of Moreno has a very different content than Moreno’s supposed “stageism.”
The TF has an enormous amount of difficulty understanding how revolutionary processes occur and develop. This is particularly true when revolutionary processes include central democratic demands. As a result, they make serious mistakes in formulating their programs.
Moreno did not make any programmatic errors in the revolutionary processes cited as “democratic revolutions.”
What existed and still exists is the need to identify these processes as they unfold and, from there, define a system of demands, a program, that is structured around the overthrow of dictatorships, but that builds a bridge toward socialist revolution.
This is, in our view, the crux of the real controversy with the TF. There is no characterization of these processes of permanent revolution that includes democratic tasks. And, as a result, there are no programs prioritized by the political task determined in the concrete situation of the class struggle around these democratic struggles, articulated with the general program of socialist revolution. There is only a characterization scheme and the general program of socialist revolution.
Regarding objectivism and subjectivism…
In the document cited by TF, we criticize Moreno, ourselves, and the IWL leadership after Moreno’s death for our objectivist assessments.
We do not believe that objective processes advance without limits, despite the leadership. We do not believe in “unconscious socialist revolutions.” On the contrary, we believe that, more than ever, “the crisis of humanity is the crisis of revolutionary leadership.” Today, the world is accumulating growing elements of barbarism. Barbarism in the imposition of brutal setbacks in the living conditions of workers, nullifying the achievements of the 20th century.
Barbarism is evident in the surpassing of environmental thresholds, which endangers not only the prospect of a socialist future but also the survival of humanity. Barbarism is evident in the oppression of women, Black people, LGBTQ people, and immigrants, as well as in national impositions. The Zionist genocide in Gaza is the most explicit example of this growing barbarism.
The objective conditions are ripe, but, as the Transitional Program states, they risk decaying. However, the subjective factor is not secondary; it perpetuates defeats despite all the revolutionary processes we have experienced in the past and present.
Evaluating reality using Marxist methodology presupposes using the basic tools of dialectics, including the totality and its dynamics.
One cannot unilaterally separate objective processes from their directions and ignore the totality that directly interferes with their dynamics.
However, just as we criticize objectivism, we also reject subjectivism. The TF uses a subjectivist criterion to evaluate revolutionary processes.
According to them: “The first refers to the unilateralization of the defense of the slogan ‘Democratic Republic’ as a programmatic and political axis against dictatorial regimes. This leads the organization to interpret the fall of governments or any kind of mobilization as victories, regardless of the driving sector, bourgeois and imperialist intervention, or the strategic results achieved.”
“This formulation derives from Moreno’s misreading of Trotsky’s work—a misreading that the IWL not only maintains, but also deepens. This conception has led to an incorrect characterization of ‘democratic revolutions,’ even in contexts of bourgeois regimes.”
What we want to emphasize is that we consider the fall of dictatorships themselves to be a triumph of a “democratic revolution,” regardless of the historical subject and the way in which that dictatorship falls, even if it is replaced by a bourgeois regime that contains and diverts the masses, in some cases by imperialist interventions that create regimes that are equally or even more repressive (as we saw in the case of Egypt during the Arab Spring and will analyze later).
As the above makes clear, the TF does not recognize revolutionary processes that do not have the working class as their social subject or a revolutionary leadership at the forefront. This means that the TF does not acknowledge the majority of revolutions that occur in reality.
It is no coincidence that the TF refers to the revolutionary processes that shook the Middle East and North Africa between 2010 and 2012 as the “Arab Spring.” While this term can be used in journalism, it does not characterize what happened in Marxist terms. There was a revolutionary process involving several failed revolutions. It was a living, contradictory, and very rich process.
The TF never recognized its existence and then used its defeats to “prove” that these revolutions never happened. This has nothing to do with the need for a concrete assessment of reality, a hallmark of Leninism as a guide for revolutionary action.It has nothing to do with Lenin and Trotsky’s analyses of the real processes of their time.
What is a revolution? As we say in the cited text:
“Let’s start with the basic definition of what a revolution is. This is no trivial task. We believe the most accurate interpretation is that of Trotsky:”
‘The most indisputable characteristic of revolutions is the direct intervention of the masses in historical events. At decisive moments when the established order becomes unbearable, the masses break down the barriers separating them from the political arena. They sweep away their traditional representatives and create a starting point for the new regime. For us, the history of revolutions is above all the history of the violent irruption of the masses into the government of their own destiny.’ (Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution).”
In the imperialist stage, revolutions can occur against dictatorships or bourgeois democracies. Their social subjects can be the proletariat, the peasantry, or the popular masses. Revolutions can overthrow governments, regimes, or states; however, they may also fail to overthrow anything. Revolutions can be victorious or defeated. However, they all share the basic characteristic of the direct and violent intervention of the masses taking their destiny into their own hands.
For this discussion, we believe Trotsky’s definition is necessary. It defines two processes: an objective process of mobilization and a subjective process of overcoming the limits of previous leaderships in their consciousness. This can occur with different social subjects and types of leadership and produce diverse results.
The influence of leadership will obviously influence every step of these struggles and ultimately define the scope and results of these processes, leading to countless defeats.
History has shown that victorious socialist revolutions are extremely unlikely to be repeated without the proletariat as the social subject and a revolutionary party at its helm.
Lenin’s methodology of evaluating concrete reality should not be understood as an endorsement of empiricism. Rather, it is an expression of a sophisticated and precise analysis based on the theoretical accumulation of Marxist tools and the incorporation of multiple determinations relating the specificity of reality to the national and international totality, the specific moment to its historical genesis, and the relationship of this totality to its dynamics. Only in this way can we arrive at “concrete reality,” based on its multiple determinants.
The strength of Leninism stems from precisely understanding this reality in order to extract the immediate and historical tasks, politics, and program for reality and contest the consciousness of the vanguard and the masses in revolutionary action.
There have been and continue to be important revolutionary processes. Their concrete analysis must situate us programmatically—and, if possible, physically and concretely—as if we were inside them, rather than making arrogant and condescending comments from at a distance from the comforts of an armchair.
The TF seeks to fit reality into a scheme that dispenses with concrete analysis, similar to what happened in the Russian Revolution from February to October 1917. Anything that does not follow that scheme is not a revolution.
The Russian Revolution is our historical reference because it was the only victorious socialist revolution with the proletariat as the social subject led by a revolutionary party. We must have the ambition and strategy to continue on that path. However, it is a different matter altogether to believe that if reality does not repeat that moment, then reality does not exist. The Russian Revolution occurred under specific, unique conditions that have not been repeated to this day.
First, there were the brutal effects of a world war on the country, which exacerbated all of Russia’s economic, social, and political problems. Second, there was a concentrated proletariat organized in soviets, creating a classic dual power. Third and most importantly, there was a revolutionary party built over decades with a capable leadership.
This combination allowed the combination of democratic tasks with the socialist revolution to be victorious. But this reality, in this form, has never been repeated in more than a century. However, dozens and dozens of revolutionary processes have taken place since then, which require much more than mere frameworks for us to understand them.
Revolutionary processes continue to exist, albeit without the proletariat as a social subject or revolutionary leadership. This means that these revolutions will not lead to a victorious socialist revolution.
As part of these processes, partial victories may occur in the democratic arena (such as the overthrow of dictatorships) or in the national arena (e.g., the liberation of the African colonies). Unfortunately, these achievements are subsequently reversed by the same reformist or counterrevolutionary leaderships.
A recent partial victory was the fall of Assad in Syria, which resulted not only from the HTS’s military action, but also from the action of the masses around Damascus. The HTS leadership’s policy contained and, in a sense, hijacked the entire process. It is leading to the reconstruction of a bourgeois state and a project of peaceful coexistence with imperialism and regional powers, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
The TF did not view Assad’s fall as a victory, just as it ignored the revolutions of the “Arab Spring.” This position makes it difficult to understand reality and the necessary struggle against the counterrevolutionary HTS leadership.
Is the same program applicable to all situations?
This brings us to the second major difference with the TF in its formulation of its program.
Let’s see what the TF says: “Why does Moreno point to modifying the central theses of the theory of permanent revolution? Because it is a well-known fact that, during the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky’s theoretical approach to revolution did not distinguish between the stages of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist tasks, nor the social subjects of those tasks—the proletariat—in the face of a repressive tsarist dictatorship, as he states in the Theses on the Permanent Revolution: ‘In the course of its development, the democratic revolution is directly transformed into a socialist revolution and thus becomes a permanent revolution’ (10). Lenin agreed with this point in the practice of the revolution itself, a perspective expressed in his April Theses.”
In other words, for the TF, understanding the process of permanent revolution does not include defining the specific stages of the process or creating programs based on those stages. Since “the democratic revolution is directly transformed into a socialist revolution and thus becomes a permanent revolution,” it is unnecessary to have a defined program for the different stages of the struggle.
But wasn’t a revolutionary program against tsarism necessary, followed by another after the February Revolution? Or were they a product of Lenin’s theoretical limitations prior to the April Theses?
The TF starts from a framework that has nothing to do with Leninist methodology or permanent revolution.
Understanding processes as linked by global imperialist domination and multiple relations of class domination is one thing. It is quite another to conduct a concrete analysis of the reality of the Russian Revolution, as with others, which necessarily differentiated the program from one moment to the next, all of which were intertwined in the theoretical and programmatic strategy of permanent revolution.
Understanding a program as a system of demands that helps the masses transition from their immediate struggles to the struggle for power requires an analysis and characterization of reality. The program is not the same in all situations of class struggle. This view renders Marxism sterile and transforms it into a dogma—a scheme applied in all places and situations in the same way.
A precise example is that Lenin’s April Theses cannot be understood before the overthrow of Tsarism. This has nothing to do with Lenin’s previous theoretical limitations. It has to do with the change in reality, which requires an advance in theoretical understanding and a change in the program.
Clearly, struggles to overthrow dictatorships must be linked to the strategy of socialist revolution. A program for a revolutionary process against a dictatorship and a program for the period after its overthrow must both be linked by the strategy of socialist revolution. However, ignoring these aspects when developing programs is characteristic of a unilateral, dogmatic, and schematic perspective that is incompatible with the “guide to action” associated with Leninism.
It may be useful to arrogantly comment on reality. After defeats, they will claim that the capitalist system continues and that the leadership is traitorous. However, this is insufficient to intervene concretely in revolutionary processes or to combat the reformist leaderships within them.
In the current historical period, we have witnessed numerous revolutionary movements, including the Arab Spring and the massive revolutionary mobilizations in Argentina in 2001, as well as in Chile, Ecuador, and Colombia in 2019 and in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in 2023-24. These movements were not led by the proletariat, but rather by the masses of people in the streets. These processes weren’t led by revolutionary leadership, but rather by reformist leadership, which has ultimately led to defeat or diversion towards bourgeois democracy. Failing to recognize and support these revolutionary processes ignores reality and limits our ability to confront those same reformist leaderships.
The TF uses the same unilateral methodology of objectivism, but with the signs reversed. With a subjectivist stance, it ignores concrete analyses of specific situations. This leads to significant programmatic and political errors, as we will see.
Controversies with the TF on the Palestinian question
Organizations linked to the TF participate in mobilizations in support of Palestine, as do we, the IWL, and many other left-wing organizations. In this regard, we have no criticism of this group.
However, given that Palestine is the most important center of class struggle in the world today, the political and programmatic response to this issue is of enormous importance as a test for each current.
The IWL has a long tradition on this issue, with direct contributions from Moreno, such as the 1982 text “For a Secular, Democratic, and Non-Racist Palestine.” There, he demonstrates the significance of this slogan, which is not inherently class-based: “In addition to being the most progressive slogan raised by the Palestinian movement, it can pave the way for a workers’ revolution.”
We will quote from a recent text of ours on the relationship between this slogan and permanent revolution. “The PLO’s original proposal for a ‘secular, free, and non-racist Palestine’ is the historic banner of the Palestinians. However, the only way to make this proposal viable is to destroy the State of Israel and return to the situation prior to its creation when Muslims, Jews, and Christians coexisted democratically in the same region.”
“However, this would be a very difficult war due to military inequality. Israel is the fourth military power on the planet. It has the direct support of U.S. imperialism, as well as European imperialism. From a military point of view alone, defeat is almost certain, as has been the case until now.”However, this would be a very difficult war due to military inequality. Israel is the fourth military power on the planet. It has the direct support of U.S. imperialism, as well as European imperialism. From a military point of view alone, defeat is almost certain, as has been the case until now.”
“However, history teaches us that it is possible to defeat even a hegemonic imperialist power when mass mobilization and armed struggle are combined.”
“For example, in the Haitian Revolution, insurgent slaves defeated Spanish imperialism and inflicted one of the first military defeats on French imperialism under Napoleon Bonaparte. During the Russian Revolution, the newly formed Red Army repelled a military invasion by 16 imperialist countries.”For example, in the Haitian Revolution, insurgent slaves defeated Spanish imperialism and inflicted one of the first military defeats on French imperialism under Napoleon Bonaparte. During the Russian Revolution, the newly formed Red Army repelled a military invasion by 16 imperialist countries.”
“More recently, the United States was defeated in Vietnam in 1975. This was the result of the heroic resistance of the Viet Cong combined with worldwide mobilization, particularly in the United States.”
“It is important to understand the Palestinian national liberation war as part of the process of permanent revolution. As Trotsky wrote in The Transitional Program:
‘In backward countries, the policy of the proletariat is determined by the fact that it is compelled to combine the struggle for the most basic tasks of national independence and bourgeois democracy with the socialist struggle against world imperialism.’
‘Democratic demands, transitional demands, and the tasks of the socialist revolution do not occur in distinct historical epochs, but rather arise immediately from one another.’
“Defeating Israel will require maintaining and deepening the military resistance in Gaza, as well as a combination of a new Palestinian Intifada, the resumption of the Arab Spring in the region, and mass mobilizations worldwide, particularly in imperialist countries.”
“A new intifada would provoke massive clashes in the West Bank and the 1948 territories, diverting attention from Gaza.”
“A new Arab Spring would confront Arab governments in the region—both those that directly support Israel and those that distance themselves from the ‘Axis of Resistance’—and demand that they actively support the Palestinian struggle.”
“Demonstrations in imperialist countries could play an essential role, much like the protests against the Vietnam War fractured the U.S. bourgeoisie and contributed to the Vietnamese victory.”
“However, for this to happen, it will be necessary to overcome the bourgeois leadership of this process.” (Permanent Revolution and War in Palestine)
The slogan “Free Palestine, from the river to the sea” is fundamental to us because it expresses a revolutionary goal—the destruction of the State of Israel—and because it is popular among Palestinians. This slogan must be intertwined with the perspective of a socialist revolution in the region for a socialist federation of republics in the Middle East and North Africa.
a) The controversy with the TF over the slogan “Free Palestine, from the river to the sea”
The TF refuses to defend the slogan “Free Palestine, from the river to the sea,” due to its misunderstanding of incorporating democratic tasks into the process of permanent revolution.
It is important to understand the origin of this slogan. It originated with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) but was abandoned by Arafat in the Oslo Accords. However, the Palestinian Intifada adopted the slogan in 1987 to confront the State of Israel, adapting it to read, “Palestine is Arab, from water to water.” The Palestinians reaffirmed their right to all the lands of historic Palestine and to an end to the racist state. Since then, “Free Palestine, from the river to the sea” has been one of the most popular slogans in the Palestine solidarity movement.
This slogan is of enormous importance because it affirms the Palestinians’ right to govern the entire historic territory of Palestine. In other words, it challenges not only the current Zionist genocide but also the misguided “two-state” policy advocated by most reformists worldwide.
We echo Victor Alay’s words on the TF’s refusal to defend the slogan “Secular, Democratic, and Non-Racist Palestine, From the River to the Sea”:
“The TF is uncomfortable with this historic and central Trotskyist slogan in relation to the Palestinian conflict and has replaced it with ‘a workers’ and socialist Palestine’ (or, in Alcoy’s version, ‘a workers’ and socialist, secular Palestine over the whole of historic Palestine’). This substitution is an extremely serious mistake.”
“Our comrades in the TF believe that defending the slogan A democratic, secular, and non-racist Palestine, from the river to the sea’ is equivalent to defending a “democratic stage” and renouncing the socialist character of the Palestinian revolution. However, they are mistaken because this slogan is currently the primary demand of the program for a socialist revolution in Palestine and the surrounding region. Rather than integrating this slogan into a transitional program that combines economic and social demands, both transitional and socialist, and gives the Palestinian revolution a regional and international dimension (culminating in the struggle for a socialist federation of the Middle East and North Africa), the TF has replaced it with the slogan ‘working-class and socialist Palestine.’ “
“This slogan is a pretentious and sectarian ultimatum that hinders unity among the Palestinian masses, the regional masses, and the pro-Palestinian masses in imperialist countries. It also hinders unity with the small, courageous anti-Zionist Jewish minority in Israel. It imposes the condition that they agree to a “workers’ and socialist Palestine” instead of taking steps together and leading them down the path of socialist revolution, based on the common struggle for a democratic, secular, non-racist Palestine from the river to the sea. TF’s position reflects a profound misunderstanding of permanent revolution.”
“This error clashes head-on with the methodology that we Trotskyists have used to approach these problems throughout our history. In the ‘Transitional Program,’ Trotsky writes that in ‘backward countries,’ we must ‘combine the struggle for the most elementary tasks of national independence and bourgeois democracy with the socialist struggle against world imperialism.’ ” He adds: “Democratic demands, transitional demands, and the tasks of the socialist revolution are not separated into different historical epochs, but arise immediately from one another” (The Trotskyist Faction and Its Position on the Gaza War).
(b) Regarding Hamas’s methodology:
The IWL has unconditionally supported the Palestinian resistance against the genocidal state of Israel and has defended their actions on October 7, 2023.
In doing so, we are applying the Marxist tradition of supporting national liberation movements. However, we differ with Hamas’s program and its strategy of establishing a bourgeois state. We also disagree with the repressive and reactionary characteristics of its government in Gaza. We have published several articles on this subject, including “A Revolutionary Perspective for the Liberation of Palestine Today” and “What Should Be the Goals and Methods of the Palestinian People’s Struggle?” in Marxism Alive, No. 20.
Currently, however, we are also confronted by a section of the left that has rejected “the methods of Hamas” in the October 7 action itself. Unfortunately, among these organizations is the TF.
The TF does not defend the October 7 action and joins the bourgeois press in questioning its legitimacy. The TF ignores the fact that this action brought the issue of Palestine back to the center of the global class struggle and dealt a blow to Israel’s Zionist self-confidence and invulnerability.
Let’s look at what this organization said:
“Regarding October 7 specifically, part of the operation was directed against military targets, such as checkpoints, IDF positions, and barracks, as well as the capture of Israeli soldiers. However, the rest of the operation was not, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of young people at a party, families living in kibbutzim, and many others with no military role.”
“However, the fundamental question is what the supposed justification would be, from the point of view of the Palestinian cause, for actions such as the attack on the music festival near Reim. There is none. On the contrary, this greatly harms the cause. That is why it is essential to distinguish these methods from those of the proletariat.”
Heller is quick to justify this approach, warning that a concrete analysis of what happened must be conducted. However, he fails to do so. He reminds us that hostage-taking is a common method used in historical revolutionary struggles, citing the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution as examples. But what do the hostages taken during the Paris Commune—the Archbishop of Paris, priests, and gendarmes—have to do with the hostages taken at a music festival, many of whom were young pacifists and not enemies of the Palestinian cause? Nothing. (Means and ends: A debate on the left’s position on Hamas’s strategy and methods by Matías Maiello).
Let’s examine these arguments one by one. First, Israeli society is completely militarized. Israeli youth are either in the army or are reservists.
Even if they were only “civilians,” attacking the Palestinian resistance for the deaths of civilians would be a huge mistake. It is an act of war by an oppressed people with a profound military disadvantage against a nuclear power. Even worse, Myriam Bregman, the FIT’s presidential candidate, lamented the “deaths of Palestinian and Israeli civilians” in a televised debate.
Secondly, regarding the taking of “hostages.” We use quotation marks because, technically, they are prisoners of war. This type of action was used by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution and in the Paris Commune. What is wrong with that? Contrary to what the TF claims, taking “hostages” has proven effective. It has sparked an internal crisis in Israel and mobilized thousands of families to protest the Netanyahu government and demand an agreement that will secure the prisoners’ release.
It’s hard for a TF militant to convince any Palestinian activist that taking “hostages” was a mistake. Not coincidentally, this issue disappeared from their press. However, as is typical of this movement, there is no self-criticism.
Returning to Victor Alay’s article:
“Now, turning to the methods, it cannot be ignored that Hamas is a popular resistance movement without planes, tanks, or ships. They are locked in the world’s largest open-air prison and have been subjected to a criminal siege and atrocious attacks for 17 years. In these circumstances, Hamas cannot be expected to respect a moral code of combat in its vastly unequal struggle against the occupying army. Nor can we forget that the Israeli settlements around Gaza (and in general the entire territory of Israel), built on the plunder of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing, are not only settlements built on stolen land, but they also play a military role in encircling the Strip. They are connected to a vast network of military installations and have been attacked by militiamen, resulting in significant destruction. Similarly, bear in mind that Israel is a giant military base with 400,000 reservists and a large number of armed civilians in addition to troops on active duty.”
“One must also consider that Zionist propaganda, massively and repeatedly reproduced by Western governments and media, is one thing, and the real facts, some of which have been revealed in recent weeks but quickly silenced, are another. Some of those killed at the music festival were victims of indiscriminate firing from Israeli military helicopters, and some of those killed in settlements neighboring the Gaza Strip were victims of Israeli troops fighting Palestinian militiamen, as Maiello mentions.”
“Rather than providing context for the ‘civilian deaths’ of October 7, our TF comrades colleagues them undue prominence, which can only be understood in the context of the brutal and sustained pressure of the Western media campaign. Alcoy goes so far as to pass moral judgment, stating that ‘rejecting the label of ‘terrorism’ is not relativizing, much less justifying, Hamas’s crimes against Palestinian and Israeli civilians (6).’ However, we must never equate the violence of the oppressor with that of the oppressed. We cannot describe the deaths of Israeli civilians as “crimes,” as they are victims of Hamas’s military response to Israel’s barbarism. Israel is truly responsible for their deaths.”
We believe that we are continuing the Marxist tradition of defending the right of oppressed peoples to rebel by any means necessary. Although we have no programmatic or political agreement with the Hamas leadership, we stand with the Palestinians militarily.
c) On the Israeli working class
The TF justifies its criticism of Hamas’ hostage-taking and killing of civilians with the following argument:
“In these terms, we differ from Hamas’s methods, as we are committed to uniting the inhabitants of Gaza with the thousands who have been mobilizing since the beginning of the year in the West Bank, as well as with Arab workers in Israel and Israeli workers who oppose Zionism, against the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian Authority. We are committed to achieving this unity through the methods of the working class, such as a general strike combined with an intifada and developing self-defense organizations capable of uniting all these groups.” (Means and ends. A Debate on the Left’s Position on Hamas’s Strategy and Methods, by Matías Mayello).
Later, they attempt to justify their policy by citing the Third International’s efforts to convince the white working class in the U.S. to overcome their racist prejudices:
“There is, however, a rather graphic case with which we could compare the question of Zionism among Israeli workers: the deep racism of American workers that Trotsky closely encountered in his time. How did Trotsky respond to this problem? He argued that: ‘99.9% of American workers are chauvinists. They are executioners of Black and Chinese people. These American beasts must be educated. They must understand that the American state is not theirs and that they do not have to guard it.” However, once again, the TF leaves aside the concrete analysis of concrete reality.
Israel is an imperialist enclave with a Nazi-fascist state. The Israeli Jewish proletariat differs from the white American proletariat in its treatment of Black people due to a material, economic issue that transcends and determines their ideologies and politics. Since the beginning of Zionist colonization more than a hundred years ago, it has had economic and political privileges over the Palestinians. Zionist colonization has turned the Jewish proletariat into agents and beneficiaries of the theft of land, homes, and jobs from the Palestinian people.
However, this does not negate the class struggle between the Israeli bourgeoisie and the proletariat. However, these conflicts are subordinate to maintaining colonial order against the Palestinians.
Today, the mass mobilization in Israel against the Netanyahu government in defense of a truce and negotiations with Hamas for the hostages is extremely progressive as it brings the crisis to this Nazi-fascist state. However, let’s not fool ourselves. The vast majority of Israelis, including those participating in these mobilizations, support the exploitation and oppression of Palestinians.
They do not want their children and relatives to continue dying in the war. This has led them to a limited mobilization. An alliance between the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian proletariats to end genocide and liberate Palestine is impossible due to the material differences and exploitation of Palestinians, which benefits Israeli workers.
Peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and the region’s other inhabitants, including Muslims and Jews, will only be possible after the destruction of the Nazi-fascist state of Israel. Palestinians who lived in the region before 1948 speak of the peace that existed then and could exist again. However, this will only be possible after the destruction of the state of Israel.
Regarding the controversy over Ukraine
Besides Palestine, the other center of the global class struggle is the war in Ukraine. On this issue, the TF once again makes a serious error of characterization by describing it as an “inter-imperialist war” and adopting an abstentionist, “anti-war” policy that strengthens Russian aggression.
The TF says:
“Finally, in a war situation such as that in Ukraine, the IWL reproduces a similar logic. By not considering NATO’s role in its concrete policy, the IWL characterizes the war solely from the point of view of “resistance against invasion” and, once again, underestimates the role of imperialism. We are obviously against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that does not mean we support imperialism. Imperialism has unified behind the pro-Western government of Zelensky. Even Trump has continued to arm Ukraine, forcing Kiev to hand over its mineral resources and forcing European countries to increase their military budgets for NATO. The IWL has supported Zelensky’s camp militarily and has even demanded weapons from imperialist countries. It should be noted that this has been happening since the beginning of the conflict” [25].
What is the concrete reality of this war? In February 2022, Russian imperialism—the world’s second nuclear power—invaded Ukraine, a semi-colonial country with less than a third of Russia’s population. Putin thought it would be an easy war, expecting to take Kiev and impose a puppet government in less than three months.
However, Ukraine has resisted for more than three years, fighting a war of national liberation in the heart of Europe. The invasion of a semi-colonial country by an imperialist country is the central element in characterizing this reality. Additionally, Ukraine has a bourgeois government under Zelensky that defends European and U.S. imperialism and attacks the Ukrainian proletariat by limiting its defensive capacity. European imperialism supports Ukraine while maintaining its goal of semi-colonizing the country. However, it severely limits the shipment of weapons.
Increases in the arms budgets of imperialist countries are related to their own counterrevolutionary objectives, not support for Ukraine, which only receives crumbs.
Under the Biden administration, U.S. imperialism had a similar position to Europe’s, but the current Trump administration has changed this policy. It now supports Putin in order to force Ukraine’s defeat while limiting military support to Ukraine.
What is the IWL’s position? It is the traditional Marxist position on this type of national liberation war. We support the Ukrainian people’s struggle, while maintaining our total independence from the Zelensky government.
Let us consider Trotsky’s thoughts on the Sino-Japanese War:
“I would like to focus on this letter and discuss only the Sino-Japanese War. In my statement to the bourgeois press, I affirmed that the duty of all workers’ organizations in China was to actively participate on the front lines in the current war against Japan without abandoning their own program or independent activity for a single moment. But the Eiffelists shout, ‘That’s social patriotism!’ It is capitulation to Chiang Kai-shek! It is the abandonment of the principle of class struggle!” Bolshevism preached revolutionary defeatism in imperialist wars. The war in Spain and the Sino-Japanese war are both imperialist wars. Our position on the war in China is the same. The only salvation for the Chinese workers and peasants is to fight independently against both armies—against both the Chinese and the Japanese armies. These four lines, taken from an Eiffelist document dated September 10, 1937, make it clear that we are dealing with either real traitors or complete imbeciles. But imbecility raised to this degree is tantamount to treason.”
“We have never placed all wars on the same level. Marx and Engels supported the revolutionary struggles of the Irish against Great Britain and the Poles against the Tsar. In these two nationalist wars, the leaders were mostly bourgeoisie and, at times, feudal aristocrats—in other words, Catholic reactionaries. When Abdel-Krim rose up against France, democrats and social democrats spoke with hatred of the struggle of a “savage tyrant” against “democracy.” Léon Blum’s party supported this point of view. However, we Marxists and Bolsheviks considered the Rifians’ struggle against imperialist domination to be progressive. Lenin wrote hundreds of pages demonstrating the necessity of distinguishing between imperialist nations and colonial and semi-colonial nations, which constitute the vast majority of humanity. Speaking of “revolutionary defeatism” in general without distinguishing between exploiting and exploited countries is to create a miserable caricature of Bolshevism and put it at the service of the imperialists.”
“In the Far East, we have a classic example of this. China is a semi-colonial country that Japan is transforming into a colonial country before our very eyes. Japan’s struggle is imperialist and reactionary. China’s struggle, on the other hand, is emancipatory and progressive.”
“But what about Chiang Kai-shek? We must not have any illusions about him, his party, or the entire Chinese ruling class, just as Marx and Engels had no illusions about the ruling classes of Ireland and Poland. Chiang Kai-shek is the executioner of Chinese workers and peasants. Today, however, he is forced, against his will, to fight Japan for what remains of China’s independence. Tomorrow, he may betray them again. It is possible. It is probable. In fact, it is inevitable. But today, he is fighting. Only cowards, scoundrels, or complete imbeciles would refuse to participate in this struggle.”But what about Chiang Kai-shek? We must not have any illusions about him, his party, or the entire Chinese ruling class, just as Marx and Engels had no illusions about the ruling classes of Ireland and Poland. Chiang Kai-shek is the executioner of Chinese workers and peasants. Today, however, he is forced, against his will, to fight Japan for what remains of China’s independence. Tomorrow, he may betray them again. It is possible. It is probable. In fact, it is inevitable. But today, he is fighting. Only cowards, scoundrels, or complete imbeciles would refuse to participate in this struggle.”
“Let’s use a strike as an example to clarify the issue. We do not support all strikes. For example, if a strike aims to exclude Black, Chinese, or Japanese workers from a factory, we oppose it. However, if a strike aims to improve the workers’ conditions as much as possible, we are the first to participate, regardless of the leadership. In most strikes, the leaders are reformists, professional traitors, and agents of capital. They oppose all strikes. However, from time to time, the pressure of the masses or the objective situation forces them to follow the path of struggle.”
“Imagine a worker who says to himself: ‘I don’t want to participate in the strike because the leaders are agents of capital.’ This ultra-leftist imbecile’s doctrine would brand him as a strike-breaker. From this point of view, the case of the Sino-Japanese War is entirely analogous. If Japan is an imperialist country and China is a victim of imperialism, then we support China. Japanese patriotism is a mask for global theft. Chinese patriotism, on the other hand, is legitimate and progressive. Only those who have not read Lenin, do not understand the Bolsheviks’ attitude toward imperialist war, and compromise and prostitutes Marxist teachings can put the two on the same level and speak of ‘social patriotism. (from On the Sino-Japanese War, September 1937).
We can also cite Trotsky’s position on the war between Italy and Ethiopia:
“Maxton and the others believe that the Italo-Ethiopian War is ‘a conflict between two rival dictators.’ For these politicians, this fact seems to exempt the proletariat from the duty of choosing between the two dictators. Thus, they define the character of the war by the political form of the state. In doing so, they consider this political form in a rather superficial and purely descriptive manner. They fail to take into account the social foundations of both ‘dictatorships.’ A dictator can play a progressive role in history. For example, consider Oliver Cromwell and Robespierre. Conversely, Lloyd George exercised a highly reactionary dictatorship during the war amid English democracy. If a dictator were to lead the next revolt of the Indian people against the British, would Maxton refuse to support that dictator? Yes or no? If not, why does he refuse to support the Ethiopian “dictator” trying to free his country from Italian rule?”
“A victory for Mussolini would mean the reinforcement of fascism and imperialism and would discourage the colonial peoples of Africa and elsewhere. However, the Negus’s victory would be a powerful blow not only against Italian imperialism, but also against imperialism as a whole. It would bolster the rebel forces of the oppressed peoples. One would have to be blind not to see this.” (On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo, 1936).
The TF argues that American and European imperialist intervention makes this a “proxy war,” or an armed conflict in which two powers use third parties as intermediaries to avoid direct confrontation.
This is clearly an erroneous characterization. It ignores the central fact of the war: the Russian invasion of Ukraine. No “power” has supported Putin. Russian imperialism decided to invade Ukraine. No imperialist power instigated the Ukrainian people to resist the invasion. Despite all the maneuvers of Zelensky’s bourgeois government, the Ukrainian masses are heroically fighting against the Russian invasion. Ignoring this fact is an example of the blindness Trotsky mentioned.
TF’s second central argument is that the struggle is not being led by the proletariat and a revolutionary leadership but by Zelensky’s bourgeois government. To understand the seriousness of this error, recall Trotsky’s example of a worker’s attitude toward a strike led by bureaucratic union leaders.
We will quote from Victor Alay’s article on the subject:
“Here we encounter a classic argument of the TF comrades. According to them, one cannot support a movement or take its side militarily in the event of armed conflict unless there is an ‘independent political force,’ revolutionary or clearly class-based, in the leadership or playing a relevant role in a popular movement. This was the case in Ukraine. The same was true of the powerful democratic movement against Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship in Syria. There, the TF maintained an abstentionist stance, refusing to support the popular rebellion during the large-scale mobilizations against the regime and throughout the initial period of the civil war. This occurred before the popular movement was crushed by military factions financed and directed by the region’s reactionary regimes.”
“Revolutionaries must therefore unconditionally support Ukraine’s military and fight for the oppressed and invaded nation’s military victory, without implying any political support for Zelensky or NATO. In fact, we must denounce their plans and maneuvers and advocate for the Ukrainian proletariat to organize independently against Zelensky, NATO, the EU, and the IMF.”
“We must unequivocally oppose and denounce NATO and imperialist rearmament, as well as all military budgets of Biden, Macron, Sánchez, etc. We must also openly denounce Zelensky as Biden and the EU’s man in Ukraine. However, this political confrontation with Zelensky must be carried out while remaining ‘the best soldiers against Putin.’ Similarly, we could denounce the Republican government in Madrid, which dismantled the revolutionary gains at the start of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), while being ‘the best soldiers against Franco.’ “
“Neither NATO nor Zelensky can afford to be unmasked outside the Ukrainian trenches, nor can they afford to take a “neither one thing nor the other” stance in “no man’s land” or in the crossfire. What message does the TF send to Ukrainian workers, many of whom are on the front lines? That they should not support either military side because both are reactionary, and that they can only support the Ukrainian side when there is an anti-imperialist and socialist government?”
“The TF denounces the war in Ukraine as reactionary and advocates a peace movement. This is akin to saying that we are in a war between imperialist powers for the division of the world, rather than a just war of national liberation.!
“However, the TF has gone too far in this direction by being belligerent against the delivery of weapons to Ukraine by imperialist powers. In places like Spain and Germany, the TF has carried out agitation campaigns defending “not a single tank for Ukraine” (from “The Trotskyist Faction, contrasting Gaza and Ukraine”).
The vast majority of Stalinist organizations around the world are campaigning internationally in support of Putin in the war in Ukraine, arguing that he is a progressive leader fighting a NATO-backed government. There is also a whole sector of Stalinists who defend a policy similar to that of the TF: “against the war,” against both sides.
Therefore, the TF’s policy on Ukraine has an abstentionist content that plays into the hands of the strongest sector: Russian imperialism, which is now also supported by Trump.
Regarding the controversy surrounding Cristina Kirchner
The controversy surrounding both the fall of Dilma Rousseff’s government and Cristina Kirchner’s arrest express the need for class independence in the face of polarization between two bourgeois blocs: one project of class collaboration and another of the far right. This polarization is present in one form or another in several countries in Latin America and around the world.
We will not discuss the issue of Dilma Rousseff here, leaving it for another article by our comrades in the PSTU.
Now, let’s see what the TF says about Cristina Kirchner:
“They fail to learn any lessons from this process and are repeating the same mistake in Argentina today. They are not only failing to oppose Kirchner’s imprisonment but are also openly defending it, taking the same political position as the extreme right of Milei, Macri, and Trump.”
Once again, faced with polarization between two bourgeois blocs, the TF aligns with one of them. A parliamentary delegation from the TF even visited Kirchner’s home to show solidarity.
On this issue, we reproduce a joint statement by several left-wing organizations, including the Argentine PSTU:
“Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) will be imprisoned starting this Wednesday. This event has polarized the entire country, impacted the electoral process, and forced all political and trade union organizations to take a position.”
“The best-known left-wing parties—those that are part of the FITU, the Nuevo MAS, and Política Obrera—and their leaders, including Bregman, Del Caño, Belliboni, Solano, Altamira, and Castañeira, have sided with Cristina. Together with the Peronist apparatus, they are denouncing an ‘undemocratic persecution.’ “
“We consider this position to be a serious mistake because it is opportunistic and guided by electoral calculations. It also represents a call to Cristina. We respect the feelings of many workers who regret their leader’s situation, but we do not share them. We are compelled to tell the truth: Cristina is reaping what she sowed.”
“The political right and most of the media are celebrating what they present as ‘a victory against corruption.’ This is pure hypocrisy. The justice system is one of the most corrupt parts of the political regime sold to us as “democracy.” The Court is its highest expression. None of them were concerned about the business dealings of Menem, Macri, or Milei, which were similar to those of the Kirchners. We reject this judicial system and all the institutions of ‘democracy,’ which perpetuate exploitation and submission to the International Monetary Fund and foreign and domestic capital. We have nothing to do with that, and we reject their rulings. In this case, the ruling was guided by electoral calculations. However, this does not lead us to defend Cristina.”
“The Peronist apparatus is denouncing “persecution” and an “attack on democracy.” Neither is true. CFK will not be imprisoned for confronting the powerful; rather, she will be imprisoned as a victim of her own actions. Union leaders, who are incapable of defending the working class and were complicit in Milei’s brutal austerity measures, are now threatening mobilizations. Like other governments, Peronist governments persecuted activists.”
“In reality, this is a dispute between employer sectors over power and money. There is no ‘progressive’ sector involved in this issue. It is another step in the ‘division’ that prevents the working class and the poor from breaking with all employer factions and advancing in their struggle for a new political direction and way out that opposes them all. This is why defending Peronism and its “leader” is doubly wrong for the left that calls itself revolutionary. At a time when millions of workers are tired of Peronism, we need to distance ourselves from all of them more than ever and present a completely independent alternative that is opposed to all the bosses’ variants in the face of every fact of reality.”
An initial conclusion:
We are not offering this response merely as a polemical dispute or as a defense of the IWL against an unjustified attack by the TF. We believe that a real debate between revolutionaries can be fruitful, but it presupposes a deep understanding of the criticisms. Contrary to Moreno’s “stageist error,” we sincerely believe that it is the TF that is profoundly mistaken on important points, as explained here:
a) Subjectivism is a flawed methodology for interpreting reality, just as objectivism is.
(b) the necessity of a concrete analysis of the specific circumstances of permanent revolutionary processes involving democratic tasks;
(c) the necessity of having different programs for the periods before and after the overthrow of dictatorships, as outlined in the general program of transition
(d) the grave error regarding Palestine in rejecting the slogan “Free Palestine, from the river to the sea,” which is part of a program of transition to socialist revolution.
(e) No less serious are the errors in rejecting the October 7 action of the Palestinian resistance and attacking the taking of hostages and the death of civilians. Additionally, it idealizes the Israeli working class while ignoring the material basis of Zionism.
(f) Its position of neutrality toward the war in Ukraine leads it to capitulate to the stronger party, Russian imperialism.
(g) errors regarding bourgeois democracy, as seen in its defense of Cristina Kirchner and the Dilma government.
Lastly, the TF never engages in self-criticism. In this sense, it also clashes with the methodologies of Lenin and Moreno.
The TF has never criticized itself for its delay in recognizing the restoration of capitalism in China. To this day, the TF has not concluded that China is imperialist. The TF still fails to acknowledge the restoration of capitalism in Cuba. This failure led the TF to refuse to defend workers repressed by the Castro bourgeois dictatorship on January 11, 2021. When will the TF engage in self-criticism for harshly criticizing Hamas for taking hostages on October 7, 2023?
In other words, even in the realm of self-criticism, Leninism is far removed from this current.
We are willing to debate these and other key issues of the Trotskyist program and politics through articles and in any defined discussion forum. We believe that open and public debate conducted with sound arguments, rather than amalgams and caricatures, can help activists form positions on these issues.
