Manos Skoufoglou (OKDE-Spartakos): "The Intervention of the FI in Greece"

This article is a slightly updated version of an introduction made in the context of the Conference for the 75th anniversary of the Fourth International. The Conference was held in Mannheim in November 2013.

1. A few Historical Remarks

In Greece, the Fourth International has a long history. There has always been a section of the FI in Greece since its foundation in 1938.

In 1928, the “Spartakos Group” (publishing a journal bearing the same name) was founded as a left opposition within the Greek Communist Party (KKE). The leader of the Group was Pantelis Pouliopoulos the first Secretary of the KKE. The journal “Spartakos” published translations of the documents of the International Left Opposition in Greek and also genuine analyses of Greek capitalism. In 1934, militants largely originating from the “Spartakos Group” along with a group split from the Archeiomarxists (led by Michel Raptis – Pablo) founded the Organization of Communist Internationalists of Greece - OKDE.

In 1938, OKDE was represented in the founding Congress of the FI, by Michel Raptis (Pablo). Just after the creation of the FI, OKDE became the Greek section. After WW2, following a Unification Conference in 1946 with other Trotskyist forces, the Communist Internationalist Party of Greece (KDKE) was founded and continued to be the Greek section of the FI till 1974. After the fall of the military dictatorship, in 1974, , KDKE turned again into OKDE, and finally, in 1986, following a split with forces that gradually moved away from the FI, our organization took its present name: OKDE-Spartakos (Greek section of the FI).
2014 will mark 80 years of continuous presence of the Greek section of the FI in Greece.

When the “Spartakos Group” was created in 1928, it included a number of the most important cadres of KKE, including, not only its first General Secretary, Pantelis Pouliopoulos, but also the first Secretary of the Communist Youth and  the first Director or the KKE newspaper. Pouliopoulos, in particular, was a very important intellectual and a leading member of the communist soldiers' groups opposing the war against Turkey in 1922.

In 1936, the Metaxas dictatorship was imposed on the Greek people followed by 9 months of war and then the Nazi occupation of the country till 1944. Due to the persecutions of the dictatorship of Metaxas (1936-1940) and later both by the Nazis and the Stalinists, the Greek section of the FI was nearly physically exterminated.

Pouliopoulos himself was executed by a firing squad of Italian fascists in 1943, and this happened to other comrades. It is still a matter for historical investigation to identify the exact number of FI comrades that were executed or murdered by Greek fascists, Nazis and Stalinists in the period 1936-1945.
The remaining comrades, having an analysis for an imperialist war, went on fighting both German and English imperialism, as well as the Greek bourgeoisie, under very difficult circumstances.

The majority of the leadership of the Greek section, however, committed a major mistake, underestimating the importance of the demand for national liberation during the German occupation, and took a sectarian position against EAM (National Liberation Front – the resistance front). EAM was lead by KKE and its leadership followed a treacherous Peoples Front strategy of collaboration with the national bourgeoisie that resulted, in the end, in the defeat of KKE. But still, the movement it led was a genuine popular uprising with a revolutionary dynamic.

Unfortunately, it was only the minority of the leadership of the FI section those days that took a non-sectarian approach to the EAM masses in accordance with the line of the European Secretariat of the FI. The choice of the majority of the leadership of the Greek section  marginalized politically the Greek section for a decade.

In the 1960's, under the leadership of those who were a minority in the late 40’s, KDKE was the biggest group to the left of KKE. Severe persecution during the military dictatorship (1967-74) had a negative impact on its dynamic. Many of our comrades were imprisoned or exiled. Despite this, our militants played a key role in the historical revolt of the Polytechnic School in 1973, especially in organizing the Workers' Assembly, and in 1974 (after the collapse of the military junta) our newspaper was the first one to be sold in the streets, long before the KKE newspaper appeared.

2. Our Politics Today

Let's now proceed to our activity nowadays. OKDE-Spartakos, is a small organisation of around 100 members, located within a constellation of far left groups of a multiplicity of origins, as one can imagine.

Despite our small size, we are active in several sectors of the mass movement:

- in the trade unions, mostly through our participation in “Paremvaseis” (Interventions), the radical platform of the far left (ANTARSYA and others). In some sectors the “Paremvaseis” Platform has a very important influence: e.g. it leads many local unions of primary and secondary school teachers, (having played a key role in the recent secondary teachers strikes), it is the majority in many local Municipal workers' unions etc. It also has a considerable presence in some union federations, especially in the public sector. In the new Executive Committee elected at the most recent Congress of ADEDY (the National Confederation of Public Sector Employees), in November 2013, the “Paremvaseis” Platform has as many members as the KKE!

- in the university students' movement, we are active in EAAK, the far left coallition of students with around 1000 members. EAAK has been leading every student mobilization since 1991. In the Students Unions elections, EAAK scores around 12% - 14% nationally, more than double compared to SYRIZA's students platform.

- the antifascist movement is maybe the most successful sector of our work. This task has been underestimated for many years by the majority of the left, including the far left (and most of the organisations of ANTARSYA). OKDE-Spartakos has been working for a long time in local neighborhood antifascist assemblies, often along with anarchists, as well as in any attempt to coordinate all these initiatives. We have been supporting the proposal for a united front of all left and anarchist organisations in action against fascism, as well as the need to organise the social movement’s self-defence. We have played an important role in the campaign which managed to cancel the international Nazi camp in Greece this summer. Our practical work is complemented by the publication of books and pamphlets analyzing fascism from a Marxist point of view.

As you know, there is a real fascist danger in Greece nowadays, with the rise of the Golden Dawn Neonazi Party. They have elected 18 deputies in the Parliament, polling more than 10%. The most important thing, they have organised local groups based on destroyed petit-bourgeois strata, on shop-owners hit by the crisis, on mafia capitalist circles and on unemployed youth sectors. They have started by attacking immigrants and later they moved further by attacking workers' organizations, leftists and anarchists. The recent murder of the antifascist hip-hop singer Pavlos Fyssas (Killah P) in September 18 2013 triggered big antifascist protests and a demostration against the Nazi headquarters. It is worth mentioning, that in the maximum height this movement, and I mean the 30,000 people demo marching on the Golden Dawn HQ in September 25 2013, ANTARSYA, despite all its previous contradictions, was the largest and the most significant actor, in contrast to  SYRIZA whose contingent of a few hundred people preferred to attend a concert in Syndagma Square.

- our section is one of the few organisations with a presence in the feminist movement, which is rather underdeveloped in Greece.

- some of our young comrades are active in the network for the democratic rights of soldiers (in Greece there is still a conscription army)

- some comrades are active in local urban movements, mostly in some districts of Athens

- last year, we have founded an Institute in Athens, where seminars and discussions are held every weekend

3. Our work with Antarsya and FI supporters 

Since its foundation in 2009, we participate in ANTARSYA, an anticapitalist coallition founded on the basis of political and organisational independence from reformism.

There has always been a whole range of organizations and militants to the left of the 2 reformist parties, the KKE (a stalinist party that currently follows a third-period, bureaucratic and ultra-pessimist line) and the Synaspismos Party (post euro-communist party, following a modern, left social-democratic line). Some of them decided to join the Synaspismos party into SYRIZA. Most of the others, having cooperated for a long time within EAAK and “Paremvaseis”, allied in ANTARSYA.

ANTARSYA has 3000 members, mostly young people. It has failed to score more than 2% in regional elections and 1.2% in national elections, under the electoral pressure of the reformism of SYRIZA. It's real dynamic is bigger, though. ANTARSYA is visible on a national scale, it has led a considerable number of struggles and it has a remarkable presence in several unions. Its program is still quite vague and ambiguous, with several stalinist influences (that's why we would not consider dissolving the section in this front),, however it is clearly governed by revolutionary ideas and it consciously calls for a radical rupture with Capital, the bourgeois state institutions, the EU and all imperialist alliances.

Apart from the section, in Greece there are also some other groups who affiliate in one way or another, with  the FI.

Kokkino is a small group originating mostly from the IST. They have permanent observer status in the FI. They participate in SYRIZA, supporting its Left Platform. Kokkino, in the process of the last SYRIZA Conference suffered a triple split losing half of its membership, which  supported the majority Tsipras Platform. The Left Platform in SYRIZA is led by the bureaucracy of the Left Current of the former Synaspismos and supported also by DEA.

DEA is a somewhat bigger organization, also a split from the IST (in fact Kokkino is a split of DEA). They don't have any formal status in the FI, but they have been invited to take part in the FI meetings as a guest since last year.

Our relations with Kokkino are good. We have cooperated in the antifascist movement and in organizing two FI youth camps in Greece, but actually our organizational links are loose. The reason is that both Kokkino and DEA (DEA even more) are too much devoted to the work within SYRIZA and its platforms in the Unions. Despite critisizing the leadership of SYRIZA, they finally subordinate themselves to it. Let me give just one example: DEA refused to join the big demonstration against the Golden Dawn national headquarters in October, just because the SYRIZA leadership refused, in the name of “responsibility” and for the stability of the country.
OKDE-Workers Strike, our old split in the 80's, adheres to to the Mandelist tradition, but does not have any real link to the FI any more. We somewhat cooperate in publishing books or documents of our historical current.

4. Our political Tasks

You certainly know some things about the present situation in Greece, so I won't waste your time with data you can find in journals. The economic and political crisis in Greece is not at all resolved. We have now an extremely authoritarian and conservative government, by New Democracy and PASOK.

What I would like to underline is that the situation is deeply contradictory.
On the one hand, we are suffering continuous attacks by Capital and its personnel that suppress the living conditions, as well as the self-confidence of working people – on the other hand, they do so only at the cost of the loss of their hegemony.

On the one hand, we have suffered continuous defeats, as the mass movement has hardly managed to prevent any austerity measures – on the other hand, new strata of the oppressed have gathered valuable experience for the future struggles, that will certainly come, as the system cannot re-stabilize.

On the one hand, fascism threatens to divide and individualize the oppressed, terrorize and destroy their organisations – on the other hand, the fight against fascism may very well turn into a fight against capitalism itself.

What are the reasons why we think we need an independent anticapitalist left in Greece, outside the CP and SYRIZA?

First of all, we have to make clear that both those parties are incapable of offering a solution in favor of the workers' interests. SYRIZA has inspired hopes, when it came second in the national election of May and then June 2012. It has been always dominated by the reformist party of Synaspismos, however it has undergone a further social-democratic mutation as it got closer to government. Its program nowadays is something really close to Die Linke, and is actually far inferior compared to the PASOK program when it first won the elections in 1981. It is incorporating a whole range of former PASOK bureaucrats. It does not meet the criterion of independence from the bourgeois institutions, set by our International. Neither does it meet the criterion of internal democracy, as, by its last conference decision, it forced all organisations within it to dissolve.

Our analysis is that SYRIZA is clearly using the mass movement to support its march to power, instead of using its perspective to gain power to support the mass movement.


It is indicative the fact that they have betrayed the secondary school teachers strike twice in a few months: once in the spring, when their elected unionists in the federation cancelled a general strike voted for by the general assemblies because it was forbidden by the government and once more in September 2013, when they voted to end a new general strike 7 days after it started. They refuse to take part in the demonstrations against the Nazis’ headquarters, but at the same time they call all “constitutional” parties, including the governing New Democracy rightwing party which nurtured the nazis for all these years, to discuss about how to fight fascism all together. They are cooperating with the far right anti-memorandum party of the Independent Greeks. All this is quite obvious now. And the Kokkino comrades agree.

[On 8 January 2014 SYRIZA gave a new proof of their political orientation. It was the day of the inauguration of the Greek presidency of the EU. The government and the police prohibited any demonstration on this day, which was something quite unprecedented. ANTARSYA called for a joint demonstration of all the left against the EU, the government and the authoritarian prohibition. SYRIZA denounced the prohibition, but just did nothing (and so did also the Left Platform, as well as the Communist Party). A demonstration of more than 1,000 people, most of them ANTARSYA members, actually happened, despite the prohibition, the police attacks and the boycott by the reformist left.]

But still, the question can be asked, why not be an oppositional current within one of those parties, SYRIZA or the KKE? The reasons should be searched for in the concrete conditions of the class struggle in Greece.

a. Greece is one of the countries most badly hit by the crisis in the word. There doesn't seem to be any way out, despite all the austerity measures and the collapse of every single welfare institution and public service. There are more austerity measures to come. 70% of the employees in the biggest universities are being fired, that's why we are now in the 11th week of a university strike.  This is just the most recent example. In the face of the devastating effects of the crisis, we need to be more, rather than less, militant and aggressive, given also the high level of the struggles. There is no way out of the crisis in favor of our interests and needs within the framework of the capitalist rules and the bourgeois institutions. We need to attack, not to defend - this is our basic approach of the period.

b. There is not a stable, historical link of the masses with the reformist leaderships any more. The support for SYRIZA is something unstable, not enthusiastic, a “lesser evil” tactic in the eyes of most of its supporters. Social consciousness is liquid and abrupt leaps are to be expected-this is the second pillar of our approach

c. The idea of an independent anticapitalist and revolutionary left in Greece is not something fictitious. There is a really existing space of such militants, who have worked together in various collectives and unions for many years. This space would be autonomously expressed anyway - if we had joined SYRIZA, somebody else would have regrouped them.

d. Based on the former remarks, we think that the problem in Greece is not a supposed re-stabilization of capitalism or a lack of combativeness of the masses, but a conscious subject that can organize the vanguard and offer a concrete revolutionary perspective. We have to work on this subjective factor, build it right now, and not count on objective factors and on estimations about the possible trajectories of reformism. If we are not independent, we can affect neither reformism nor the class struggle itself.

ANTARSYA is still in a contradictory process. It is facing strategic dilemmas. It is an important tool, though. ANTARSYA has supported the secondary teachers up to the end. It plays a key role in the strikes in the universities now, as will do soon in the hospitals, were we have a lot of comrades. But the  most important factor is this: ANTARSYA is not limiting its combativeness due to the restrictions posed by the parliamentary politics.

As a conclusion few words about what to do:

- We need a united front in action against capitalist attacks and fascism, in order to coordinate all social struggles, as each one separately, no matter how heroic, can't win (ANTARSYA is proposing such a front)

- We need a united and independent anticapitalist and revolutionary left, able to propose a modern transitional program to overthrow capitalism

- We need to maintain our distinct organization, the FI section, within such a front, as strategic questions, far from becoming obsolete, they are getting even more relevant today

- We have to explain that no “left” government can offer a solution to workers and the oppressed. No former eurocommunist or social-democratic bureaucracy, not any renegotiation within the framework of the EU and the bourgeois institutions, no “national development plan” without the memorandum, but with the right of individual property intact.

If ANTARSYA had elected Deputies in the Parliament, we would consider a conditional vote for a left (SYRIZA) government. We wouldn't take part in it though. We would insist on saying that the only way out is massive struggles, self-organization and a revolutionary strategy.

Since we don't have any deputies, we cannot just withdraw from the election, given that SYRIZA does not at all propose or accept a program similar to ours. ANTARSYA met SYRIZA after the May 2012 election, proposing some key demands which we consider indispensable, such as: break with the EU and the euro, cancel the debt, nationalize the strategic sectors of the economy without any compensation, worker's control etc. Obviously, they were rejected. Nevertheless, we still believe that it is absolutely crucial that somebody puts forward such an anticapitalist transitional program. We cannot sacrifice it in the name of an abstract “unity of the left”, which practically means tailing behind reformism.

We use the slogan for a workers government, but we have also to keep in mind what the Transitional Program says:
a. The eventuality of a real workers government (i.e. a government genuinely in favor of workers' interests) within a bourgeois state is extremely improbable, even though not impossible
b. In any case, we need an independent organization of revolutionary Communists in order to have any influence in the developments that such a government would provoke (so, not fuse in the governing party).

Contrary to a stageist approach, which claims that a “simple class” (i.e. reformist) consciousness is a necessary stage we have to go through before being able to speak about a revolution, our task today is to construct both class and revolutionary consciousness simultaneously. Revolution may seem impossible to the majority of the working class, but it is reform what is objectively impossible.

DECLARATION DE CONSTITUTION DU CURRANT “ANTICAPITALISME ET REVOLUTION” – NPA

(Déclaration adoptée à la réunion nationale de constitution du courant le 1er décembre)

1. Une situation contradictoire : offensive des bourgeoisies, luttes de masse à l’échelle internationale, résurgence du réformisme et de l’extrême droite

Face à une crise mondiale qui se poursuit sans perspective de solution, et à des bourgeoisies qui tentent partout d’en faire supporter le poids aux classes populaires, les travailleurs et les peoples ne restent pas sans réagir. Le processus révolutionnaire en Afrique du nord et au Moyen-Orient se poursuit, et s’étend à de nouveaux Etats. De très grandes luttes touchent un nombre de pays croissant, sur tous les continents (de la Turquie au Brésil, de la Bulgarie au Bangladesh…). Le socialisme n’est toujours pas redevenu une idée crédible pour la grande majorité de ceux qui luttent, ce qui pèse sur les différents mouvements, mais n’empêche pas que la situation donne pour les anticapitalistes révolutionnaires une nouvelle actualité aux questions stratégiques, à la question du pouvoir des travailleurs et de la révolution. On assiste à l’expression multiforme d’une révolte qui est mondiale.

En même temps force est de constater que les pays centraux de l’Union européenne (Allemagne, France, Italie, Royaume-Uni) échappent pour l’instant à cette dynamique internationale. On y assiste même à une dégradation assez générale et qui tend à s’accélérer au niveau des organisations qui se réclament du mouvement ouvrier, du rapport de forces entre les classes comme du niveau de conscience au sein même du monde du travail. Pour l’instant les classes dominantes parviennent à imposer des reculs considérables pour la classe ouvrière en Europe. Cette situation des luttes et des rapports de classes peut changer rapidement comme elle peut s’installer durablement. La possibilité pour le NPA de faire face à la crise qu’il connait, comme la construction d’un courant en son sein qui y contribue efficacement, dépendent pour une bonne part de notre capacité à faire face aux aspects contradictoires de la situation et à y apporter une réponse politique plus approfondie et plus homogène que par le passé.

Dans ce contexte deux phénomènes politiques, en partie nouveaux, sont apparus ces dernières années en Europe. Le premier est la montée de l’extrême droite (dans différentes variantes, depuis des partis nationalistes populistes jusqu’à des formations ouvertement fascistes) qui s’explique par la crise économique, l’ampleur des attaques de la classe dominante et les nouveaux reculs dans le rapport de forces. Le second, la réapparition ou le renforcement de partis et coalitions réformistes antilibéraux, clairement différents du social-libéralisme même si, de par leur politique institutionnelle, leurs liens avec les directions syndicales ainsi qu’avec l’Etat, ils collaborent à divers niveaux avec les partis socialistes.

En France, l’installation du Front national dans le paysage politique, comme son influence dans les milieux populaires, sont en train de franchir un nouveau cap. Par son passé qui se reflète encore dans la composition de son appareil dirigeant, comme par les liens qu’il continue à entretenir avec divers groupuscules, le FN reste potentiellement une organisation à partir de circonstances un parti de type fasciste. Mais pour l’instant, le principal danger réside dans sa capacité à exploiter le désarroi qui existe profondément dans les classes populaires face à l’absence de perspective collective d’émancipation, bien plus que dans sa capacité à enrôler une petite bourgeoisie prête à en découdre avec les organisations du movement ouvrier, ou à exprimer les intérêts d’une classe capitaliste qui a pour l’instant bien d’autres cartes en main pour maintenir la paix sociale. Reconstruire une perspective d’émancipation, changer les rapports de force entre les classes sociales, permettre tout simplement au monde du travail de renouer avec des victoires même partielles sur le terrain de la lutte de classe sont des objectifs essentiels à cette étape. Dénoncer le «fascisme» ou prétendre interdire l’apparition d’un parti qui ne serait pas « comme les autres » ne permet pas aujourd’hui de combattre la montée de l’extrême droite. Par contre il faut chercher à construire à chaque fois que c'est possible une riposte militante et unitaire contre l'extrême droite.

Face à de possibles succès électoraux, c’est d’abord le caractère bourgeois, anti-ouvrier et raciste de ce parti, aspirant à bien s’installer dans les institutions et facilement corruptible, comme il l’a montré dans un passé récent, que nous devons dénoncer en priorité.

La résurgence du réformisme a pris la forme du Front de gauche, lancé au moment même où le NPA était fondé. Très vite, dans une situation qui nous était plus défavorable, nous en avons subi la pression et cela a conduit notre parti à subir plusieurs scissions, la dernière en date ayant impliqué un secteur central de son ancienne direction.

2. L’évolution de l’orientation majoritaire justifie la formation d’un courant

La rupture avec la GA, la campagne Poutou ont maintenu une separation organisationnelle avec les réformistes. Cela n’a pourtant pas permis de clarifier l’orientation du NPA.

Même si différentes orientations cohabitent au sein de la nouvelle majorité constituée après les présidentielles de 2012, celle-ci a repris à son compte, à travers le mot d’ordre de « gouvernement anti-austérité », la politique du « front social et politique », conçu pour l’essentiel comme une démarche permanente d’interpellation, discussion et recherche d’accords politiques avec le Front de gauche. Ainsi, aux difficultés réelles de la situation objective s’ajoute une crise d’orientation persistante.

Le but politique de notre parti, la revolution socialiste, implique une politique de front unique adaptée. Le front unique revêt une double dimension. La première est la dimension stratégique : c’est l’unité de millions de travailleurs qui permettra de s’opposer à la bourgeoisie. Nous proposons l’unité d’action à toutes les forces du mouvement ouvrier, de la base au sommet, pour agir sur des échéances ou des questions précises quel que soit leur positionnement par rapport au gouvernement.

Le critère déterminant pour l’unité est qu’elle permette la mise en action de notre camp social dans l’optique de gagner sur des revendications immédiates, de permettre de reprendre confiance dans nos propres forces, de favoriser l’auto-organisation et la possibilité de dépasser les organisations existantes et les appareils syndicaux. Pour autant, nous ne nous alignons pas sur leurs positions : nous menons les batailles nécessaires sur les mots d’ordre et la stratégie militante, y compris en organisant les participants contre la politique de ces directions.

De plus, il faut parfois savoir agir seuls, prendre des initiatives lorsque l’action avec les réformistes est impossible. A tous les niveaux, nous favorisons toutes les formes d’auto-organisation, des comités de grève et de lutte, des coordinations, dans la perspective de prendre le contrôle de toute la société, ce qui suppose pour les exploités et les opprimés de commencer par contrôler leurs propres luttes.

Nous ne partageons pas l’orientation des « gouvernements contre l’austérité » et de la priorité au débat public avec « toutes les forces qui ne participent pas au gouvernement ». Pour autant, c’est l’objectif d’un parti de poser la question du pouvoir. Mais on ne peut pas réduire la question du pouvoir à une réponse en termes de gouvernement.

Le « gouvernement des travailleurs » dont nous défendons la nécessité, un gouvernement dont l’objectif est de remettre en cause le droit des capitalistes à diriger la société, ne pourra pas résulter de combinaisons parlementaires dans le cadre des institutions bourgeoises. Il ne pourra surgir que d’un grand mouvement de mobilisation et d’auto-organisation des travailleurs et de la jeunesse (grèves de masse, grèves générales, manifestations, occupations, réquisitions...), d’un double pouvoir, d’un « nouveau Mai 68 qui aille jusqu’au bout ». Nous mettons donc en avant le mot d’ordre de gouvernement des travailleurs/euses comme mot d’ordre transitoire en partant des luttes pour aller vers le renversement du capitalisme. Il s’agit de répondre à la question « que feriez-vous à la place de Hollande ? » ou encore d’expliquer en quoi notre démarche est différente de celle des partis du FdG. Notre réponse s’articulerait donc autour de deux points : les mesures transitoires que prendrait un tel gouvernement (interdiction des licenciements, réquisition des entreprises qui ferment ou licencient, réquisition des banques, etc.) et la base à partir de laquelle pourrait émerger un tel gouvernement : la nécessaire auto-activité des masses travailleuses. »

Mais défendre cette perspective de façon effective, pratique, implique aussi de mettre notre implantation et notre intervention en rapport avec elle et, au-delà, avec notre objectif stratégique de la prise du pouvoir par les travailleurs. Or la majorité du congrès ne s’est pas donné les moyens d’une réelle priorité d’intervention et de construction, notamment celle qui est indispensable en direction des entreprises et de la jeunesse.

Lors du congrès du NPA de février 2013, la plateforme Y a porté principalement deux batailles, à nos yeux essentielles pour le NPA et son intervention dans la lutte des classes. D’une part, celle pour l’indépendance politique des anticapitalistes révolutionnaires, avec la volonté d’ancrer l’intervention et la construction du NPA dans les entreprises et dans la jeunesse. D’autre part l’approfondissement d’une discussion sur le bilan du NPA et notre projet de parti, qui a fait l’objet d’un texte alternatif. Près d’un tiers (32 %) des militants du NPA ont alors soutenu nos positions sans qu’il y ait eu ensuite, de la part de la majorité, la moindre volonté de nous associer autrement que sur la base d’un ralliement pur et simple à sa propre politique.

C’est parce qu’à l’issue du congrès nous ne voyions pas de possibilité d’amélioration sans la poursuite et le renforcement d’un combat politique organisé que nous avons alors décidé, non seulement de ne pas dissoudre la PY, mais d’explorer la possibilité de transformer cette plateforme en un courant interne, en lui donnant – sur une durée nécessairement indéfinie – plus de coherence et de moyens d’intervention.

L’évolution, depuis le congrès, du NPA et de sa direction confirme l’analyse que nous avions formulae et la perspective que nous avions tracée. La crise d’orientation et de direction se poursuit et s’approfondit, tandis que continuent à cohabiter au sein du NPA plusieurs projets de parti don’t celui, majoritaire, de « rassemblement de tous les anticapitalistes ». Cela entretient une grande confusion qui s’est également exprimée au travers du vote pour la PW, allant jusqu’à remettre en cause l’utilité même d’un parti fonctionnant sur des bases centralisées. A tel point que les différentes orientations qui cohabitent au sein de la majorité finissent par empêcher celle-ci de jouer son rôle de direction.

L’illustration la plus claire en est donnée dans la préparation des élections municipales : la variété de listes impliquant le NPA (anticapitalistes indépendantes, communes avec le PG et/ou d’autres secteurs du Front de gauche, communes avec le Front de gauche dans son ensemble en général sous la direction du PCF) donne lieu à une cacophonie dans le cadre de laquelle même la ligne officiellement votée devient inaudible. Les accords locaux d’ores et déjà passes avec le Front de gauche, dans des villes significatives, ne font que cautionner sa stratégie et sa politique. Au lieu d’agir sur les contradictions des réformistes, ce sont encore une fois les réformistes qui agissent sur nos faiblesses. Le conseil politique national et le comité executive continuent à passer plus de temps à discuter de la politique dite « unitaire » avec le Front de gauche qu’à orienter les tâches d’intervention dans la lutte de classe et de construction de parti. Sans pour autant traiter, sauf de façon très ponctuelle et superficielle, des grandes questions qui sont posées aux travailleurs et aux révolutionnaires au niveau mondial, européen et national.

3. Un désaccord stratégique qui a des conséquences politiques et pratiques

Mais ces désaccords vont au-delà des questions de simple tactique. Le mot d’ordre de «gouvernement contre l’austérité », compris comme le prolongement d’une « opposition de gauche » qui se construirait face à Hollande-Ayrault, découle en effet d’une hypothèse stratégique erronée. Pour en comprendre la portée, il faut faire un détour par la Grèce, où la direction de la IV° Internationale défend un mot d’ordre similaire, celui de « gouvernement des gauches », et surtout explique qu’un tel gouvernement pourrait être une « transition possible » vers une transformation radicale de l’économie et de la politique.

Dans le même sens, la résolution adoptée majoritairement au congrès et défendue par les camarades de la position X déclare que : « la proposition de gouvernement de la gauche unie, de ‘‘salut social’’, pourrait être un premier pas vers la réorganisation du pays sur une base anticapitaliste.»

On rejoint ici l’hypothèse stratégique qui a été formulae de manière plus systématique par des camarades de la Gauche anticapitaliste et que l’on peut résumer ainsi : dans les pays capitalists avancés, la rupture avec le système passera par une combinaison de mouvements de masse et de victoires électorales.

Cette hypothèse est erronée : loin d’être des points d’appuis pour une transformation révolutionnaire de la société, les gouvernements de gauche « radicale » ou des gauches, avec à leur tête des organisations réformistes, se sont toujours avérés être tôt ou tard des obstacles que les travailleurs ont trouvé dressés face à eux. Une démarche tactique est nécessaire vis-à-vis de ces organisation dans le but de leur disputer leur influence et leur audience, mais les anticapitalistes ne pourront en aucun cas faire l’économie d’une rupture avec elles. La question de la rupture ou des ruptures au sein du front unique est pourtant esquivée par les camarades de la majorité, au profit d’une vision stratégique linéaire : le gouvernement anti-austérité dans le prolongement de l’opposition de gauche, la reorganization du pays sur une base anticapitaliste dans le prolongement du gouvernement des gauches. Une telle orientation relativise le fait que seules la mobilisation et l’auto-organisation des salaries pourra modifier le rapport de forces et ouvrir la voie à un gouvernement représentant leurs intérêts, dans une dynamique qui ne peut être que de renversement du système capitaliste. C’est pourquoi nous maintenons le choix d’une orientation indépendante, dans laquelle la construction d’une alternative révolutionnaire, pour un gouvernement des travailleurs ouvrant la voie au socialisme, s’appuie sur des tactiques de front unique pour et dans les luttes, qui n’impliquent nul accord politique – encore moins de gouvernement – avec les réformistes antilibéraux.

C’est une hypothèse qui est également potentiellement lourde de conséquences quant au type de parti que nous souhaitons construire. En effet, si les victoires électorales sont une des clefs de la rupture avec le système, alors il faut construire des organisations taillées pour les élections. Le rapport sur la situation en Europe présenté lors du Bureau exécutif de la IV° Internationale en octobre 2012 déplore d’ailleurs l’incapacité à court terme des organisations anticapitalistes « de se transformer en puissant référents électoraux, à un moment où ceci est plus nécessaire que jamais

devant l’avancée des politiques d’austérité ». De là à conclure que les anticapitalistes et les révolutionnaires doivent pour devenir ces référents rejoindre des organisations ou coalitions plus larges, incluant des courants ou partis réformistes, il n’y a qu’un pas. Un pas qu’ont franchi les camarades de la GA, et que franchit d’ailleurs le rapport cité ci-dessus : « c’est pour cela qu’il faut placer la construction d’organisations anticapitalistes et révolutionnaires dans le cadre de la perspective plus ample de construction de nouveaux outils politiques unitaires… »

Nous devons au contraire avancer dans la construction d’une forte organisation marxiste, anticapitaliste et révolutionnaire, d’autant plus susceptible de mener une politique unitaire audacieuse et ouverte sur les autres courants, qu’elle sera capable de définir en son sein une orientation cohérente et largement partagée à l’échelle de tout le parti. Un parti centré sur l’intervention dans la lutte de classe, intervenant prioritairement dans la classe ouvrière (classe des salariéEs exploitéEs) qui est la seule à pouvoir mener un processus révolutionnaire vers le socialisme, donc avant tout dans les entreprises, ainsi que dans les lieux d’étude où se concentrent les travailleurs en formation. Ce qui ne signifie pas que des terrains tels que les luttes féministes, écologistes, antiracistes devraient être délaissés, mais que sur ces terrains aussi, c’est l’intervention des travailleurs et travailleuses qui sera décisive. Un parti qui, pour gagner en force et en efficacité, devra faire l’effort d’offrir à ses militants une véritable formation marxiste.

Un parti qui soit également pleinement internationaliste, pas au nom simplement d’une solidarité morale, mais sur la base de la conscience que la révolution socialiste ne peut être qu’internationale, donc nécessite une construction politique internationale. Les principes fondateurs adoptés en 2009 se concluaient par l’affirmation selon laquelle « le NPA engagera le dialogue et des collaborations politiques avec les autres forces anticapitalistes et révolutionnaires dans le monde dans la perspective de la constitution d'une nouvelle Internationale. » Une telle perspective reste juste. Des membres du NPA sont aujourd’hui membres d’une association, commune avec la GA et C&A, adhérente de la IV° internationale.

De nombreux liens existent par ailleurs, via les RIJ en particulier. Mais les rapports du NPA avec la IV°, comme avec les autres regroupements révolutionnaires internationaux, ne sont pas pour l’instant maîtrisés collectivement, ni par le parti ni par ses instances. Il nous faudra, dans la perspective du prochain congrès, ouvrir ce débat et plus généralement celui de la construction d’une Internationale.

4. Un courant pour changer le NPA, son orientation et sa direction

Le courant que nous constituons se donne pour objectif, à partir des acquis de la plateforme Y, un changement global de l’orientation du NPA dans le sens précédemment indiqué, ce qui implique aussi de redéfinir ce que devrait être le projet du parti dans la période actuelle.

Dans le même temps, nous continueront bien évidemment le travail de construction à toutes les échelles du parti. Le courant doit nous servir à être plus efficaces, doit être un outil pour l’intervention des militants, notamment autour de nos priorités : action dans les comités, structuration des branches, formation, construction dans la jeunesse et la classe ouvrière… Nous affirmons que la constitution de ce courant signifie aussi fortement notre attachement au NPA, à sa construction et à la solidarité fraternelle et politique de l’ensemble de ses camarades.

Un tel changement passera évidemment par l’émergence d’une nouvelle direction. Nous savons que cela ne proviendra pas d’un grossissement linéaire de notre seul courant politique mais impliquera des recompositions internes, notamment avec des secteurs de la direction qui aujourd’hui cohabitent dans la nouvelle majorité. Nous sommes également conscients que cette bataille politique n’aboutira pas nécessairement dès le prochain congrès, et devra alors être poursuivie à plus long terme.

Nous nous organisons aujourd’hui pour contribuer à un tel processus et le faire déboucher demain. Cette bataille pour l’émergence d’une nouvelle direction passera à la fois par des demonstrations militantes, la formulation et la défense quotidienne d’une autre orientation et par le fait de mener des débats stratégiques dans le parti.

Nous chercherons à nourrir le débat concernant les moyens de la prise du pouvoir par les travailleurs en prenant appui sur les acquis du marxisme pour les confronter avec les experiences des luttes et des soulèvements actuels dans les différentes régions du monde. Dans le même temps, et en vue du même objectif, nous nous efforcerons d’aider concrètement les comités (ceux où nos camarades sont présents, comme les autres) à développer leur intervention et à formuler leur politique dans la lutte de classe.

Le nouveau courant prend officiellement naissance les 30 novembre et 1er décembre 2013. En sont membres tous ceux qui se reconnaissent dans les textes de la PY du dernier congrès, dans la présente déclaration.

Le courant est dirigé par ses membres qui le représentent au CPN. Pour son intervention au quotidien dans la vie du NPA, il se dote d’une équipe d’animation nationale. Celle-ci, en lien avec la représentation du courant au CPN, sera responsable de l’organisation de réunions périodiques, nationales et régionales, de la liste de diffusion et de la publication de ses positions et élaborations à travers une revue et/ou un bulletin.

Ces matériels n’ont pas vocation à remplacer les publications du NPA mais à être un outil pour mener les discussions sur les orientations que nous défendons dans le parti et dans nos milieux.

Cette équipe d’animation sera élue lors de la reunion nationale de constitution et rééligible à chaque nouvelle réunion nationale. Elle pourra, en cas de besoin, être renforcée sur décision des membres du CPN.

Manos Skoufoglou (OKDE-Spartakos): "THE TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM AND THE TOOLS TO OVERTHROW CAPITALISM"

Introduction

When we say that we are in the middle of a deep historical crisis of capitalism, we have to take it seriously. We have entered a completely new period, so it should be clear that we cannot go on doing “business as usual”:

 we have already experienced massive strikes, revolts, even revolutionary situations in various countries: in the Arab world, in Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Thailand etc), in Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, in the core of the developed countries (like the riot in London in 2011), but also in the so-called emerging economies, which were supposed to be the new miracles of capitalist development (Brazil, S.Africa). On the other hand, the left, in practically every case, has proved unable to offer a solid perspective on how to overthrow capitalism. Nevertheless, this is exactly what anticapitalist organizations and revolutionary Marxists should be prepared for, not in the distant future, but now.
 this brings to the forefront the urgent question of what a contemporary revolutionary strategy should be like. What kind of party, what type of program, what means of struggle, what attitude towards bourgeois institutions and the state?

I will try to point out that the transitional program is an important tool in this project, a tool which is interconnected to many other key strategic issues.
So, what is a transitional program? It is a set of demands supposed to be a bridge between the present level of workers' consciousness and the revolution, i.e. the seizure of power by the working class. A series of demands or tasks that is necessary in order to meet the needs of the working class, but at the same time it is incompatible with capitalism in its development. Starting from simple, elementary needs, one demand leads to the other. For example, if the working class refuses to pay off the public debt, this can only mean that the debt has to be canceled (no matter what “renegotiating” illusions may still exist). In its turn, this means that banks should be nationalized under workers control, so as to prevent big investors from withdrawing their money and provoking a massive crackdown. This would already be a challenge to private property, which the bourgeois class would not tolerate, most likely boycotting production. In order to confront such a situation and meet the needs of the masses, nationalization of key sectors of the economy, without compensation, and a democratically planned economy would be needed. But this would not be capitalism any more. This reflection may be still too much schematic and abstract, but it is nevertheless indicative of the transitional program method. In other words, a transitional program is a way to link the existing, partial struggles to an actual revolution.

A historical retrospect

1. The first time that we have something like a transitional program is probably in the Communist Manifesto, issued by Marx and Engels in 1948. In the chapter Proletarians and communists, the authors of the manifesto propose a set of 10 demands:

 Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
 A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
 Abolition of all right of inheritance.
 Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
 Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
 Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
 Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
 Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
 Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
 Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production

These demands are not defined by the term transitional, however they are meant to start from the immediate needs of the exploited and the oppressed and end up to workers' power, although Marx and Engels had not made it clear yet what workers' power and a workers' state would be like (they would be able to tell only after the experience of the Commune of Paris in 1871).

2. In the following years, the program of Marxist parties gradually degenerated. This is reflected in the critique that Marx and Engels wrote against the German social democratic programs of Ghotha (1875) and Erfurt (1891) respectively. The Erfurt program, actually, introduced the distinction between a “political program” for socialism and an economical one, for immediate use.
3. Despite Marx's and Engels's warnings, the program of the leading parties of the 2nd International  eventually split into 2 parts, with a very loose or no connection to each other: a minimum program of immediate demands, which is supposed to be what workers can achieve at this stage, and a maximum program for socialism, which was something to be postponed for the far future, when conditions mature. This also meant a split between economic struggles, i.e. struggles for the every day life conditions of the working class under capitalism, which were meant to be addressed by unions, and political struggles that were the responsibility of the party. According to social democracy, those 2 tasks shouldn't be mixed. Starting from the polemic of Rosa Luxemburg against the leadership of the German social democracy (mainly Bernstein), the communists of the 3rd international fiercely contested this idea, which has been repeated many times since by various currents and is still today quite common.
4. In his April theses, Lenin proposes a draft program, adapted to the specific conditions in Russia in the context of the World War. Apart from taking a clear position about the key issues of the war (fraternization, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism”) and of the provisional governments (no support), the program also includes measures such as: abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy, equalization of the salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, with the average wage of a competent worker, nationalization of all lands, union of all banks into a single national bank controlled by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies etc. According to the author, these measures were meant to promote the “transition” to a second revolutionary stage, “which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants”.
In September 1917, in his article The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Lenin puts forward a five point program:

 Amalgamation of all banks into a single bank, and state control over its operations, or nationalization of the banks
 Nationalization of the syndicates, i.e., the largest, monopolistic capitalist associations (sugar, oil, coal, iron and steel, and other syndicates)
 Abolition of commercial secrecy
 Compulsory amalgamation into associations of industrialists, merchants and employers generally.
 Compulsory organization of the population into consumers’ societies, or encouragement of such organization, and the exercise of control over it

5. Trying to completely break with the reformist tradition of the 2nd international, and also based on the experience of the Russian Revolution, the 3rd (Communist) International tried to elaborate a program that would overcome the distinction between minimum and maximum demands. The 3rd Congress stated:

The Communist Parties do not put forward minimum programs which could serve to strengthen and improve the tottering foundations of capitalism. [...]If the demands put forward by the Communists correspond to the immediate needs of the broad proletarian masses, and if the masses are convinced that they cannot go on living unless their demands are met, then the struggle around these issues becomes the starting-point of the struggle for power. In place of the minimum program of the centrists and reformists, the Communist International offers a struggle for the concrete demands of the proletariat which, in their totality, challenge the power of the bourgeoisie, organize the proletariat and mark out the different stages of the struggle for its dictatorship.

Again, this program was not called transitional, however it was defined as a program suitable for the transitional period that humanity had entered.
6. After its 5th Congress (1924), in the 3rd International, under the ever-strengthening control of Stalin's bureaucratic faction, the transitional method faded away once again. The corollary of this process has been the shift to the popular front strategy after the 7th Congress (1934), i.e. the call for political alliances between workers and the so called democratic bourgeoisie against fascism, including even participation in bourgeois governments.
7. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that the founding document of our current, the Fourth International, written by Trotsky in 1938, was called The Transitional program, or The death agony of capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. The second title is also not a coincidence, as Trotsky's methodology started with the conception of capitalism as a historically bankrupt mode of production, that was about to die. Trotsky though that we were facing a final battle between capitalism and socialism-an idea bitterly criticized afterwards. But was this criticism correct or not? We will come back to this later.

The Transitional Methodology

1. More than a given set of demands, the Transitional Program is a certain methodology to “overcome the contradiction between the maturity of the objective revolutionary conditions and the immaturity of the proletariat and its vanguard”, in Trotsky's own words. What makes a demand or task transitional is its ability to revolutionize class consciousness under the given class struggle circumstances.
The concept is that, on one hand, in order to challenge the bourgeois power, the working class has to start from its actual struggles and experiences and, on the other, vice versa, in order to achieve even a small conquest within capitalism, especially in periods of crisis, the bourgeois class must fear that they will lose everything (so, a transitional program is even more effective in fighting for immediate needs).
2. In this framework, the program consists of 3 types of demands or, even better, tasks:
a. immediate (e.g. stop buying military equipment)
b. democratic (e.g. independence of all workers' organizations from the police and the army)
c. transitional to workers' power (e.g. substitution of the army by peoples' militia, confiscating capital etc).
3. Here we have to make an important remark: a transitional program can be such, transitional, only if it raises the question of power from a class viewpoint. So, the corollary of the program has been the slogans for a workers' and peasants' government and for soviets and dual power.
a. The second one refers to the matrix of a workers' state, which is the objective goal of the program. As Lenin pointed out in 1917, in the The state and revolution, the quintessence of a revolutionary communist project is not just to change the head of the bourgeois state, but to destroy its whole structure. Nowadays, it is even more important to be clear that strategically it is not possible to reform the bourgeois state, nor can we conquer it from the inside, but we have to build our own means of self-organization and dual power outside and against it
b. The first slogan is more complicated, as its content has not always been the same
i. in the case of the Bolsheviks, according to Trotsky, it was practically a synonym for the dictatorship of the proletariat
ii. later, in the early 20's, there seemed to be a real possibility for short-lived governments of workers' parties coalitions, in various combinations and of different types, still within capitalism. Communists could consider differentiated tactics towards different possible versions of such governments, including also support or participation, provided, though, that a workers' government would be a concrete path to workers' power, and not a substitute for it.
iii. In the hands of Stalinists in the 1930's, the same slogan turned out to be a synonym of class collaborationist governments.
iv. By the time of the creation of the Fourth International, the real revolutionary currents were too small to determine any alliance for a real workers' government, i.e. a government actually defending workers' rights. Even the possibility was almost totally excluded. So, in the Transitional Program, the “workers' and peasants' government” was mainly a slogan of agitation, meant to unveil that social-democracy and the Communist Parties would rather ally with the so called democratic bourgeoisie than fight for an independent worker's government.
v. Today, the slogan for a workers' government is still important when the question “what government” is raised by people, although it is interpreted in various and contradictory ways and despite its common abuse, which tends to assimilate it with a reformist stageist demand, restoring the illusion that capitalism may be reformed or overthrown by conquering the bourgeois state, and not challenging it itself.

Criticism

We should now pose the following question: is the idea of a transitional program still relevant today? Is it really a useful tool in our struggle against capitalism? We will try to answer though examining some popular objections against the whole concept.
1. There are currents, such as eurocommunists or the late stalinist Communist Parties, who claim that the transitional demands are invented, something like lab experiments with no connection to the actual needs of workers. Instead, they promote only those claims already adopted or easy to adopt by social movements.
On the other hand, there are others (anarchists, some maoists) who claim that putting forward such specific demands, like for example a sliding scale of wages and hours, will inevitably lead to  incorporation into a project to manage capitalism. How can we ask the bourgeois state to do something against its own interests?
Both arguments reveal a misunderstanding not only of the transitional program methodology, but also of the role that a revolutionary anticapitalist organization has to accomplish. It is neither to just reflect what workers and the oppressed think right now (in this case, then why not simply dissolve ourselves in the mass movement?), nor to ignore the present state of the class consciousness, avoiding the crucial question: how to help it improve towards a revolutionary direction? In both cases, though, as much as they may seem opposite, the result is the same: a return to the old social-democratic concept of dividing the program into two irrelevant parts: a minimum and a maximum one.
2. Another type of criticism is the argument that the Transitional Program is not timely any more. It is absolutely true that any program has to be updated, that it is not a doctrine for all times and that there is no eternal recipe. In the original of 1938, the program was already differentiated in three different versions, regarding bourgeois democracies, backward countries and fascist regimes respectively. Conditions have changed since that time. But are the fundamental idea or the general outline of the Transitional Program also outdated?
Actually this question was raised from the very beginning. Fighting against comrades who thought that to raise all those demands was premature in the US, in his well-known discussion with some members of the American SWP, Trotsky explained that the Transitional Program is not to adapt to the consciousness of the working class as it is, but to promote the objective interests of workers, even if the latter are not fully aware of them. He rejected excluding the task of equipping a workers militia, because for him the fundamental criterion was not whether the whole working class was ready to adopt it or not, but the fact that fascism was objectively threatening the American working class, and at least a vanguard minority of the latter should be aware of this. Just after the World War II, Tony Cliff supported that the Transitional Program was founded on the hypothesis that the crisis in the 1930's would be the final crisis of capitalism, which proved to be wrong, as capitalism entered a new upward phase. So, since we are not in a revolutionary period any more, we have to replace the Transitional Program with a list of radical immediate demands, not meant to question capitalism at once.
It is maybe true that there are some fatalistic elements in the articulations of Trotsky (revealed also in the title itself). However, in his work The third international after Lenin, Trotsky clarified that by speaking about a revolutionary period he did not mean that a revolution would inevitably happen or that a counter-revolutionary victory was impossible, but that in the period to come we have to anticipate abrupt shifts of both the objective situation and the class consciousness. Regardless of our estimation about previous periods, I think that this is exactly the case nowadays.

Misinterpretations

In order to better conceptualize the transitional method, maybe it is helpful to examine also some frequent misinterpretations of it.
1. Firstly, a program split into different stages is not at all transitional. We can't and shouldn't fight for democracy now and just put aside the social question, to deal with it in the future. Nowadays, this is a key issue in the Arab Spring revolutions, but it is also raised in Greece. Let's recall the “emergency plan” of SYRIZA, that is to say renegotiating the debt in order to “save the country” now and postpone the debate for socialism for another time, or even the illusion of more radical trends that a progressive, national economic development against the omnivorous imperialism but without confronting capitalism itself is feasible.
The transitional methodology is based exactly on the liquidity of the social consciousness and of the real course of the class struggle, which proceeds with leaps and gaps, and not in a linear way that can be divided into distinct phases. A country that today has only a weak workers' movement may experience monumental struggles tomorrow – and vice versa. Who could tell some years ago that we could have a revolt in Bahrain? In the 1980's, this was the main argument of Ernest Mandel in his polemic against Doug Lorimer of the Australian SWP, who questioned the idea of the permanent revolution and endorsed the older “Third Worldist” argument that a revolution in the developed capitalist countries was extremely unlikely because their working class had turned into “labor aristocracy” (Lorimer, unfortunately, passed away recently).
2. Secondly, the transitional program is often treated as a list of demands, proposed to reformist or/and social-democratic parties by small revolutionary groups. In my opinion, this has been, for example, the methodology of the Militant (Ted Grant) current all the time (as well as of the Pabloite current, in a different form). According to this conception, the revolutionary Marxists' role is to carry this genuine program and fight for its adoption in the congresses of mass reformist parties. This concept has lead to picturesque small groups that claim extreme orthodoxy, but in practice always spin around reformism. Of course it is important to fight for your position when being part of a broader party or front, but the main aim is for the transitional program to be adopted by the mass movement itself, including radical trade unions. It is more of an action plan for the working class, than a plan proposed with the illusion that it could be adopted by reformist left governments. Besides, in his work Where France is going?, Trotsky already remarked that a transitional program means nothing if adopted by parties that are not willing to do anything about its implementation.
In general, we have to avoid what we could call “objectivism”, i.e. the idea that any program, even the best one, has an automatic effect in itself. On the contrary, the transitional program, as part of an overall revolutionary program to overthrow capitalism, is tightly connected to the subjective factor, i.e. to a conscious and voluntarily disciplined political instrument. This cannot be but a party, a workers' party, and, moreover, a party independent from reformism. A revolutionary program cannot exist without a revolutionary party and vice versa. Therefore, rather than trying to reform the old workers' party bureaucracies, we have to consider what  revolutionary anticapitalist parties have to be like nowadays. How can they be prepared to challenge capitalism in deed? How can we use our historic experience? How can we actually build such parties?

The Transitional Program Today

What is the actual relevance of this discussion today? In the context of the crisis, the need for a transitional program becomes obvious even to currents who had nothing to do with it before. This is, for example, the case of ANTARSYA in Greece. The biggest organizations that form the front used to be hostile to the transitional methodology, more or less on the basis of the objections described above. However, nowadays everybody in ANTARSYA speaks in the name of a contemporary transitional program. No matter how different the interpretations of such a program may be, it is still a fact that actually ANTARSYA is the only visible left force in Greece that put forward a transitional program, even incomplete, and call it by this name.
Even if is rather impossible to make a list of demands suitable for all cases, it is crucial to engage ourselves in an attempt to form a new transitional program, in the framework of a broader revolutionary program which will be suitable for our time and constitute a real bridge to the workers' power. We can think of some universal demands, like the cancellation of the debt, the nationalization of banks and key sectors of the economy without conpensation and under workers control, the prohibition of lay-offs etc. In certain countries there are other, more specific key issues: in European countries, especially in the periphery, a rupture with the EU and an internationalist struggle to destroy it and replace it by the free right of the peoples to unite in federations. For the Arab world, the dissolution of all institutions connected to the dictatorial parties. In Greece and other countries, the need for massive self-defense structures against fascists etc.
Apart from underlining the need to formulate a timely list of remarks and tasks, though, it is important to make three concluding remarks:
1. The role of the working class and its organizations in the battle against capitalism is indispensable. We have to help the working class unite in action, by bringing different working class layers together: private along with public sector workers, domestic workers along with immigrants, women along with men. This means including the fight for the special needs of all oppressed groups. An objective of the transitional program is also to provide the political ground for a united front, a front meant to promote class self-confidence by joining its scattered forces, not by tailing everybody behind reformists, though.
2. We have to find the means to make the transitional program a really useful tool in the hands of the oppressed, and not just put it on a shelf and leave it there. We have already underlined that no demand is transitional in itself, regardless its actual function in the class struggle. People usually learn by their own experience, through their own actions. Therefore, means of struggle like the general political strike can be a strategic element of great importance in this direction.
3. To say that the working class and the oppressed strata are not militant or conscious enough is not an excuse for our inertia. The recent experience shows the contrary: there are more and more struggles. If they are not always conscious enough, it is also our fault. Besides, we cannot postpone our answer to the challenges that the crisis brings with it until the class matures – the concrete task is to prepare for revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations on the specific ground that the current state of class consciousness, even if quite low, offers. How to build parties able to do that is something to discuss (through radical trade unions? by regrouping revolutionary groups and anticapitalist currents? by independently building our own section where possible? by taking advantage of splits from reformism?). But the need for such parties and for such an International is not.
Let's do as the slogan says: from Sao Paolo to Istanbul, from Athens to Cairo, from Revolt to Revolution.

-------------------------------
The article is a slightly adapted version of a presentation in an educational session that took place in the context of the 30th revolutionary youth camp of the 4th International. Across the text, where the Transitional Program is written in capital initial letters, the term refers to the original text of 1938.