La Marx International

Introduction  

Nahuel Moreno is synonymous of Marxism, and Marxism is synonymous of Nahuel Moreno. If it had not been for the battle that Nahuel Moreno waged for forty years against revisionism, Marxism would probably have disappeared. Marxism exists thanks to the foundation and development of a protective trench that Nahuel Moreno organized for more than forty years throughout the post-war period of the twentieth century, a bastion that constituted a formidable line of defense of Marxism known as "orthodox Trotskyism." Moreno formed a political current whose construction, construction and development made him the most important Trotskyist leader from the post-war period to today, which is why Marxists follow the theoretical-political line elaborated by Nahuel Moreno.

As soon as he joined militant life and with little experience, Nahuel Moreno quickly understood that the most modern and current branch of Marxism, Trotskyism, was in serious danger of being destroyed and disappearing. Nahuel Moreno understood that the most serious and dangerous attack that Trotskyism – and therefore Marxism – was receiving did not come from imperialist governments, capitalists, the police, the bourgeois states or Stalinism. All these institutions have been working to destroy Marxism forever, whether with the states that imprison and kill Marxists, to Stalinism that tortured, murdered and massacred thousands of Trotskyists. Moreno understood that although the actions of all these institutions are 'dangerous, the greatest danger that threatened Marxism did not come from there, but from the leadership of the Fourth International itself.

That is to say, Nahuel Moreno understood that the greatest danger to Trotskyism came from the Trotskyist leaders themselves. That the Trotskyist leaders who had placed themselves at the head of the Fourth International after the death of Leon Trotsky were revisionists and were destroying Trotskyism. And therefore they were destroying Marxism, which is why he considered that the most important task of all was to confront these Trotskyist leaders in defense of Marxism and Trotskyism. Tobetter understand the fundamental role of Nahuel Moreno, it is essential to understand what revisionism is.

Revisionism destroys Marxism

From the moment it was born, Marxism has been attacked in the form of permanent and systematic by the capitalists, imperialism, their governments, officials, media, universities, the Church, etc. because it is the only scientific discipline that questions the interests of the classes Dominant. The other disciplines such as mathematics, physics, biology, archaeology, psychology, or medicine, etc., imply great advances for Humanity, but they do not question in general either the profits or the goods of the classes Capitalists. The bourgeoisie does not see its grip on power endangered by the advances of physics, or mathematics. But he is alarmed if Marxism advances.

Product of this attack that Marxism receives, is that it needs to be permanently defended, without that defense Marxism would be destroyed and disappear. To defend Marxism it is not only a matter of protecting its fundamental postulates from attacks, but it is also necessary to incorporate new elements into the theory that update it because like any scientific theory, Marxism needs to be permanently updated in order to develop and strengthen itself. The task of incorporating new elements into Marxist theory that ratify and strengthen its foundational bases is called the "updating" of Marxism.

But the incorporation of new elements that attack the foundational bases of Marxism in order to weaken and destroy Marxism is called "revisionism." Revisionism is the opposite of actualization. The attack that has the most damage and Greater confusion is caused to Marxism are those carried out by the revisionists because they strike at Marxism from "within", they act by "revising" its fundamental postulates. Revisionism is the political current that seeks to destroy the pillars, bases and foundations of Marxism, and to dismantle Marxist theory, "in the name of Marxism" basically posing three things that go completely against Marxism:

1) That the conditions for revolution are not ripe. They are not because there are no revolutions that question capitalism. And because capitalism can continue to develop the productive forces over the destructive ones, and still play some progressive role for humanity.

2) That there are sectors of the bourgeoisie and the ruling classes that can They must play a progressive role, and therefore we must support and defend them against the "reactionary sectors" and the "advent of the right".

3) That by therefore there is no need for a strategy, nor a revolutionary organization. The reformist strategy and organization is enough to "pressure" capitalist governments and regimes to follow a progressive course, against the reactionary tendencies.

These three postulates of the Revisionism inevitably leads Marxist organizations to vote, support or integrate capitalist coalitions and governments, under the argument that since the "conditions are not ripe for revolution" it is then indispensable to support the most progressive, or progressive, that the bourgeoisie and capitalism can give against the reactionary elements. Revisionism opened a new stage in Marxist, socialist or left-wing organizations in which they began to support, collaborate or integrate into capitalist governments that began in 1899 when Alexandre Millerand of the Party of São Paulo Socialist joined the capitalist government as a minister of France. Afterthis, "class conciliation policies" and "class collaboration governments" began to emerge, with functionaries of workers' or Marxist parties supporting or joining capitalist coalitions and governments.

Support, collaboration or integration of capitalist governments destroys Marxism and its organizations, because they disappear as an alternative to capitalism. After the death of Leon Trotsky, revisionism came to dominate the leadership of the Fourth International under the leadership of the Greek leader Michel Pablo, and the Belgian Ernest Mandel, who plunged the Fourth International into a deep crisis, and began to destroying it by bringing it to the current situation of disintegration and virtual disappearance in which it is currently located. But revisionism was not born with Pablo and Mandel, it had been born much earlier. There are three revisionist waves that have impacted Marxism and we will see below.

The Three "Waves" of Anti-Marxist Revisionism

Revisionism has appeared throughout history through three great "waves". The first was "social democracy" that Bernstein, Bebel and Kautsky were at the head. Social democracy proposed that the most advanced countries of the At that time they were "not ripe" for the revolution because capitalism had more "capacity for adaptation and flexibility" due to the appearance of credit, monopolies, cartels and truts, and becausethe working class was in conditions of overcrowding, uncertain income, insufficient and poorly educated. They argued that socialism could be achieved gradually, by reforms, and by electoral means, winning parliament and seats.

This current formulated an impulse to the cooperativism and a program in which the struggle was for progressive reforms to capitalism, which laid the foundations of "reformism". All this proposal has a lot of force today in the world left, Camper, Stalinist and an organized evasionist in the Progressive International.

Those who led the struggle and defense of Marxism against this first revisionist wave were first of all Karl Marx himself in his famous text "Critique of the Gotha Program" of 1875 and then Frederick Engels with the work "Critique of the Erfurt Program" of 1891 where both Karl Marx and Frederick Engels fought against mutualist aspects. cooperative and reformist programs that were developed in the programs presented at the successive congresses of the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD).

After the death of Marx and Engels the struggle against revisionism was led by Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebneck, among others, who confronted Bernstein, Bebel, and Kautsky and most of the leadership of the SPD in Germany, who headed the world revisionist current.

The second "revisionist wave" of Marxism was Stalinism. It was headed by Stalin, Radek, and Bukharin, and the bureaucracy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who argued that in developing countries, that is, in most of the world, In the capitalist world, the conditions for revolution "were not 'ripe', because there the Capitalism had to go through a historical phase of development of the productive forces. That is to say, for Stalinism, capitalism has the capacity to develop the productive forces over the destructive ones in the developing countries. ForStalinism in those countries, the revolution had to be "in two stages", the The first was to support the bourgeoisie in which the Marxists had to join the bourgeois parties in coalitions, and even in the bourgeois government by joining the bourgeoisie in the governments of the bourgeoisie. of the "Popular Front".

It was a version of Millerand's 1899 betrayal with new ways of making the same arguments. As a result of the fact that for Stalinism the struggle for world socialism was not posed, he elaborated the "Theory of Socialism in One Country". strategy for which it was necessary to establish a "Peaceful Coexistence" with imperialism. Who led the struggle and defense of Marxism against this second revisionist wave they were Leon Trotsky and the leadership team that undertook the struggle against Stalinism.

The revisionists, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, argue that the epoch of socialist revolution is over. They repeat the argument of social democrats and Stalinists that the "conditions for revolution are not in place." To which Leon Trotsky has replied in this way: "The charlatanism of all kinds according to which historical conditions do not would still be "ripe" for socialism are nothing but the product of ignorance or conscious deception. The objective conditions of the proletarian revolution are not only ripe, but have begun to rot a little. Without social revolution in the next historical period, the human civilization is under threat of being razed to the ground by a catastrophe". (Leon Trotsky. Transitional Program - 1938) Trotsky and his leadership team fought against revisionism until Trotsky was assassinated by Stalin's agents in Mexico.

The third "revisionist wave" of Marxism was Pabloism and Mandelism. It was led by Michel Pablo and Ernest Mandel in the Trotskyite. Pablo and Mandel argued that the conditions for revolution were "not 'ripe' because the world was on its way to World War III. That new fascist regimes would emerge that would force Stalinism to become a revolutionary force to confront fascism, which is why it was necessary to join Stalinism by "entering" these organizations. After the departure of Michel Pablo, the Belgian Ernest Mandel took the leadership of the Fourth International and formulated a variant of this theory stating that the conditions for building Socialism "were not "ripe" because capitalism was developing the productive forces over the destructive ones.

Mandelism proposed that in addition to joining Stalinism, the Trotskyists should join the nationalist, petty-bourgeois and guerrilla leaderships that were on the rise in those decades. Mandel's orientation led to the Trotskyist groups disintegrating within the Traitorous Stalinist, petty-bourgeois and guerrilla currents, which meant simply liquidating the Fourth International and Trotskyism disappearing. Who led the struggle and The defense of Marxism against this third revisionist wave was Nahuel Moreno, who fought for more than forty years against the current headed by Mandel, Mandelism. Many important leaders they fought against revisionism, but only Nahuel Moreno was capable of building an international current with thousands of militants to fight in defense of the principles of Marxism revolutionary.

"Orthodox" Trotskyism or "Classical" Marxism

There are currents that vindicate Nahuel Moreno. When these currents draw a vision of Moreno, they do so in a summary, administrative way, highlighting the great facts of his career, placing them all equally. Moreno carried out real feats and militant feats in the 20th century: he took Argentine Trotskyism out of marginality and intellectual circles by taking it to the working class neighborhoods in the 1940s, he led a mass union current in Argentina confronting the dictatorship of the "Liberator" in the 1950s, he led a powerful peasant movement in Peru in the 1960s, he sent brigadistas to participate in the Cuban revolution also in the 60's, founded the extraordinary Simón Bolívar brigade that intervened in the Nicaraguan revolution in the 70's, built a powerful vanguard party in Argentina, the Socialist Workers Party (PST), and one of the largest Trotskyist parties in the world in the 80's the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS). He suffered imprisonment, exile, and overcoming all adversities he carried out a profound and extraordinary theoretical-political elaboration, the development of which is a an indispensable tool to understand the current reality of the struggle of world classes.

To correctly evaluate Nahuel's contribution Moreno followed the method of Leon Trotsky, who considered that his most great political work was the foundation of the Fourth International. Trotsky placed this task above of the Russian Revolution or the leadership of the Red Army. Believed than to have held a small meeting of a handful of militants in the suburbs of Paris, had been even more important than leading the Russian Revolution. He considered founding the Fourth International "the most important task of his militant life" in his own words. He made this assessment around a very profound conclusion: Marxism was threatened with death by Stalinist revisionism, without the foundation of the Fourth International, Marxism was in danger of disappearing.

Following Trotsky's method, we assess that Nahuel Moreno's greatest contribution to Marxism is the construction of "orthodox Trotskyism." Nahuel Moreno's greatest contribution isthe struggle against revisionism, and the defense of "classical Marxism" against revisionism, in the midst of a struggle that he himself recognized was plagued by errors, marches and countermarches, advances and setbacks. Summarily exposing the facts carried out by Moreno as the currents that still claim him do, is a political maneuver to hide the most important of his legacy.

Marxists follow Nahuel Moreno because when Marxism was on the verge of death surrounded by Mandelite revisionism, Nahuel Moreno was the one who constituted a political current in its defense. That is to say,our balance sheet of Nahuel Moreno is completely different, it has a hierarchy, to we had a central task of Nahuel Moreno that is above all the others: The struggle against Revisionism.

This task constituted the most important legacy of his militant life, which greatly surpasses all the other great tasks undertaken by Nahuel Moreno such as the Brigade Simón Bolívar o la lucha campesina en el Perú. Thereare countless revolutionary leaders with the same militant dedication and the same internationalism than Moreno, but what distinguishes Moreno from all the moreover, it left a guide to face and defeat the Revisionists. This balance sheet has a functional, practical and current to face the crisis of the world left that worsens day by day.

It is useful today more than ever since 99% of the streams of left are revisionist and reformist. From the method of evaluating trajectories such as those of Leon Trotsky or Nahuel Moreno, a conclusion can be drawn that is established as a law for the construction of revolutionary parties: To be considered revolutionary, an organization must carry out a systematic and permanent struggle against revisionism. Any party or organization that does not fight the revisionism, is a reformist organization.

At the same time, any leadership that claims to be revolutionary can only achieve its goal on the basis of bitter struggle and implacable denunciation of revisionism and opportunists. This law follows from the historical experience of Marxism and the role played by the revisionism throughout history. In the last ten years of his militant life, Nahuel Moreno's work in the fight against revisionism reached a solid and undoubted theoretical, political, and methodological unity, a period that begins with the work "A scandalous document" where he carries out a polemic with Ernest Mandel, baptized by the militancy as the "Morenazo". and includes the works, schools, and texts up to the years 1985-86. A whole stage that is the crowning and synthesis of forty years of militancy. We will now see step by step Moreno's battle against revisionism.

The Fourth International in World War II

To understand Nahuel Moreno's contribution to the defense of Trotskyism, it is necessary to evaluate what was happening in the Fourth International in 1942. In that year, the world was in the middle of World War II and most of the world's of the Trotskyist leaders had to be militants in clandestinity, to suffer imprisonment, persecutionby the Nazis and the Stalinists. Under these terrible conditions it was almost impossible to build an international leadership team, considering that Leon Trotsky, the main leader, had been assassinated only two years earlier. The leadership of the Fourth International had lost its main leader and was dispersed into three levels: On the one hand, the International Secretariat of the Fourth International, based in New York and led by Jean van Heijenoort, the French Trotskyist leader, secretary of Leon Trotsky, who had great difficulty in maintaining contact with the national sections, particularly in Nazi-occupied Europe.

On the other hand, the European Secretariat of the Fourth International had been created in January 1942 at a conference organized by Trotskyists from France and Belgium in Paris, which was under occupation by Hitler's Nazi troops. The main leader of this organization was the French Trotskyist Marcel Hic who the following year founded the Parti Ouvrier Internationaliste (POI) in 1943, edited the newspaper "La Verité" (The Truth) and established a clandestine militancy that achieved connections between the European Secretariat and the rest of the sections of the Fourth International from the rest of the world through a bookshop in the village of Saint-Hilaire du Touvet, owned by Marcel Hic's parents. Next to Marcel Hic were the Trotskyists of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Belgium led by by Abraham Léon, an important Jewish leader who began to elaborate a politics against Zionism in works that are completely current.

On the other hand, there was the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) of the United States, the most important section of the Fourth International, but with most of its leadership and its main leader James Cannon in prison for his opposition to the participation of the United States in the world war. The epicenter of the world struggle of the masses was in Europe, where the peoples resisted the occupation and offensive of the Nazis and fascists who began to occupy the main countries and cities of Europe. Nazism and fascism were events completely new political policies for the Marxists of the time, who They faced peculiar events that had not been seen before, such as For example, see cities such as Paris, Rome, or Brussels, capitals of capitalist-imperialist occupied by Nazi troops.

The phenomenon opened intense debates within the Fourth International: How should the countries occupied by the Nazis that suffered national oppression be defined? Was the problem of national oppression posed in countries occupied by the Nazis despite being imperialist countries such as France? For Jean van Heijenoort in New York, as well as for Marcel Hic in France, and Abraham León in Belgium the center of the politics of the Fourth International It should be the fight against the Nazi and fascist regimes that were imposed in Europe and by the expulsion of the Nazi occupation troops. This was to be the central demand of the Trotskyists' program.

Jean van Heijenoort and the International Secretariat based in New York, as well as the European Secretariat and Marcel Hic had it is a complete coincidence that the center of the policy of the Fourth International It was to be the democratic problem of national liberation, the struggle by the expulsion of the Nazi occupation troops, combined with the defense of the democratic freedoms that the imposition of the Nazi and fascist regimes, which had eliminated elementary freedoms and rights. The "Theses on the National Question" of the European Sections of the Fourth International, written by Marcel Hic, were approved by the Belgian in July 1942 (Velia Luparello- The Trotskyists under Nazi Terror. A history of the Fourth International during the Second World War- CONICET Digital. 2021)

Van Heijenoort published in the journal Fourth International the works "The National Problem in Europe", and "The Revolutionary Tasks Under the Revolution". Nazi Boot" at the end of 1942 where he explained that the imperialist stage of capitalism aggravated the democratic problems of the oppressed nations by incorporating new problems to those already existing that the bourgeoisie had not been able to solve. For this sector headed by Jean Van Heijenoort and Marcel Hic the center of the orientation of the Fourth International was to support the resistance of the Fourth International. the partisans, the guerrillas, and the armed popular bodies that they faced Nazi resistance.

The demand for expulsion from the Nazi occupation included the implementation of all kinds of tactics, including reaching agreements with the bourgeois sectors of France that agreed to expel the Nazis from the country. Marcel Hic coordinated the opening of a The resistance office in Paris establishing agreements with De Gaulle and the bourgeois sectors that faced the Nazi occupation. TheCentral Committee addressed by Marcel Hic was aware of the importance of the maquis (partisans and guerrillas): "... so sent Yvan Craipeau to the South to contact activists of the Auberges de jeunesse who organized the réfractaires in Haute-Savoie. The objective, according to Craipeau, was "to constitute a revolutionary maquis and create a school for military cadres of the party in the Thonon region" (Idem, Velia Luparello)

OnMay 15, 1943, Stalin decided to dissolve the Third International, to which Marcel Hic and the comrades of the European Secretariat said: "... By dissolving the International Communist, Stalin removed the last formal obstacle to the integration of the communist parties in the reformist organizations ... Stalin dissolves the Communist International: The Fourth International will lead the proletariat to victory!" (Idem, Velia Luparello) Marcel Hic and the POI were in full agreement that the partisans should receive weapons from U.S. imperialism. The United States, and England to defeat fascism, as expressed in the article in La Vérité "The Second Front and the Workers' Front" of 31 December 1999. March 1943: "The Allies will first of all provide arms: it would be unworthy of revolutionaries to reject them because, without weapons, the struggle against the imperialism, whatever it may be, is impossible" (Idem, Velia Luparello)

But the direction of the The French party and the European Secretariat was decapitated by the Gestapo, the political police of the Nazis, who captured Marcel Hic, David Rousset, Roland Filiâtre, arrested and tortured by the Nazi high command betweenJune 21 and October 31, 1943. Marcel Hic, Yves Bodenez as well as a large part of the leadership of the POI and the Trotskyists of Belgium Abraham Léon, Léon Lesoil, Martin Monath or "Viktor", Léon De Lee and Lucien Renery de Liégewere assassinated in Hitler's concentration camps. The Stalinists also assassinated many important Trotskyist leaders in that period in France and other countries, such as the case of the Vietnamese leader Tạ Thu Thâu, shot in September 1945 by Ho Chi Minh's Stalinism.

After Hic's disappearance, the one who took control of the party was Michel Raptis, a Greek leader who used the nom de guerre "Pablo". He, along with other sectors, believed that supporting the French resistance was a "social-patriotic" policy, that the occupation did not modify the The imperialist character of France, and resistance to the occupier could not to be done jointly with the bourgeoisie. This sector proposed that Trotskyism stop supporting the resistance, and not support the partisans, which was approved in January 1944 at the conference that elected Pablo as head of the European Secretariat. The leadership of the SWP in the United States had a vision similar to that of Michel Pablo.

But both the SWP's and Pablo's position of not supporting the resistance of the European partisans against the Nazi occupation was a betrayal of the world revolution. It is somewhat similar to the position that 99% of the world left has towards the partisans in the Ukrainian National Liberation struggle. The application of this policy by the revisionists led by Pablo, Mandel and Pierre Frank unleashed a brutal crisis in the Fourth International, as the Trotskyists withdrew from the resistance, and this struggle was left in the hands of the Stalinists who won mass support, and emerged from World War II as mass organizations.

Michel Pablo's policy of not supporting the Partisans caused the Fourth International to miss the opportunity to lead the most important revolution in human history. As a result of having led the liberation of the European peoples through the defeat of the Nazi regime, Stalinism emerged from World War II strengthened and with prestige for having been part of Hitler's defeat. After the defeat of Hitler the Stalinist groups that took sides in the partisan camp, ended the war with millions of militants in their ranks, even with power in Italy after the fall of Mussolini.

But The Fourth International, a product of Pablo's orientation, came out of the a war that had become a current in crisis, completely marginal, cracked, with few militants, whose groups were confronted with each other and internally fractioned. The politics of the revisionists of not supporting partisan resistance sank the IV International in a deep crisis and dealt her a hard blow that condemned her to marginalization for decades, for having lost the opportunity to intervene and direct the process The most important revolutionary that the class struggle in the history.

As he joined the Fourth International and became aware of these facts, Nahuel Moreno made profound reflections on this stage of the Fourth International. In the last school of cadres in 1985 Moreno stated: "...I have the impression that we, the Trotskyists, the greatest revolutionaries, lost the greatest revolution in the world, which was the war against the Axis. Everything we have experienced since then is the result of the greatest revolutionary war that has ever taken place in the world... we must explain why we are all marginal, after fifty years... Why are there so few of us? (the Trotskyists). Then there must be some matrix error. And for me it's this: We weren't the wing revolutionary struggle against a monstrous regime... What was the Nazism. We were not the wing of a great mass movement." (Nahuel Moreno- Escuela de Cuadros 1984).

Towards the end of his militant life, Nahuel Moreno developed this balance of the situation of the Fourth International to explain the historical crisis and the nefarious and disastrous role that the revisionism fulfilled from the very beginning of the Fourth International. Revisionism led Trotskyism to suffer a historic blow from which it was very difficult to recover. The International Secretariat headed by Jean van Heijenoort based in New York was isolated and confronted by the leadership of the SWP. The different sections of Trotskyism began to split and crack, and it was in this situation that the Fourth International found itself, beaten and taken over by a revisionist leadership, that Nahuel Moreno came to join the Fourth International during the Second Congress of 1948.

Precisely in 1948, when Nahuel Moreno attendedthe Second Congress of the Fourth International, he wrote the work "Four Theses on Spanish and Portuguese Colonization", a text where he defends the thesis that Latin American colonization has been a capitalist enterprise. This text is fundamental because it polemicizes with Mariátegui, Puiggrós and Stalinism, who propose that Latin American colonization was feudal to justify the "Theory of the Revolution in stages", that is, to validate its policy of agreements with the bourgeoisie. Moreno in this work argues that Latin American colonization was capitalist, and thus destroys the proposals of Stalinism, in defense of Leon Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution.

Nahuel Moreno and the crisis of the Fourth International

Nahuel Moreno attendedthe Second Congress of the Fourth International that took place in Paris during the months of March and April 1948. The Congress was attended by 50 delegates representing 22 sections from 19 countries, of which Latin America it was considered a section within which Nahuel Moreno participated as a sympathetic delegate. Moreno was a young man of 24 years old who did not know the debates that went through the Fourth International, he came from a very small and poor section that had to make an enormous economic effort that included collections and activities in working class neighborhoods to be able to raise the money for the ticket to Paris. This isolation in which the GOM, the small organization founded by Nahuel Moreno in Argentina, was immersed, led Moreno to define that they were developing a "barbaric Trotskyism", that is, isolated from the Fourth International and on the margins of the fundamental debates and resolutions that crossed the organization.

The arrival of Nahuel Moreno to the Fourth International was fundamental to get out of "barbaric Trotskyism" and to become aware of the reality of the Fourth International. The Congress took place in the midst of a deep crisis resulting from the disastrous policy of the revisionists led by Michel Pablo, Pierre Frank, and Ernest Mandel in World War II who had taken the line of not supporting the partisan struggle and resistance against the Nazi occupying armies. The betrayal of having turned its back on the democratic task of the national liberation of the peoples deeply struck a blow to all sections of the Fourth International, and opened crises in them.

In the SWP of the United States, an internal minority current led by Felix Morrow, Jean van Heijenoort and Albert Goldman emerged and confronted the majority led by Cannon and Hansen. Morrow, Van Heijenoort and Goldman were important leaders of the SWP: Morrow was from 1940 editor of the SWP newspaper The Militant, and of its theoretical journal "Fourth International", but in 1945 he was displaced by Bert Cochran in the maneuvers of James P. Cannon and the majority of the SWP for opposing the line of not supporting the resistance against the Nazis. On the other hand, Goldman had been a lawyer for the striking Teamsters in 1934, a lawyer for Leon Trotsky in 1937 against Stalin's Moscow trials before a commission headed by liberal educator John Dewey, as well as lead defence counsel in the Smith Act 1941 prosecution of SWP leaders. in which he himself had suffered prosecution.

In the English section there was a rupture and a majority of the party led by Ted Grant and Jock Haston was in dissent with the international secretariat headed by Pablo. The minority of the English section headed by Gerry Healy had the support of the majority of the SWP in the United States which supported the policy of the revisionists headed by Pablo, Frank and Mandel. The French section was sinking into crisis, and failed to grasp the rupture in the youth of French Social Democracy, thus regressing by 1949 to 317 militants. The international secretariat headed by Pablo, Mandel, and Frank presented to Congress a document that stated that "the strategic preparation for a third world war" was underway, that "the Europe of the Marshall Plan, like the Europe of Versailles and the Europe of Hitler, will be nothing more than an impoverished and impotent Europe" (Daniel Gaido- "The Origins of Pabloism: The Fourth International in the post-war period and the split of 1953" CONICET Digital)

That is to say, the revisionism of Pablo and Mandel already posed almost eighty years ago the same political nonsense that 99% of the world left repeats today. The characterizations that are presented today as "theoretical novelty" that we are on the way to a third world war, and that we are on the way to fascism are in reality the same nonsense that revisionism put forward as a foundational platform decades ago. To make matters worse, they were also wrong in the perspective of the world economy since they predicted "an impoverished Europe", when Europe and capitalism were heading towards the post-war "boom".

That is to say, revisionism had plunged the Fourth International into a deep crisis by its policy of not supporting the partisans, and now it was on its way to sinking the Fourth International even further with new and more absurd analyses, which had nothing to do with reality. Nahuel Moreno made his debut at the World Congress facing all these absurd analyses of the revisionists. He supported the paper by Jock Haston, and Bill Hunter who confronted the analyses of Pablo and Mandel bysigning that with the Marshall Plan the economy of Europe was going to suffer a recovery (idem- Deuxième Congrès Mondial de la IVe Internationale 1948b, pp. 124-126). Another debate broke out there also about the characterization of Eastern European countries. Mandel maintained that they were capitalist countries, while Hoston on behalf of the majority of the British section and Nahuel Moreno maintained that they were workers' states. In addition, Nahuel Moreno, in agreement with the majority of the British section, proposed that the Fourth International should demand the withdrawal of the Red Army troops from those countries since Stalin's troops were occupation troops that threatened the right to national self-determination.

The "Yugoslav Affair" of Revisionism

On June 28, 1948, two months after the conclusion of the Second Congress of the Fourth International, world Stalinism broke up. A crisis broke out between Stalin, leader of the Communist Party of the USSR, and Josip "Tito" Broz, the leader of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Stalin expelled the Yugoslav Communist Party (CPY), accused it of nationalist deviation, imposed a trade blockade on Yugoslavia, and called for the removal of Josip "Tito" Broz, the leader of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. TheTito-Stalin split took the leadership of the Fourth International by complete surprise, which characterized Yugoslavia as a bourgeois state, but Pablo and Mandel were quick to modify the characterization of Yugoslavia by declaring it a workers' state, to give their enthusiastic support to Tito, and to develop a policy of sowing illusions in Yugoslav Stalinism by considering it "progressive" in relation to the Stalinism of the USSR.

Tito was an avowed enemy of Trotskyism and a murderer of Trotskyists. In 1939 Tito wrote an essay entitled "Trotskyism and its Helpers", where he stated that Trotskyism carried out "subversive activities" carrying out espionage, sabotage, acting in favor of fascist bandits, calling Stalin the "best successor" of Engels and Lenin. Tito was an unscrupulous and slanderous member of the Stalinist apparatus, an apologist for Stalin and his crimes. The Tito regime executed the Yugoslav Trotskyists led by Nikola Popović after the liberation of Belgrade in 1944. And it was precisely to this Stalinist regime that Pablo and Mandel sent an "Open Letter" with the following appeal: "Yugoslav Communists, let us unite our efforts for a new Leninist International! For the world victory of socialism!" (idem- Secrétariat International de la Quatrième Internationale 1948a, pp. 392-294)

In 1950, the international secretariat headed by Pablo, Mandel and Frank sent brigades of young people to Yugoslavia, including the French leader Pierre Lambert, to make agreements with the Tito regime. Lambert returned from Yugoslavia stating that he found a "dictatorship of the proletariat prepared to confront Stalinism." Gerry Healy, leader of the minority of the English section, also organized a delegation of youth brigades that traveled to support Yugoslavia. The alignment of Pablo, Mandel, Frank, Healy, and Lambert with Yugoslav Stalinism provoked the reaction of repudiation from the militants and leaders of the Fourth International, who rejected this shameful capitulation of the revisionists to Yugoslav Stalinism, which provoked a new deep crisis in the Fourth International.

Ted Grant, and Jock Haston and most of the English Trotskyist militants had attempted a reunification with the leadership of the Fourth International that controlled Gerry Healy's minority faction in Britain. The majority and minority fractions of the British section had been unified in 1949, but once the merger under Healy's leadership took place, a process of expelling all dissidents began. Both Roy Tearse and Jimmy Deane, along with other former leaders, was expelled, as was Tony Cliff's group that defended a wrong position towards the USSR by claiming that it was not a workers' state but a "capitalism". of state".

To Despite not agreeing with Cliff's position, Ted Grant protested vehemently against the treatment given to Cliff's group and the violation of for which Ted Grant was also expelled after 22 years of militancy in the Trotskyist movement. Ted Grant was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Fourth International Congress and his expulsion was ratified at the Third World Congress at the proposal by Ernest Mandel.

Grant and Haston claimed that the "Yugoslav affair" had shown that both the International Secretariat led by Michel Pablo, as well as the new leadership of the British section led by Gerry Healy were "theoretically bankrupt". The capitulation of the revisionists to the Tito regime also opened a serious crisis in the French section, for which Henri Lafièvre, Julien Brassamain, Raymond Florence and Roger Mary resigned from the Central Committee and the party. Natalia Sedova, founder of the Fourth International and Trotsky's companion, sent a letter of resignation from the Fourth International on May 9, 1951, deigned by the capitulation of the revisionists of the International Secretariat to Tito.

This is how Natalia expressed it in her letter: "It is impossible for me to follow you on the question of the Tito regime in Yugoslavia. All the sympathy and support of revolutionaries, and even of all democrats, should go to the Yugoslav people in their determined resistance to Moscow's efforts to reduce them and their country to vassalage. All the advantages of the concessions that the Yugoslav regime is now forced to make to the population must be taken advantage of. But your entire press is now engaged in an inexcusable idealization of the Titoite bureaucracy, for which there is no foundation in the traditions and principles of our movement. This bureaucracy is only a replica, in a new form, of the old Stalinist bureaucracy. She was trained in the ideas, politics, and morals of the GPU. His regime does not differ from Stalin's in any fundamental respect. It is absurd to believe or teach that the revolutionary leadership of the Yugoslav people will develop out of this bureaucracy or in any way other than through a struggle against it" (idem- Sedova Trotsky 1951)

The resignation of Natalia Sedova expressed the deep crisis into which the Fourth International was falling under the leadership of the revisionists. Natalia was resigning from the organization she had founded, the development of which had cost the lives of her longtime comrade Leon Trotsky and his son, Leon Sedov, among other dear comrades and friends of the organization. The "Yugoslav affair" represented the nosedive of the Fourth International into the worst capitulations in history, which the revisionists Pablo, Mandel, Frank, Healy, and Lambert were carrying out and caused a destruction of the Fourth International, exacerbating its crisis.

The "new course" of Pablo and Mandel

Two new events of the class struggle impacted the Fourth International: On October 1, 1949, the Chinese Revolution triumphed, where the Communist Party of China, led by Mao Tse Tung, took power, and on June 25, 1950, the Korean War broke out, in which U.S. imperialism took power. The U.S. intervened militarily to try to stop the revolution of the Korean masses led by Korean Stalinism. Under the impact of these events, the International Executive Committee of the Fourth International adopted in November 1950 a preparatory document for the Third Congress of the Fourth International, entitled "Draft Thesis on the International Perspectives and Orientation of the Fourth International" (idem- Comité Exécutif International 1950d, pp. 43-49).

The document began by predicting the imminent outbreak of a third World War: "being threatened by a new crisis of overproduction, imperialism is once again embarking on an accelerated military and political preparation for a new world war" (idem- Comité Exécutif International 1950d, p. 43) The imminent outbreak of a third World War was already transformed from that time, until today, in the repeated slogan of the revisionists. The analysis of the revisionists, shocked and impressed by the beginning of the "Cold War" between the United States and the United States, was not the same as the Cold War. The US, and the USSR in the post-war period, the Chinese Revolution and the Korean War, began to propose that Stalinism would be forced to carry out "revolutions" against imperialism and capitalism.

In fact, they began to propose that Stalinism would become "revolutionary" under the pressure of the attack of imperialism that was preparing World War III. Consistent with this reasoning, the revisionists argued that Trotskyists should not only support the Stalinist Communist Parties, but also join them. The International Executive Committee of the revisionists called this policy of generalized entry into the reformist and Stalinist organizations "the new course of Trotskyism" (idem- Comité Exécutif International 1950d, p. 49). Pablo and Mandel proposed that the parties of the Fourth International had to make "sui generis entry" into the CPs of the world.

This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it: "... Pablo and Mandel, following bourgeois journalism, drew a conclusion that was disastrous for them. the history of the Fourth International: in the third world war, which was inevitable and would not be long in coming. in beginning, the communist parties and the left-wing currents of the nationalist movements bourgeois or social democratic parties, were going to throw themselves into guerrillas, revolutionary struggles that would lead them to take power. Mainly this had to happen with the communist parties who, in their eagerness to defend Russia, would go as far as guerrilla warfare or violent, physical, revolutionaries to oppose imperialism. Based on this analysis, they proposed an orientation that was called sui generis entrism ... It was not the tactic advocated by Trotsky in the 1930s, which consisted of joining the Socialist Parties for a short period in order to win over the left of those organizations and then break. The sui generis entryism proposed by Pablo and Mandel consisted of joining the Stalinist, social democratic or petty-bourgeois nationalist organizations and remaining in them for as long as it took them to take power and consolidate it. Entry was to be made mainly in the Communist Parties. And only after the we would have accompanied to make the revolution, we would have to begin to differentiate ourselves from them..." (Nahuel Moreno- The Party and the Revolution- Prologue. 1973)

This whole orientation of the "new course of Trotskyism" advocated by the revisionists was a continuation of the line of the "Yugoslav affair" when Mandel, Pablo, Healy and Frank placed their hopes in the Yugoslav Communist Party breaking with Stalinism and contented themselves with supporting and advising that party. The "new conditions" dictated to the Trotskyists "as a general attitude towards them", the policy "of a left opposition that gives them critical support" (idem- Pablo 1951, p. 45), with which the Fourth International was completely subordinated to Stalinism, and renounced the strategy of building independent revolutionary parties. This meant destroying the Fourth International as its sections would disintegrate into the Communist Parties led by Stalinism. The "Theses on the International Perspectives and Orientation of the Fourth International" were adopted the following year by the Third Congress of the Fourth International. International held in August 1951 (idem- Troisième congrès mondial de la Quatrième Internationale 1951a).

Numerous leaders raised their voices against the line of the revisionists In turn, the revisionists began to attack the leaders who rebelled against their positions, which led to a brutal attack on Nahuel Moreno. In Argentina there were two groups that recognized themselves as belonging to the Fourth International: One was the "Group IV International" led by Posadas, and the other was the POR led by Nahuel Moreno. Posadas was a madman who believed that UFOs had to be studied because they came from civilizations that had already had made socialism, but he was a defender of the leadership of Pablo and Mandel.

The Third Congress of the Fourth International adopted a "Resolution on the recognition of the Fourth International Group of Argentina as the Argentine section of the Fourth International" because of its supposed "understanding of the Fourth International." of the real movement of the masses in Argentina and in Latin America in general." The resolution stated that Moreno should dissolve the POR and unite to the official section directed by Posadas under the following Conditions: "Re-enter individually three months after the publication of the resolution, and be prohibited from forming fractions within the section" (idem- Troisième congrès mondial de la Quatrième Internationale 1951f). That is to say, the revisionist leadership demanded that Nahuel Moreno dissolve his group, and that they all enter individually the group led by Posadas, without the right to question the policy of revisionism. The Congress also adopted a "Resolution on the Establishment of a Bureau of Commerce". Latin American," which put Posadas in charge of coordinating the work of the Fourth International in Latin America (idem- Troisième congrès mondial de la Quatrième Internationale 1948g).

All the resolutions of the 3rd Congress of the Fourth International were a real attack and declaration of war on Nahuel Moreno, and the militants of the POR of Argentina, who now saw themselves at a crossroads: Dissolve their work, their organization, and disappear to abide by the resolutions of revisionism, or oppose all of them, and unite with cadres of the world to carry forward the struggle against revisionism and "sui generis entryism" which advocated the "New Course" ofthe revisionists. .

The debate on "entryism"

Perhaps many today will be surprised to understand how at that time in the Fourth International there was so much debate around the question of the tactic of "entryism", and how this was one of the fundamental concerns of the leaders of world Trotskyism. Entryism is a tactic by which Trotskyist militants enter a counterrevolutionary organization organized, remain for a while within the organization and position themselves as a fraction opposed to the leadership, capture a sector of valuable leaders and militants, and then leave with a larger and stronger organization. To understand why this was a transcendental debate, it is necessary to understand the context of the class struggle of that time, the decades of the 40's, 50's, 60's of the twentieth century.

After the end of the Second World War in 1945, the counterrevolutionary apparatuses emerged from the war with great strength: Stalinism, social democracy and the bourgeois nationalist movements had millions of militants, activist leaders, cadres, intellectuals, trade unionists and the best of the world vanguard was then to be found within these organizations. This reality is difficult to comprehend for any 21st-century activist who sees Stalinism, social democracy, or bourgeois nationalist movements as empty shells, empty apparatuses, and sees how the best activists emerge from outside these organizations.

But the reality of the post-war period of the twentieth century was very different. In most of the twentieth century the reality of the class struggle presented a very contradictory reality: On the one hand and from the objective point of view, there were great revolutions such as the defeat of the Nazis, the Yugoslav revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Korean revolution, or Vietnam. But on the other hand, a great setback from the subjective point of view, of consciousness. The great proletariats and the peoples trusted in the treacherous leaderships.

The French Communist Party, or Italian, the PC's of the world, were organizations with millions of members. The workers proudly carried their membership cards to the Communist Party because they believed in and trusted Stalinism. The same was true of the labour or socialist parties or the bourgeois nationalist movements that had millions of young and enthusiastic militants. Millionsbelieved in Stalin, Mao, Khrushev, Cardenas. Gandhi, Perón, Nasser, etc. But as the politics of these leaderships clashed with the revolutionary processes, tremendous debates were formulated in these organizations and left wings emerged that tended to coincide with points of the Trotskyist program.

Let us also remember that as a result of the disastrous policies of the revisionists, the Fourth International emerged from the Second World War in crisis, small, stunted, far from the best representatives of world activism. It was logical then that the fundamental debates among the Trotskyists revolved around what were the best tactics to link up with the world activism that was found within the counterrevolutionary organizations. Hence, there was a permanent debate in those years among the Trotskyist leaders about the tactic of entryism.

Leon Trotsky had already formulated the tactic of entryism in the 1930s to take advantage of the opportunities of the class struggle by taking advantage of the crises and the emergence of left wings in the social democratic parties. This tactic began to be applied in France where the Trotskyists entered the French Socialist Party which was under the leadership of Leon Blum, and was at that time called Section Française de l'International Ouvrière (SFIO), for which reason the tactic of entryism adopted the name of "the French turn". The Trotskyists formed the Bolshevik-Leninist Group (GBL) within the SFIO and recruited 600 militants.

The French turn took place between 1934 and 1936 for two years. The Trotskyists again applied the tactic of "entryism" in other countries during the 1930s, such as when in 1936 they joined the Socialist Party of America and won over a section of the youth until they were expelled and in 1938 they formed the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). In Britain they joined the Independent Labour Party in 1932 and the Labour Party in the following years, and remained there for 12 years until 1944. There was agreement among the main Trotskyist leaders of that time on the need to apply the tactic of entryism, divergences arose around how to do it.

The "sui generis" entryism promoted by Pablo, Mandel and the revisionists was different from the "French turn" proposed by Trotsky. The revisionists argued that the Trotskyists should enter and discipline the Stalinist leaders since as the beginning of World War III approached, those leaders were going to evolve into a revolutionary leadership. In addition, the revisionists proposed an entryism without an exit date, given that to the extent that the leadership and the counterrevolutionary Stalinist party was transformed into a revolutionary party, the Trotskyists had to remain there until they ended up being part of the leadership.

The point is that when a tactic is applied for a very large number of years, more than a decade, or several decades, it ceases to become a tactic, and becomes a strategy. That is to say, the "sui generis" entryism of Pablo, Mandel and the revisionists, opposed in its method, as well as in the term of application to Trotsky's "French turn", elevatedthe tactic of "entryism" to the category of strategy, which was the result of the "French turn".It formed the Trotskyist organization into a reformist organization because it abandoned for an indefinite period of time the task of building a revolutionary leadership, to devote itself to building a counterrevolutionary one. Thenit was necessary to put the tactic of "entryism" in its proper place, defending the tactical character that Trotsky gave to the "French turn", while acting indefense of the revolutionary strategy. Theseare the reasons why the debate on entryism was so intense in the ranks of the Fourth International in those post-war years.

The Betrayal of the Revisionists in China and Bolivia

The approval of the strategy of the "New Course" of the 3rd Congress of the Fourth International provoked a reaction and rebellion of the cadres and militants of the International in against Pablo and Mandel. The "New Course" was in reality a policy of adaptation to Stalinism that led to the breakup of the Fourth International. To the extent that the Trotskyist leaders and militants were called upon to apply the orientation of "sui generis entry" in the Communist Parties, the protests, uprisings, and ruptures of the majority of Trotskyist militants in the world who rejected the policy of "critically" integrating themselves into the Communist Parties and Stalinism grew.

The first to rebel against the orientation of Mandel and Pablo were the leaders of the French section. A crisis broke out between the International Secretariat (IS) and the majority of the French section which turned into a confrontation between two tendencies of the Internationalist Communist Party (PCI) over the policy to be pursued in relation to the French Communist Party (PCF). The International Secretariat of Pablo and Mandel pressured the PCF to place its militants within the PCF, and accused the majority of the party that it was not abiding by the resolutions of the 3rd Congress and the "New Course" and did not defend this policy in the French section newspaper called "L'Unité".

This is how Pablo explained it: "... as we approach the war, a more and more important part of our forces must get involved in the different political and trade union organizations led or influenced by the Stalinists, including in the PCF, stay and work there..." (idem- Secrétariat International de la Quatrième Internationale 1952a, p. 401). Pablo was pressuring the French section to practice a tactic of entryism very different from the one carried out fifteen years ago when the Trotskyists carried out the "French turn" in the SFIO, now the Trotskyists had to discipline themselves to the PCF officials.

As the leadership of the CPI refused to implement this policy, the International Secretariat suspended ten full members of the Central Committee as well as six alternate members. Then the International Executive Committee that met on February 28 and 29, 1952, intervened the French section to apply the policy of entryism, and also extended the tactic of entryism to other counterrevolutionary apparatuses such as the bourgeois nationalist movements: "the activity of the Trotskyists of the Middle East and the African colonies could develop for a period within the national movements that shake these countries" (idem- Pablo 1952a, p. 342).

On June 26, 1952, the PCI minority, supported by Pablo and the International Secretariat, took over the premises of the PCI in Paris and seized the printing equipment, mimeographs, typewriters, etc. On July 1, 1952, Paul recognized the minority group as the only French section of the Fourth International, expelling approximately 250 militants. The political struggle continued in the field of bourgeois justice and the revisionists headed by Pierre Frank went to court so that the name "Parti communiste internationaliste - Section française de la IVe Internationale" could only be used by them. The courts dismissed his lawsuit and two parties with the same name emerged in France, a real destruction of French Trotskyism that meant that almost half of the militants of the PCI ceased to be militants.

The same happened with the case of China where Paul and the revisionists indicated that: "We offer critical support for the Chinese Communist Party and Mao's government. Tse-Tung, and we claim our legal existence as a tendency to communist movement of the workers' movement" (idem- Pablo 1951, p. 45). However, the ideas and conceptions of Pablo and Mandel clashed with the firm position of the Chinese Trotskyist leader Peng Shuzi who was a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since 1923, and a member of the CCP Political Bureau in 1925. Peng spent 5 years in a Kuomintang prison (nationalist) and was released in 1937.

Peng had opposed the Communist Party's disastrous policies of Stalin and the Third International for China, and Chen Duxiue, the founder of the CCP, joined the two of them. became supporters of Leon Trotsky and the Opposition of Left. But Mao launched a brutal repression and persecution of Trotskyist militants in China as a result of their integration into the world Stalinist apparatus just as Tito had done in Yugoslavia. Peng was forced to flee to Hong Kong, from where he began to act as a correspondent of the Fourth International.

In In his report to the Third Congress of the Fourth International, Peng disagreed with Pablo and Mandel, who claimed that the CCP's military victory was the result of Mao's policies of "mass pressure", and that Mao had taken power in violation of Stalin's directives. For Stalin in China, the communist parties should be part of capitalist coalitions, and even join the government of the capitalist coalition of the Kuomintang (KMT) led by Chiang Kai-shek.

Peng showed that the CCP followed Moscow's instructions to the letter, and for two years Mao tried to form a government of capitalist coalition with Chiang Kai-shek refusing to to call for his overthrow. Even after the Nationalist armies seized the stronghold of the CCP in Yenan, and issued an arrest warrant for Mao, sought to implement Stalin's directives at all costs, even violating the basic principles of defending the party and its address.

Peng then explained how Mao integrated the Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT coalition capitalist government with ministers, forming the KMT-CCP coalition government, until Chiang Kai-Sek expelled to the members of the Communist Party of the government. And he also explained that far from pursuing a policy of "mass pressure," the CCP endangered the Chinese revolution by containing workers' strikes, student protests, and rural riots, which greatly endangered the revolutionary movement by allowing Chiang time to consolidate his forces and control the cities.

When Mao finally called for Chiang's overthrow in October 1999, 1947, he was not at odds with Stalin, but was in line with the latter's response to aggressive Cold War policies of Washington. Peng made a distinction between the situation in China and that of Yugoslavia, where the Communist Party under Josip Tito was forced to to overcome the limits dictated by Stalin by the development of the revolution of the partisan groups against the German army. In Yugoslavia, although Tito established a coalition government with In the wake of a section of the bourgeoisie in 1944 supported by Stalin, the ruling capitalist coalition quickly collapsed, and could not be sustained, leaving the Communist Party alone in the power and over the next three years nationalized key sectors of the industry, which led to the crisis between Tito and Stalin in 1948.

On the contrary, Mao took the Moscow line including siding with Stalin against Tito. Under its "New Democracy" program, Mao explicitly defended the property and profits of the Chinese and foreign investors, with the exception of those who had fled to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek. His government included representatives of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. It was only the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, which forced the CCP to expand the nationalization of capitalist property with the first economic plan announced in 1953, and the expropriation of the class Chinese capitalist revolution in 1956.

The analysis developed by Peng faced the adulation of the regime Maoist on the part of Pablo and Mandel. Mandel's response to Peng unfolded in the 11th Plenum of the International Executive Committee (IEC) of the Fourth International in May 1952, in which Mandel called Peng a "sectarian" and emphasized "The Chinese CP has begun, opportunistically and empirically, it is true, but in reality he has begun to apply the theory of revolution permanent in its own way."

For Mandel, the Stalinist CCP, under Mao's leadership, was leading the Leon Trotsky's strategy, but the reality is that Mao was forced to advance to the taking revolutionary measures such as the nationalization of the economy forced by the pressure of imperialism that had invaded the peninsula of Korea, and had decreed the blockade of China.

However, that is not meant in no sense that Mao had embraced the perspective of Trotsky. Mandel's claims were a real political nonsense that could be Not for the fact that the whole policy of the revisionists endangered the lives of thousands of Trotskyists and their families. 

While Mandel declared Peng to be "sectarian," the Maoist regime launched a brutal persecution of Trotskyists between December 22, 1952 and December 8, 1952, January 1953, during which the CCP carried out the arrest and imprisonment of more than 1,000 Chinese Trotskyists, their relatives and supporters in a nationwide raid where many of they were beaten and tortured, and forced to write repeatedly. Statements of "self-criticism".

At the same time, the International Secretariat of the Fourth International carried out another betrayal of the Bolivian revolution of 1952. This is how he explains it Nahuel Moreno: "The synthesis of betrayal The pablolist took place in Bolivia. In this country the POR (Revolutionary Workers Party) section of the International, led by Pablo, committed one of the most tremendous betrayals... In Bolivia, the working class, educated by the Trotskyism, carried out at the beginning of April 1952 one of the revolutions The most perfect workers known: he destroyed the bourgeois army, he constituted workers' and peasants' militias as the only real power in the country, and organized the Bolivian Workers' Central to centralize the labor movement and the militias..."

"... The bureaucracy that ran the COB handed over the power that was in his hands to the bourgeois nationalist party, to the MNR (Nationalist Movement) Revolutionary). Bolivian Trotskyism was a power, it had great influence in the labor and mass movement, he had participated as a co-leadership in the workers' and people's insurrection that had destroyed the army... The International Secretariat (IS), led by Pablo, gave the line traitor and reformist of critically supporting the bourgeois government... The beginning The Pabloite revisionist was always the same: the MNR, pressured by the mass movement, was going to be forced to make a socialist revolution" (Nahuel Moreno, Update of the Transition Program. 1980)

The Bolivian Trotskyists Guillermo Lora and Hugo González Moscoso of the Bolivian POR, under the guidance of the International Secretariat of Pablo and Mandel, betrayed the Bolivian revolution. The betrayal was a new blow that the revisionists dealt to the Fourth International, which was added to the blows already established in the Second World War, in Yugoslavia, in China, etc. Trotskyism could and should have fought for power in the Bolivian revolution of 1952, which would have brought the Fourth International out of the crisis in which it had found itself since the assassination of Trotsky. But he suffered again in Bolivia in '52, another blow at the hands of revisionism.

1953: Orthodox Trotskyism is born

In 1953 two events of the utmost importance for Trotskyism took place: On March 2, Joseph Stalin, the maximum leader of the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy of the USSR, died. And at the end of the year "orthodox Trotskyism" was born, a political current organized to combat Stalinism and revisionism. Within the U.S. SWP In the US, a tendency had emerged led by Bert Cochran, Harry Braverman and George Clarke who supported the positions of Pablo and Mandel within the SWP. With Pablo's support, George Clarke published in Fourth International, the theoretical journal of the Fourth International, an article that contemplated the possibility of a self-reform of the Stalinist bureaucracy and the gradual restoration of Soviet democracy without a revolutionary uprising in the U.S.S.R. (Daniel Gaido- "The Origins of Pabloism: The Fourth International in the post-war period and the split of 1953" CONICET Digital- Clarke, 1953)

This was another real nonsense of the revisionists, which liquidated everything written by Trotsky about the need to make a "Political Revolution" in the USSR, because now the revisionists proposed that the Stalinist bureaucracy was going to "reform itself" peacefully. Thus, in May 1953, the crisis in the SWP and the Cannon-Hansen leadership that had been up to that point in general, supporting the policy of Pablo and Mandel, they decided to confront the Cochran-Clarke tendency that Pablo promoted in the SWP. 

In June 1953 the German people of East Berlin rose up against the occupation of the Red Army, and Stalin's troops occupying the city. Cannon and the leadership of the SWP then rejected the statement of the International Secretariat which did not contain a call for the withdrawal of Russian troops from German territory (idem- Secrétariat International de la Quatrième Internationale 1953)

Marcel Bleibtreu, the leader of the section Trotskyist who had been expelled in France promoted an emergency meeting before the catastrophe that was causing the leadership of the Pablo-Mandel binomial. On October 3-4, 1953, representatives of the English section, the majority ICP and the Swiss section held a conference in London together with the SWP where they called on the American section to go on the offensive, break with the International Secretariat and regroup Pablo's opponents at the international level (idem- Lequenne 2005, p. 312). A "provisional committee" was established and a communiqué was issued stating that the delegates declared themselves to "undertake together the defence of Trotskyism against Pabloite revisionism and the struggle against the liquidation of the Fourth International". They also agreed to prepare documents for presentation to the Fourth Congress of the International (idem- London Meeting 195)

Thus was born the "orthodox Trotskyism", the current ready to fight against revisionism. This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it: "The historical merit of having been the first to to realize what Pabloism meant as a revisionist current... belongs to the old French section the CPI (Internationalist Communist Party) ... who threw himself into a principled battle practically alone. Quickly the French comrades were supported by the most of the Latin American Trotskyists, with the exception of the comrades Bolivians enfeoffed to the SI and Pabloism, from which we must exclude to the current that responded to Lora, who had an abstentionist policy." The birth of orthodox Trotskyism opened up the hope of fighting to defeat revisionism, of defending Marxism and of beginning to rebuild the Fourth International, which had been suffering blow after blow for 13 years, since the assassination of Trotsky.

In Buenos Aires on March 10, 1953, Nahuel Moreno and the Central Committee of the POR sent a letter of rupture with the International Secretariat (SI) where it resolved: "... To consider the methods of the International Secretariat as contrary to a direction responsible... completely weakening the education of our cadres ... having regard to the positions of the YES vis-à-vis our party and the French Internationalist Communist Party (PCI), resolves to suspend the old characterization supporter of absolute political confidence in the international leadership..." (Letter to the International Secretariat). Moreno and the leadership of the POR thus broke with the YES, in solidarity with the French leadership, and joined the defense of orthodox Trotskyism.

The Fourth International was suffering an acute crisis with a leadership that raised expectations that Stalinism would become revolutionary, that proposed to support and join the Stalinist sections by disciplining their treacherous leaderships, that critically supported governments such as those of Tito, or Mao, and imposed this whole policy of betrayals by expelling hundreds of militants. dividing the sections, and causing a general disintegration of the organization. On November 16, 1953, the leadership of the SWP in the United States published in its press The Militant an open letter entitled "To the Trotskyists of the Whole World" in which James Cannon called for the struggle against revisionism, and for the construction of a tool of orthodox Trotskyism.

It was essential that the leaders who had begun a close and trusting collaboration with Leon Trotsky after his exile from the USSR, such as Cannon, and the main leaders of the SWP, should lead this call, placing their prestige and political weight at the service of the task. In this text, Cannon criticized the International Secretariat and Michel Pablo for their strategy with the support of the Russian bureaucracy and the Communist Parties, and ended with an appeal to the sections of the Fourth International to remove Pablo and his followers from office with these words: "The abyss that separates Pabloite revisionism from Trotskyism The orthodox approach is so deep, that there is no possible political or organic compromise... They are determined to eliminate from the Fourth International all the orthodox Trotskyists... We consider that the time to act, and to act resolutely... safeguarding the administration of the affairs of the Fourth International by removing Paul and his agents from their positions, and putting them in office. with cadres who have proven in action that they are capable of sustaining the orthodox Trotskyism" (idem- James Cannon, November 16, 1953, The Militant)

On November 23, 1953, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) was created on the political basis of James P. Cannon's "The Open Letter to the World Trotskyist Movement.". The Pabloites responded with a letter signed by Pablo, Pierre Frank and Ernest Mandel in which they proceeded to expel the SWP from the Fourth International. This is how, from December 1953, the Fourth International officially met On the one hand, the International Secretariat (IS) of the revisionists headed by Pablo, Pierre Frank and Ernest Mandel, and on the other hand the ICFI headed by James Cannon who was joined by Peng Shuzhi, Marcel Bleibtreu of France, Gerry Healy of England, Heinrich Buchbinder of Switzerland, and Nahuel Moreno of Latin America.

Nahuel Moreno was the only important Latin American Trotskyist leader to join the ICFI. All the other Trotskyist leaders of Latin America gave their support to revisionism: Posadas stayed in the Secretariat with Pablo and Mandel, the Bolivian Trotskyists Guillermo Lora and Hugo González Moscoso of the Bolivian POR also gave their support to Pablo, Mandel and Frank, and attended the "Fourth World Congress" convened by them. Trotskyists in Brazil, Mexico, and Uruguay also gave support to the Pablo and Mandel Secretariat. This made Nahuel Moreno the only leader of "orthodox Trotskyism" in Latin America.

Two years later Lora broke with the International Secretariat in 1956, and the POR of Bolivia was divided, it did not survive the betrayal that he and Pablo and Mandel made in the Bolivian revolution. Lora remained outside the organizations of the Fourth International for a long time, refraining from waging the struggle against revisionism and in favor of the emergence of orthodox Trotskyism at a time when it was more necessary than ever to give support and contribution to the defense of Marxism.

In Sri Lanka, a former Ceylon that was a colony of the British Empire, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), a Trotskyist organization that had played a leading role in the struggle for independence from the domination of the British Empire of India and Sri Lanka, had achieved an important development. On August 12, 1953, the LSSP had launched a successful general strike against the government's brutal austerity measures involving sections of the working class, and broad sections of the rural masses. 

This general strike, which went down in history as the "Hartal", lasted several days, forced the resignation of the prime minister and threatened to overthrow the government, which showed the possibilities that Trotskyism had of developing a revolutionary organization in the heat of the revolutions of the world.

The ICFI: The Struggle of Orthodox Trotskyism

The emergence of a current headed by James Cannon, and the leadership of the SWP that was beginning to develop a battle in defense of Marxism and Trotskyism, opened enormous expectations in Trotskyist militants around the world, and in sectors of world activism that were beginning to break with Stalinism. The emergence of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) almost immediately triggered the crisis of Pabloism. The Pabloite SI "suspended" the parties that adhered to the call of the Committee, and recognized as "official sections" the groups that agreed with the "sui generis entryism" that Pablo had been promoting.

But to the extent that the groups led by revisionism applied the line of "sui generis" entryism and were integrated into the Communist Parties (PC's), they began to break with Trotskyism, with which Pablo was losing adherents. Other leaders such as Mandel and Frank, avoided applying this orientation in depth because they wanted to maintain a certain political independence, with which Pablo's position was weakened when his most enthusiastic followers left and a new axis of leadership began to be constituted in the IS, around Ernest Mandel, Pierre Frank and Livio Maitán.

Pablo's "Fourth World Congress" was a failure that laid bare the crisis of the revisionists. The IS of the revisionists passed a resolution proposing to the ICFI to carry out an organized discussion to restore the unity of the Trotskyist movement on November 6 and 7, 1954. Sectors such as the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) of Sri Lanka pressured the ICFI and the SI for a "reunification" of the Trotskyist movement, andthe ICFI decided to accept a Joint Commission, but this attempt failed at the first meeting between the delegates of the International Secretariat and the ICFI held on February 20, 1955 in Paris.

It was necessary to carry out a strategy for the ICFI to develop and advance to regroup orthodox Trotskyism. Despite the crisis evidenced by Pabloism the ICFI did not go on the offensive against revisionism, it even took two years for it to the forces that claimed to be "orthodox" Trotskyism called for an international conference. Cannon and the SWP stated the following: "... the International Committee of the Fourth International has hitherto confined itself to the organization of the forces of the orthodox Trotskyist faction... It has not yet planned an international congress, and I believe that it will take care to do so until the discussion has been completed in all the sections" (Workers' and Internationalist Trotskyism in Argentina" - Ernesto González. Chapter 8)

Nahuel Moreno and the leadership of the POR began to organize Latin American Trotskyism, and made contact with the Trotskyists of Chile and Peru on the basis of which a first centralization body, the Latin American Committee, was constituted in October 1954. Meanwhile, the leadership of the ICFI suffered a qualitative weakening: James Cannon asked to leave the leadership of the SWP for personal reasons. It was not just any weakening, Cannon had been a fundamental pillar together with Leon Trotsky in the development of the Fourth International. Pabloism addressed to the CLCI an appeal "For the unity of the Trotskyist Movement", in November 1956, insisting again on preparing together a world congress, as a result of the crisis due to the serious weakening they were suffering, andthe SWP entered into negotiations on April 31, 1957 with a series of conditions and guarantees to discuss unification, but this policy of the SWP leadership produced resistance from the other parties adhering to the ICFI. In England, Gerry Healy and Bill Hunter rejected the approach to Pabloism. Hunter argued that "the gap between Pabloite revisionism and us is widening and widening" (Idem, Chapter 8)

Nahuel Moreno, the Latin American Committee (CLA), and the leadership of the POR of Argentina strongly opposed reunification with the revisionists of the International Secretariat. Nahuel Moreno argued that what the ICFI should discuss was the best tactic to definitively defeat Pabloite revisionism, and denounced that the negotiations were a maneuver by the revisionists to avoid their crisis: "... Moreno, in a letter to the Chilean comrades, said, in July 1957: ... the theoretical, political and organizational problems change, but the division subsists because of the class differences between the petty-bourgeois and capitulatory Trotskyism faction (Pabloism) and us (the CICl), the intransigent and class faction." (Idem, Chapter 8).

At the same time, the Latin American Committee (CLA) held in March 1957 the "First Conference of Latin American Orthodox Trotskyism" (TOLA), where documents on the situation of the subcontinent and resolutions on the tasks that were set out in a "Manifesto of Latin American Orthodox Trotskyism", approved at the Conference, were approved, where it characterized that Latin America was being colonized by the United States. which transformed all Latin American countries into political and economic semi-colonies of U.S. imperialism.

The U.S. had been provoked by the disastrous leadership of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaderships of the mass movements. At the same time, the First Conference of the TOLA resolved to create a Latin American Secretariat of Orthodox Trotskyism (SLATO), to begin to contribute to the resolution of the crisis of the international leadership by seeking the emergence of a centralized leadership at the world level that would help the construction of Trotskyist sections in the different countries, to defeat the Pabloite maneuvers at their moment of greatest crisis. SLATO sought to take the first steps to overcome this lack of international leadership, starting at the regional level.

The SLATO proposed to the ICFI "... the holding of a World Congress, resolved by the Cl, after a broad political discussion, from which the future leadership of orthodox Trotskyism will emerge." Finally, the Political Committee of the SWP approved a resolution in which it pointed out that the talks with Pabloism were leading nowhere, and the ICFI convened a conference of the affiliated parties and groups in the English city of Leeds in mid-1958. For SLATO, this meeting was of great importance. It was to serve to initiate the reorganization of "orthodox" Trotskyism, and to open the political debate for the world congress that the leaders of SLATO had been demanding.

The Leeds Papers: The Permanent Update

Nahuel Moreno, the leaders of SLATO, and the leadership of the POR of Argentina took the call to the ICFI world meeting in Leeds, England with great responsibility and enthusiasm. They wanted to contribute to the development of an international leadership that would recover Marxism, orthodox Trotskyism, and begin to resolve the crisis of revolutionary leadership. For this task, they saw the call made by the ICFI in the city of Leeds as an extraordinary opportunity, which is why Nahuel Moreno enthusiastically embarked in 1957 on the drafting of theoretical-political documents to be presented at the Leeds event.

The materials prepared by Nahuel Moreno for the meeting of the ICFI in the English city of Leeds became the backbone of what would later be the entire theoretical-political elaboration of the orthodox Trotskyist current that he would later begin to lead. In this way, it can be said that these works presented in Leeds gave rise to "Morenoism", that is, they are the basis of support for thepolitical current that was born in defense of orthodox Trotskyism. One of these works is "The Permanent Revolution in the Postwar (Critique of Farrell Dobbs' Document)", and another the "Leeds Theses", in which the columns on which all the subsequent elaboration of the current of orthodox Trotskyism that Nahuel Moreno began to build began to rise.

The center of the concerns on which Nahuel Moreno's theoretical-political elaboration is concentrated is the correct characterization of the revolutions of the twentieth century. These great revolutions led by Stalinist or petty-bourgeois organizations seemed to contradict the theses of Trotskyism, however Nahuel Moreno shows that the revolutions of the twentieth century do nothing more than confirm Trotskyism and Marxism, for which an update is necessary. 

First, Moreno states that the Theory of Permanent Revolution requires updating because in the Theses elaborated by Leon Trotsky in 1929 the links and relations between two revolutions are studied: the bourgeois-democratic and the socialist. But it turns out that seven years later Trotsky himself formulates the existence of a third revolution, the Political Revolution, which he had formulated in his work "The Revolution Betrayed" of 1936. There Trotsky proposes that the Stalinist regime must be swept away by a revolution that modifies the political regime of the USSR, not its social-economic base. Since it is not a social revolution, but only in the political regime, Trotsky calls this revolution a "Political Revolution." Nahuel Moreno proposes that the Political Revolution must be incorporated into the Theory of the Permanent Revolution.

So for Nahuel Moreno the Permanent revolves around three revolutions and not just two as is written in the Theses of '29. This is logical for obvious reasons, since when Trotsky wrote the Theses in '29 he had not yet formulated the existence of a third revolution, which he did seven years later. Moreno states that the three revolutions must be incorporated: "The thesis of the Permanent Revolution revolves around two revolutions: the bourgeois democratic and the socialist ... Today the revolution in permanence on a world scale encompasses three categories of revolutions, not just two, since the bourgeois-democratic and socialist political revolution has been combined with the socialist revolution" ... (The Permanent Revolution in the Postwar Period (Critique of Farrell Dobbs' document)

Nahuel Moreno introduces an update of the Theory of Permanent Revolution, but also of the Political Revolution. He argues that the political revolution is not only a revolutionary process that takes place in the USSR, but that due to the weight of the world Stalinist counterrevolutionary apparatus and its link with the other counterrevolutionary leaderships, to the extent that the political revolution against Stalinism advances, it advances against all the leaderships of the mass movement worldwide. He posits the political revolution as a single global phenomenon. This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it:

"... The process that degenerates the USSR and the Communist International is the same that degenerates and elevates the bureaucratic, reformist and counterrevolutionaryleaderships of the mass movement throughout the world. This process takes on different forms and meanings in a trade union, a workers' party or a workers' state. But the existence of these different forms does not mean that they are not part, links of greater or lesser importance, of aworld process of the class struggle. The political revolution in the USSR, despite its colossal significance, is only the most dramatic, intense part of a process, also worldwide, that is not only taking place in the USSR and its zone of influence ... the fight to the death against the trade union bureaucracy in the United States is intimately combined, it is part of the same process as our revolutionary struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR and the Glacis. This does not mean that we put an equal sign on both struggles, since the struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy means fighting against nothing less than a gigantic state apparatus. But the fact that we do not put an equal sign cannot meanthat we do not understand that the domination of the bureaucracy over the workers' movement was part of a world process and that the triumph of the workers' movement over the bureaucracy is also a world process. " (The Postwar Permanent Revolution (Critique of Farrell Dobbs' Paper)

In addition, Nahuel Moreno states that the three revolutions are combined both in developing countries and in imperialist countries: "The bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution were previously combined, closely linked, only in colonial and semi-colonial countries. But today we find that within the very revolution of the metropolitan countries, the democratic revolution plays a role of the first magnitude, it is intimately combined with the workers' revolution. The problem of the black workers in America and of the Algerians in France is the best example... The same is true of the political revolution. There is no doubt that in the struggle of the countries of the Glacis against the Stalinist bureaucracy, the national question is a driving force of fundamental importance. In its turn, the political revolution is but one stage or phase in the process of the workers' revolution in Europe..." (idem) 

That is to say, Moreno argues that the three revolutions combine unequally in all countries, the imperialist and the backward, which gives a new dimension to the Theory of Permanent Revolution since it definitively liquidates the division between "mature" and "immature" countries that Stalinism had made for the formulation ofthe Theory of Revolution in stages.

But the contributions to the Leeds Conference that Nahuel Moreno prepared did not end there. In the documents prepared for Leeds, a new and very important contribution to the structure of the orthodox Trotskyist current appears, which is the category of "February Revolution". This is a fundamental elaboration by Nahuel Moreno that arose to explain an event that began to occur in the twentieth century: The fact that there were great revolutions such as the defeat of the Nazis, the Yugoslav revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Korean revolution, or Vietnam, but none of them was led by a revolutionary party.How do we define these revolutions? That type of revolutions that overthrow regimes, and even go to the point of ending up expropriating the bourgeoisie but have Stalinist or petty-bourgeois leaderships at their head, how do we categorize them?

Nahuel Moreno began to argue that the Russian Revolution had already solved this problem. At the time Moreno was preparing these documents for Leeds, the Russian Revolution had happened only forty years earlier and had developed as a process in which there was first a revolution in February that defeated the Tsar. But this revolution in February had opened the doors of the workers' revolution and developed an interregnum in which the subjective conditions matured, the organs of dual power were strengthened, the working class made the experience with the opportunists, a whole process that led to the October revolution which was led by a revolutionary party.

Having observed the course of the first post-war revolutions, Nahuel Moreno had drawn the conclusion that in the absence of a revolutionary party with mass influence on a world level, the revolutions would develop with the same scheme as the Russian Revolution, that is, beginning with "February revolutions", continuing with an interregnum that did not necessarily have to be the same in quantity of time as in the Russian Revolution, could be months or years depending on the rate of maturation of subjective conditions, and then give rise to October.

This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it: "The Hungarian and Polish revolutions have posed a great theoretical problemand, in my opinion, they have solved it: the political revolution will have, like the classical revolutions, their February revolution and their October revolution, and an interregnum of dual power. That is to say, the political revolution is equal, in its mechanics, to the social revolution" (idem) This discovery and elaboration of Nahuel Moreno is probably the most brilliant and important of his entire career, an extraordinary contribution to Marxist theory without whose existence it is impossible to understand the political events of the twentieth century, not to mention those of the twenty-first century characterized by spectacular revolutions that do not have revolutionary parties at their head.

By going against capitalism, but not having a revolutionary leadership at its head, the February revolution is "unconsciously" socialist. That is, the masses make a revolution, but they don't know it. Nahuel Moreno then characterizes that October is a "conscious" socialist revolution, which the working class carries out "for itself", because it has a revolutionary party at its head. At the same time, to the extent that the subjective factor does not mature, and the revolutionary party does not emerge, the revolutions of February will repeat themselves with new episodes, what Nahuel Moreno called "recurrent Februarys". This categorization of revolutions into "February revolutions" and "October revolutions", differentiating them by the subjective factor, is the greatest and most transcendental contribution to Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution that allows us to understand all the revolutions of the twentieth century, and the current revolutions of the twenty-first century.

Nahuel Moreno prepares another work. In the Leeds Theses, Nahuel Moreno states that the political revolution opens a crisis of crisis of the old leaderships, which was going to take place at a faster pace than the emergence of a new leadership of the workers' movement. And that this crisis would liberate left-wing tendencies with which we Trotskyists had to join in order to advance in the construction of our parties. This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it: "... The crisis of the counter-revolutionary apparatuses will liberate unconscious revolutionary tendencies (left centrist or ultra-left), which with all their limitations and errors (will be) the first objective steps of the workers' vanguard or the left movement in the direction of giving themselves and the masses a revolutionary policy. Our movement is the consciously revolutionary factor that has to understand those first steps and not be frightened, but develop and accelerate them." (Leeds Theses- 1958)

Moreno states that the development of our Trotskyist organizations would at first be "slower than the appearance and development of these revolutionary tendencies of the left" and that from this point on the Fourth International should pursue the objective of "accelerating as much as possible the crisis of the traditional apparatuses, building bridges to the unconsciously revolutionary tendencies that liberate the crisis of the traditional apparatuses...". Moreno called this tactic towards the leftist tendencies that liberate the crises of the apparatuses "revolutionary united front", and the application of this tactic stated that: "... It opens up enormous prospects for our development, but likeany new stage, it will also cause us great dangers. Themain one is the tendency to dilute or abandon principles.. The only chance for this whole strategy to bear full fruit... is that our party and international leadership should have a more vigorous existence than ever before..." (Leeds Theses- 1958)

The crisis at the ICFI

However, the responsibility, expectation and enthusiasm that Nahuel Moreno, the leaders of SLATO and the leadership of the POR of Argentina took in the face of the call for the world meeting of the ICFI, crashed with the reality of what happened at the event convened in Leeds, England. Nahuel Moreno's hopes clashed head-on with the policy of the leadership of the SWP in the United States, the party that was in fact the leadership of the ICFI. Farrell Dobbs, the leader who attended the event on behalf of the entire SWP leadership, came to the event with a completely different objective than Moreno and SLATO.

For Moreno and the SLATO, theInternational Committee conference held in 1958 in Leeds was to promote the ICFI as the new leadership of Trotskyism and the Fourth International, for which it was to present documents, orientations and build a leadership team that would prepare the ICFI for this objective. But forthe leadership of the SWP, the Leeds meeting had as its main objective to prepare for unification with the revisionist IS. For this reason, the SWP leaders did not bring documents, resolutions, or political theoretical contributions to the Conference. This is how Ernesto González explains it: "... the question of a possible reunification with Pabloism – promoted by Dobbs – was the background of the conference. The SWP was not willing to approve precise documents on the world situation or programmatic definitions that could mark the differences with the IS" (idem - Ernesto González)

When Nahuel Moreno and the SLATO leaders realized that Farrell Dobbs' policy was not to promote the ICFI, but to reunify with revisionism, a violent confrontation ensued between Farrell Dobbs and Nahuel Moreno. This is how Moreno explained it: "... There is a strong clash between us and the Americans and the English. We want a serious conference to be held, with programmatic documents, which will provide the basis for a world match, while the Americans are only thinking about reunification. It even seems that they had already been in contact with Mandel and Maitán, agreeing to approve a document general enough that could also be approved by the Pabloites. The only ones who present a document are us, and the Americans improvise one right there, which is regrettable" (Workers' and Internationalist Trotskyism in Argentina" - Ernesto González)

This is how Moreno narrated the violent confrontation with Farrell Dobbs in a letter addressed from London to his partner Rita: "The next day I had a new interview with Farrell. This time it was very violent. We had a grab ("grab" refers to "strong shock") in order. For us, Pabloism was a well-known historical and political category: a petty-bourgeois world tendency. For him, the fundamental thing was the methodology and organizational issues in Pabloism. We argued loudly..." (Idem Ernesto González)

This clash between Nahuel Moreno and the leadership of the SWP is remembered by Bill Hunter as follows: "I was one of the delegates of the British Section. Present at the conference were: Buchbinder from Switzerland, Farrell Dobbs and his wife from the SWP, Nahuel Moreno... three Chilean comrades, Mike Banda, Cliff Slaughter, Betty Hamilton and John and Mary Archer (the latter four British leaders) ... I'm afraid I don't remember the details of the discussions, although I do remember a rough 'grab' between Dobbs and MoReno, outside the meeting. Moreno then complained to John and Mary Archer, after the meeting, that he had not gotten the discussion he had sought" (Idem- Ernesto Gonzalez)

In the letter addressed from London to Rita, Moreno explained: "the Cl almost broke ... The positions were perfectly defined, that I did not give an inch in my position, that after having studied the problem I came to the conclusion that I did not know of any greater centrists in the face of Pabloism than the Americans and the English, but that we should continue with the agenda. They didn't want to continue, they insisted that I retract. I insisted that I would not retract if there was no written pronouncement against Pabloism... The other colleagues supported me and we moved on to the other items on the agenda." (Idem- Ernesto Gonzalez)

In the face of Nahuel Moreno's criticism, Farrell Dobbs presented an improvised Draft Resolution on the world situation that was written right there at the Conference. Nahuel Moreno presented criticisms of the document prepared by Farrell Dobbs that contained an important set of theoretical, methodological and political issues which were reflected in the document "The Permanent Revolution in the Postwar (Critique of the Farrell Dobbs document)". From this entire period of coexistence in England with the leaders of the SWP, Moreno drew a balance. In another letter addressed to Rita on July 12, 1958, he expressed: "... the SWP is in Cannon's position for an organizational unification with Pabloism. This position is extremely dangerous, since it paralyzes every struggle, every battle against Pabloism, and leaves it at the moment when it is weakest... They entered a very dangerous terrain: to make maneuvers after maneuvers to avoid a pronouncement on Pabloism ..." (Idem- Ernesto Gonzalez)

In its assessment of the Leeds Conference, the SLATO adopted a "reserved resolution" which defined as its task: "To combat the centrist course of the present leadership of the Cl ... to fight to break the bloc between the English and the American sections, which objectively work for a reunification with Pabloism... Pressure the Cl to issue a statement on the positions of Pabloism. The objective must be to win the SWP over the Cl, but if after a period of discussion the SWP continues to hinder the development of an international leadership, it must be constituted without the SWP" (Idem- Ernesto Gonzalez).

After the Leeds Conference, a crisis of the ICFI opened up since the leadership of the SWP had as its sole objective to prepare the conditions to march towards "unity" with the revisionists regardless of the enormous differences that existed, and without a balance sheet of the betrayals committed by the leadership of Pablo and Mandel. Forthis reason, the policy of the SWP leadership led to the failure of the Leeds Conference, and despite the fight that Nahuel Moreno gave to promote that the CICl become the centralized leadership of the international, its objectives were not achieved. This meant the paralysis of the ICFI, which for months did not meet, nor did it convene the Conference voted, the leadership of the SWP imposed that it be a loose federation of parties, which prevented the ICFI from politically defeating Pabloism, which aggravated the crisis of the Fourth International.

This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it: "... the IC, under the influence of the SWP, never got over its character as a mere defensive united front, of federative organization, which did not even rise to an international trend. With loose connections, unable to oppose a strong centralized leadership that would give a definitive battle against revisionism... the IC had an almost vegetative life... The essence of the position of the SWP leadership was that of an International or a federative IC of national Trotskyists. Because of this nationalist position of the SWP... revisionism could not be defeated, despite the fact that the IC grouped eighty percent of the militant Trotskyist forces in the world..." (Nahuel Moreno. Update of the Transitional Program - 1980)

The tactic of entryism in the "62 organizations"

Meanwhile, in Argentina, the coup d'état had taken place in 1955 against the Perón government. The POR and Nahuel Moreno had placed themselves in the struggle against the "Gorilla Coup" as activism called it, and after it, Nahuel Moreno published in 1956 his important work "The Gorilla Coup of '55", where he explained the phenomenon of Peronism, a bourgeois movement that had friction with the United States. In the face of the U.S. advance on the world as a result of the fact that the military movement led by Perón had important business with England. At that time,British semi-colonies such as India or Argentina were becoming independent or achieving the status of relative independence as a result of the crisis in which British imperialism found itself after World War II, but the gorilla coup of '55 sought to establish Argentina as a North American semi-colony. The coup established the dictatorship of Lonardi, called "the firing squad", because it shot, persecuted the most important leaders and activists of the working class who were organized in Peronism.

The Peronist union bureaucracy quickly betrayed the workers' bases and signed a political agreement with the dictatorship,but the workers' bases developed a movement to confront the dictatorship that was known as "the Resistance" which was not promoted by Perón but was spontaneously promoted by the activists in self-defense: "The disappearance of the Peronist leadership and the complicity of some leaders with the enemy provoked ... a healthy fighting spirit in rank-and-file Peronist workers and middle cadres ... (Idem- Ernesto Gonzalez)

The dictatorship was headed by Lonardi, later replaced by General Pedro E. Aramburu who intervened in the CGT, ordered the intervention of the unions, the dissolution of the Peronist Party and the disqualification of political and union leaders. At no time did Perón call for the reorganization of the labor movement against the dictatorship, so thecurrent led by Nahuel Moreno focused on the organization of the labor movement against the offensive of the government, the bosses and imperialism. The dictatorship wanted to impose new leaders in line with its plans, which they called "free trade unionists".

The Revolutionary Workers Party (POR) did not obey the order to dissolve imposed by the revisionists at the last congress of the Fourth International and in 1956 began to edit the newspaper Unidad Obrera. To protect itself from the persecution that the Peronist regime made of leftist parties, the POR had used the legal cover of the Socialist Party of the National Revolution (PSRN) which had a National Executive Committee controlled by Dickmann, and Carlos M. Bravo. ThePOR controlled the Buenos Aires Federation in a completely autonomous way, with its own organizations and editing its own newspaper, in a hardstruggle against the National Executive Committee.

But the dictatorship outlawed the PSRN, its activities and press, so the POR had to begin to militate in conditions of extreme clandestinity. The Aramburu dictatorship sought to increase the exploitation of the working class, which made workers' reorganization indispensable, and Nahuel Moreno's current called for the formation of a class union tendency to bring together the activists: "Those in charge of carrying out this task should be the activists, the section delegates and factory leaders who, in the face of the disorientation and cowardice of the bureaucrats, they fought to save the trade union and factory organization ... we called for a conscious form to the process that until that moment had been taking place spontaneously" (Idem- Ernesto González)

The POR launched the tactic of creating the Movement of Workers' Groups (MAO) in a step towards the construction of a class-based political-union tendency of united front between the POR and a part of the Peronist workers' activism. The The initial provisional management table of the MAO was made up of three Peronists and two Trotskyists, while "Palabra Obrera" was the newspaper that launched the campaign of 500 correspondents to get news from the main guilds and unions of the country. Palabra Obrera became the most popular newspaper in the working class with a circulation that reached between 8,000 and 9,000 copies per week: "... a repercussion led to the MAO first, and the POR later, being publicly known as Palabra Obrera, dispensing with any other denomination ..." (Idem- Ernesto González)

A workers' word began to be persecuted, its director Ángel Bengoechea suffered almost a year in prison, and the Dictatorship seized the newspaper's editions fourteen times between 1957 and 1958. Be Trotskyist under the dictatorship of Aramburu was equivalent to having the sentence signed of death. But, on the other hand, the leaders and activists of Peronism do were also in danger, given the popularity of Peronism that had millions of sympathizers managed to act in some way in better conditions semi-public or semi-clandestine. Seeking to take advantage of every loophole legal rights available to be able to act, as well as to protect activists and militants of the coups of the dictatorship, the MAO began to place in the publications of Palabra Obrera the slogan "Under the discipline of the General Perón".

The placement of that motto was a maneuver because the MAO was an independent current of the Peronist leadership. Peronism did not promote the reorganization of the labor movement in a proper way. independent of the bourgeoisie, nor did it promote the struggle against the bureaucracy syndical. The MAO had a policy opposed to that of Perón and Peronism, it fought for the independent reorganization of the bourgeoisie of the working class, twenty years ahead of what would be the phenomenon of "classism" in the 70's. The motto of Palabra Obrera "Bajo the discipline of General Perón", was a maneuver that allowed him to The Trotskyists have a semi-legal activity relying on the numerous Peronist activism as a cover to avoid being assassinated and thus to open up headquarters in the Federal Capital and the Province of Buenos Aires.

Along with this, the POR decided to publish a theoretical-political journal under the name of "Estrategia", under the direction of Milcíades Peña and Luis Franco, two well-known writers who they were sympathizers of Nahuel Moreno's current. In this magazine Nahuel Moreno published his work "The Historical Framework of the Revolution Hungarian Revolution" of 1957 where he analyzed the crisis of open Stalinism by Nikita Khrushchev's report denouncing Stalin's crimes, and he made a balance sheet of the revolutions in Berlin, Hungary and Poland.

But bureaucracy The Peronist trade union did not swallow the bait of the slogan of Palabra Obrera "Under the discipline of General Perón" and warned of the danger of the growth of the Trotskyism in the workers' movement. Trotskyism with Word Obrera was gaining mass union influence and the possibility was opening up for it to win the leadership of the metalworkers' union, the UOM, the most important in the country at that time, which is why Peronism gave itself a line to destroy Palabra Obrera. August Timoteo Vandor, the main Peronist union bureaucrat and leader of the The metalworkers prematurely launched the isolated strike in that guild.

As Hernán Félix Cuello and Carmen Carrasco explains: "Many factories stopped, believing that The line came from the Trotskyists. Palabra Obrera had no choice but to put themselves at the head of the strike. Moreno personally directed it. The The strike, made up of the most representative comrades, met day and night in party houses, with Moreno. For twenty days the strike kept them on tenterhooks to the government, until it was weakened and defeated. It cost the dismissal of the activism, mainly Trotskyist" (Biographical Sketch of Nahuel Moreno, Hernán Félix Cuello and Carmen Carrasco- 1988)

The defeat was also suffered by Palabra Obrera, it was a hard blow that caused its weight in the metallurgical union to decrease significantly. "Several of the party's leading labor leaders were dismissed from their jobs. And others organized a fraction that capitulated to the bureaucracy and broke with Palabra Obrera. They were headed by Fucito, a prestigious member of the party leadership, who had been a metallurgical leader and was then a leader of the naval workers" (Idem Biographical Sketch - 1988) In 1957 the dictatorship convened a Constituent Assembly in which Peronism was proscribed. Palabra Obrera proposed the "blank vote" denouncing the constituent assembly as an "electoral farce". The dictatorship failed because he won the vote in but called for a "normalizing congress" of the CGT with the aim of controlling the country's trade union center and 32 unions accepted the call of the dictatorship.

For their part, 62 unions rejected the call and formed a nucleus called "the 62 organizations." Withthem, a new centralized leadership of the workers' movement emerged at the national level, which brought together the main industrial guilds, of the energy, services and transport that became the undisputed leadership of the labor movement and launched a general strike for the first time. Palabra Obrera entered that political-union current that began to lead the struggle against the dictatorship as Hernán Feliz Cuello and Carmen Carrasco explain: "... It had a clear Peronist majority, Trotskyism could have had it, if the metallurgical strike had triumphed ... But in their origin they had a democratic functioning, holding weekly open plenums and with a bar, which were attended by thousands of workers' fighters. The bureaucracy had no choice but to accept them, due to the rise of struggles... This entry into the union branch of Peronism was made to continue disputing the leadership of the bureaucracy, now in more difficult conditions. In the plenary sessions, Moreno and Bengochea were acclaimed many times and managed to win different votes" (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

Nahuel Moreno's entry did not go to the Peronist party, because it did not exist, it was not legal, it did not have a functioning, or organizations. What did exist were the 62 Organizations,as Ernesto González explains: "... It should be noted that, during its proscription in those years, the Peronist movement did not have a centralized and disciplined structure ... had given rise to the Peronist workers' groups and the 62, which took and followed their own decisions, and in them Palabra Obrera entered ... Our Party it had a greater degree of independence than had, for example, the English Trotskyists who acted within the British Labour Party. We did not participate in cells or organizations of a party that voted for our orientations and discipline in action, or that we could apply sanctions if we do not comply with them" (Idem- Ernesto González)

The 62 Organizations was a political-union current that energized the class struggle, intoned the working class, and provoked a wave of strikes that received support from other sectors such as the student movement where a group called the University Reformist Group of Buenos Aires (ARUBA) emerged that joined the MAO, and the 62 organizations. ARUBA physically confronted the groups that responded to the dictatorship at the University. While "the 62" grew and grouped more than 70 unions,in 1958 the dictatorship called for presidential elections keeping Peronism outlawed. The MAO and Palabra Obrera called for a blank vote, just as they had done in the 1957 constituent assembly, but days before the election Perón gave the order to support the UCRI candidate Arturo Frondizi.

Perón's proposal was massively complied with by the country's working class bases, which made it possible for the elections to be held with 90% participation, the highest in Argentine history. Sectors of the mass movement saw the vote for Frondizi as a tool to oust the dictatorship. Under this enormous pressure, the MAO and Palabra Obrera were divided, one sector maintained the position of the blank vote, another sector proposed the vote for Frondizi, so to avoid the rupture of the MAO and Palabra Obrera, the current of Nahuel Moreno agreed to call for the vote for Frondizi in a critical way, a fact that meant the only time in history that the current of Nahuel Moreno called to vote for a bourgeois coalition.

This is how Ernesto González explains it: "... That same edition of Palabra obrera emphasized: Anyone who encourages the slightest hope in Frondizi is a traitor. The same goes for those who negotiate or accept positions from him. Supporting Frondizi does not mean placing any trust in him, but aims to defeat the gorilla government..." (Idem- Ernesto González) Frondizi's triumph was overwhelming. Some groups and leaders who claim to be followers of Nahuel Moreno use as an example the vote for Frondizi to claim that this was a habitual tactic of Moreno, which is absolutely false. This vote for Frondizi was the only time that Nahuel Moreno called for a vote for a capitalist coalition in his more than fifty years of history.

And the conditions in which Moreno developed this tactic were quite peculiar; first, because it was launched under the conditions of the struggle against a dictatorship. Secondly, because the masses took Perón's order to vote for Frondizi seeing him as a tool to oust the dictatorship, which resulted in the elections with the highest popular participation in Argentine history. And third, Moreno made this decision to prevent the breakdown of the MAO and Palabra Obrera, tools that they had managed to build with so much effort and that they considered valuable for the battle for the reorganization of the labor movement. These reasons led Moreno to adopt the tactic of voting for a bourgeois coalition, very critically, for the only time in his entire long career.

Precisely from that fact began a growing confrontation and differences between Moreno's current and the Peronist leadership of the 62 Organizations that led to the end of the tactic of entryism. Between 1958 and 1959, a powerful wave of workers' strikes confronted the Frondizi government, and Palabra obrera demanded the call for a general strike, but the leadership of the 62 organizations systematically refused to organize the struggle to defeat the Frondizi government's plan. The entire wave of workers' struggles was defeated, which made it easier for the Frondizi government to carry out its plan of measures of workers' super-exploitation and employers' reaction.

In 1959 the Frondizi's government intervened the main unions and launched a generalized attack against the agreements, the internal commissions, the delegates and the activists, which produced therepudiation of the leaders that was expressed in a large number of communiqués of internal commissions and bodies of delegates, which brought with it the fall of the board of directors of the 62 Organizations. The defeat of the workers' movement helped to consolidate the apparatus of the union bureaucracy, whose greatest exponent was Augusto Vandor: "... From 1959 onwards, ten years of retreat of struggles began in Argentina, during which the union bureaucracy was once again consolidated. Palabra Obrera, which had scratched the leadership of the workers' movement, retreated until it became, once again, a small group..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The consolidation of the union bureaucracy as well as the retreat of the working class made the tactic of entryism lose all meaning, with which the current of Nahuel Moreno left the 62 organizations in 1963, culminating the tactic of "entryism" that had begun in 1957. During the6 years of entryism, a current emerged for the first time that challenged the control of Peronism over the working class, a fact that was only repeated later with "classism" in the 70's but under the influence of the guerrillas. Those 6 years allowed the current led by Nahuel Moreno to carry out a great experience: "... Today we could say that it was an extraordinary experience of the united front revolutionary union-political party, and that if we had opportunist deviations it was not on that front, which was extraordinary, but because of our inexperience, because of the youth of our organization" (The agreements, pacts, units of action and the fronts, Nahuel Moreno- 1985)

Ernest Mandel and the revisionists have violently attacked Nahuel Moreno's tactic of entryism, arguing that Moreno capitulated to Peronism. It is ironic that the same leaders of the Fourth International who had proposed the revisionist strategy of "sui generis entrism" criticized Moreno. To the criticisms of Mandel and the revisionists were added those of all kinds of charlatans who lie by saying that Nahuel Moreno supported Perón. The reality of the serious and rigorous balance of the tactics of entry into the 62 organizations between 1957 and 1963 allows us to verify the principled character of the application of the tactic by Nahuel Moreno, and its extraordinary use to launch a revolutionary trade union current that leaves forever engraved in history that the first time Peronism was challenged was at the hands of orthodox Trotskyism. as a milestone of his influence in Argentina.

The impact of the Cuban revolution

A new fact of the class struggle impacted the world and the Fourth International: On December 31, 1958, the Cuban Revolution triumphed, led by the July 26 Movement led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. The revolution overthrew the Batista dictatorship and took power. "... A guerrilla movement, originally born from a traditional party of the oligarchy, supported by the church and which had a student and petty-bourgeois leadership, joined, after years of isolated struggle in the mountains, with a great upsurge of the masses. Fidel and Che then led a triumphant popular insurrection, and shortly afterwards expropriated the bourgeoisie, establishing the first workers' state in America..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The emergence of the first workers' state in Latin America was part of a global revolutionary process experienced by poor countries that fought for national liberation by conquering independence with formidable revolutions. As a result of the post-war "boom", the large proletariats in general had disappeared from the center of the political scene, and the most important revolutionary processes were unleashed in the backward countries by developing the method of peasant guerrilla warfare, which led sectors of the world left to generalize the idea that peasant guerrilla warfare was the method to carry out the revolution.

Theories emerged such as the Maoist view that peasant guerrilla warfare was the model of revolution in the absence of an industrial proletariat, or the "theory offoquismo" formulated by Che Guevara where they affirmed the existence of a new social subject in the "new man". The idea that the guerrilla was the model of revolution imposed as a guideline the spread of guerrilla foci throughout the world, as Ernesto Gonzalez explains: "Castroism generated in an important sector of the avant-garde the idea that the guerrilla warfare was the only adequate method for the struggle against the bourgeoisie and imperialism... expressed the radicalization of important sectors of the petty bourgeoisie, generally turning it towards positions adventurers" (Idem- Ernesto González)

The Cuban Revolution had a worldwide impact and unleashed a revolutionary process throughout Latin America. From 1959 onwards, the agrarian struggles produced situations of dual power in the countryside with mass unionization, land grabbing, peasants and workers. and achieved repercussion within the non-commissioned officers of the Armed Forces. In Peru, peasant unionization led to a process of land seizure and agrarian insurrection, while in some countries the process took on the characteristics of rural guerrilla warfare with mass weight, such as Guatemala, Peru itself, or Colombia. In theDominican Republic there was a massive democratic and anti-imperialist uprising between 1964 and 1965, at the same time throughout the continent there was an upsurge in the student movement.

In turn, the struggle of the Vietnamese masses against aggression and the American invasion also had an impact on the world avant-garde. But the triumph of the Cuban revolution caused a tremendous impact on the world left and Trotskyism that fell into deep confusion in the face of the revolution, as Nahuel Moreno explains: "... This event caused deep confusion within the Trotskyist movement and especially in the ranks of the ICFI. He did not know how to respond in a unitary way to this new phenomenon ... No one was able to make the following global and principled analysis: by expropriating the bourgeoisie, Cuba was transformed into a workers' state; but when this revolution is made under a petty-bourgeois leadership... the new workers' state was bureaucratic from its birth and, therefore, a political revolution and the construction of a Trotskyist party were necessary..." (Update of the Transitional Program - Thesis XI. "The Joint Committee reorganizes the forces that resisted revisionism")

At the "Sixth World Congress" in December 1960, the SI of the revisionists led by Pablo, Mandel, Pierre Frank and Livio Maitán defined the Cuban state as "worker", on the basis that it had abolished capitalist property, while at the end of 1962 the US SWP reached the same conclusions. In the ICFI confusion predominated, the British section of the SSL and its leader Gerry Healy stated that Cuba continued to be a bourgeois state, the same position was held by Lambert's French group, with which due to the existing discrepancies, the ICFI headed towards a rupture between those who coincided in characterizing Cuba as a workers' state and converged in support of the workers' revolution. and those who continued to consider Cuba as a bourgeois state.

The agreement of the International Secretariat (IS) with the positions of the SWP on the Cuban revolution led to the resumption of talks to reunify Trotskyism. Joseph Hansen isthe most important leader of the SWP in the USA. After Cannon's departure, he advanced in the reunification with the revisionist IS, but without taking stock of the revisionist positions that had provoked a serious crisis in Trotskyism: "... The ICFI had not been able to defeat revisionism, despite the fact that the ICFI grouped 80% of the Trotskyist forces in the world, a product of the policy of the SWP leadership that wanted a reunification with the revisionists... as a consequence of the Cuban revolution, the leadership of the SWP turned to achieving a unification with the Pabloite IS, without reaffirming that it was a clearly revisionist tendency." (Idem- Update of the Transition Program)

The IS agreed to "erase" its resolutions adopted at the world congresses of 1954, 1957 and 1960, but unification also left many questions and differences pending, for example, the position on China, on the balance sheet of "sui generis entryism", or on the reasons that had led to the split in the Fourth International. Afterthe successive meetings, it was decided to convene the next World Congress in a "Reunification Congress", which took place in June 1963, which was formed as the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (SU).

Posadas and Michel Pablo broke with the reunified Fourth International: "Left out were the posadism that had broken with the IS shortly before, and the tendencies led by Gerry Healy and Pierre Lambert, who rejected the proposed reunification and for a time maintained the International Committee. In the new organization, Michel Pablo's positions were in the minority, and he formed the International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency (IRTR)" (Idem- Ernesto González) In1964, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) of Sri Lanka was expelled from the Fourth International as a result of the fact that it entered the capitalist government of that country with officials. Nahuel Moreno and Palabra Obrera could not remain in the ICFI, which had been reduced to Gerry Healy and Pierre Lambert, who made the gross mistake of not recognizing that Cuba was a workers' state.

But Moreno and Palabra Obrera took a year to make the decision to join the SU as Ernesto González explains: "Palabra Obrera applied to join to the SU in 1964. He did so expressly clarifying that the organization would not accept any national or Latin American discipline of the Fourth International, which was agreed with the Secretariat, thus becoming a sympathetic section ... despite the agreement in relation to Cuba, we maintained our political and methodical differences ... What worried Moreno was the lack of a balance sheet and the petty-bourgeois, "impressionist" character of Mandel's leadership, which ... from the point of view of policy and methodology, it continued with the the same mistakes as always, of capitulating to the Stalinist and petty-bourgeois leaderships" (Idem- Ernesto González)

Nahuel Moreno feared that the SU was heading for a new capitulation: "... he feared that the leadership of the SWP would give in to the revisionists, and warned of the danger that there would now be a capitulation to Castroism, as had happened before with Stalinism. Unfortunately, this was the case. The majority of the SU did not take long to give Latin America the disastrous orientation that the Trotskyists should focus their activity on the peasantry and the rural guerrillas. Later they changed it for the orientation of urban guerrilla warfare. That is to say, they totally bowed to Castroism..." (Idem- Ernesto González) That is to say, the leadership of the SU soon launched the adventurous line of calling for guerrilla formation, completely capitulating to Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

On the other hand, differences emerged about the characterization of the leadership of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Impressed by the Cuban revolution, the SU leadership turned to a characterization of Castro and Che as a revolutionary leadership, while Nahuel Moreno continued to consider them a petty-bourgeois and treacherous leadership. The facts proved Nahuel Moreno right: Around 1961 Castroism began to weave agreements with Stalinism and ended up integrating itself into the Stalinist world counterrevolutionary apparatus.

But the Cuban revolution was a bulldozer that won the sympathy of millions of young people from all over the world who wanted to take up arms following the path of Fidel and Che. The pressure began to destroy not only the Fourth International, but also Nahuel Moreno's own group, Palabra Obrera: "... in Peru. In Cuzco, in the valleys of La Convention and Lares, the peasants they raised and occupied lands. The owners organized to defend them violently. The explosive peasant struggle It had to do with a guerrilla focus such as those postulated by Castroism. Era a mass struggle. Cuba refused to support it, but the Trotskyism rushed to do it. Hugo Blanco was a Peruvian student who was studying at the University of La Plata in Argentina. There he was won by the party and Moreno convinced him to to return to Cuzco to fight with the country folk. So he did and became in a legendary leader of the masses, the greater than Trotskyism in Latin America. The entire Argentine party and SLATO they turned to help Peru. Moreno traced the line: to promote mass unionization, that was already in progress, of the peasants ..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The support of Palabra Obrera and Nahuel Moreno led Daniel Pereyra to settle in Lima: "... The Castro's theses made a dent in Pereyra and other leaders. Instead of hitting About the Labor and Student Movement Instead of building the party, they organized a guerrilla group. Wanted to strike a "masterstroke" by assaulting a bank and, at the same time as raising funds, to create a political fact. Moreno started a tough controversy against putschist deviation. He went to Peru to prevent the assault. It was useless. Che Pereyra, as the Latin American press then called him, had been won by the Guevarist conception. In 1962 he assaulted the Banco de Crédito de Miraflores, in Lima. It turned out disastrous... gave the pretext to the government and the bourgeoisie to unleash the repression... to isolate the peasant struggle ... and defeat it. Hugo Blanco was the victim of a a long hunt, which ended with his imprisonment and death sentence. One The world campaign of Trotskyism was able to finally save his life..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The enormous influence of Castroism and Guevarism began to destroy the leadership of Palabra Obrera. Not only did Daniel Pereyra break with Trotskyism, the crisis was aggravated by Bengoechea's capitulation: "... At that time the breakup of Bengochea took place, also won by guerrilla conceptions. He had been sent to Cuba along with a group of militants, by the leadership of the party. Their delicate mission was to try to to get Fidel Castro to make up his mind, finally, to support Peru, organizing the rescue of Hugo Blanco from the siege repressive that enveloped him. Although he had been with Moreno in his fight against the putschist deviation of Pereyra, in Cuba was also won by Castroism. He returned to Buenos Aires in 1963 to leave the party and organize the guerrilla in the north of Argentina..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

All the debate that Nahuel Moreno carried out with Pereyra, Bengoechea, and the guerrilla strategy was condensed in his work "Two methods in the face of the Latin American Revolution" of 1962. In it, Moreno develops all the controversies of that time about whetherCuba was a workers' state, whether the Cuban revolution followed the guidelines of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, whether guerrilla or armed struggle were necessary, and what differences these had with the workers' and people's militias. what role does the construction of the party play, among other elements of great importance in the battle against the guerrilla "wave" that devastated Latin America after the triumph of the Cuban revolution.

But despite the battle, the enormous pressure from Castroism and Guevarism led Moreno to lose his entire leadership team: "From the team formed by the members of the founders (Nahuel Moreno and Daniel Pereyra) and the first comrades won over to the organization (Vasco Bengochea, Horacio Lagar, Raúl Moiraghi, José Speroni and Héctor Fucito) only remained Tanned. They were all great revolutionaries but their definitions In the face of the pressures of reality, in some cases opportunistic and in others, ultra-left, they changed course. The Ten years of retreat and defensive struggles exhausted the founding generation. Fucito and Speroni ... died a short time later, in traffic accidents" (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

Vasco Bengoechea, who had been a leader of Palabra Obrera and a fundamental part of Nahuel Moreno's team, died tragically preparing bombs in an apartment they had rented: "... Vasco Bengochea returned from Cuba convinced of the Guevarist orientation and in 1963 he definitively left the party. His life ended, months later, with the explosion of Posadas Street in 1964" (Idem- Biographical Sketch) The prestige of the guerrilla, Guevarist, and putschist positions caused Nahuel Moreno to lose practically all the leadership team he had built up for almost 20 years.

Fucito, Lagar, Pereyra and Bengoechea broke with Moreno, and only Ernesto González remained with him. Moreno sought to advance in the construction of a new management team: "...In those years, Palabra Obrera tried to build a new leadership team, which included comrades with experience in the organization, such as Ernesto González and "Fierro", and relatively newer cadres, such as Alejandro Dabat and Mario Serra. They were joined by others such as Osear Prada ("Domecq") and Helios Prieto ("Candela"), coinciding with the constitution of the Revolutionary Workers' Party in 1965, which also meant the incorporation of Mario Roberto Santucho..." (Idem- Ernesto González)

The battle against the SU and guerrillaism

Nahuel Moreno promoted the unification of Palabra Obrera with the FRIP, a group led by Mario Roberto Santucho: "... In 1965, the party was unified with a student group called FRIP, which operated in the north of the country and was led by Roberto Santucho. Thus the Revolutionary Workers' Party (PRT) was formed, whose newspaper was called La Verdad..." But this new attempt by Moreno failed again: "... However, this new team never managed to consolidate itself as a revolutionary leadership. Daniel Pereyra, after having spent more time imprisoned for six years in Peru, returned to Argentina but was won over to the by the positions of Santucho ... Raúl Moiraghi and Horacio Lagar, also followed Santucho, "Domecq" and "Prada"... The match broke down again. This The division was deeper, because it dragged many cadres and militants. Santucho left, in the midst of a hard factional struggle, forming the PRT (Combatant) to make the guerrilla. Your arm armed would be the ERP. With Santucho, were Lagar and Daniel Pereyra, recently released from Peruvian prison. And promising cadres and leaders, such as Dabat, Lombardi, Bonet, Luis Pujals and others..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The sector that remained next to Nahuel Moreno was renamed PRT-La Verdad. Nahuel Moreno was never able to recover that management team that he lost in the 60's, from which he recognized that this was "his most serious problem": "... Some comrades of the old guard maintain that the rupture of the old leadership team, with Bengochea, Lagar, Fucito and others, the best that the party has had in its entire history, was inevitable, due to the political influence of Castroism. That factor existed, but I believe that subjective elements were added, contributed by me. I preferred to discuss and exercise the truth in the abstract, rather than putting all the care possible to maintain that equipment. Maybe it won't be like that, but I will die with that doubt and that sorrow" (Conversations with Nahuel Moreno, 1986)

Moreno tried to take responsibility for the capitulations of those who made up his management team. But the reality is that the enormous strength of the counter-revolutionary apparatuses, and the treacherous leaderships of that time was the main reason why all those generations of leaders were unable to sustain orthodox Trotskyism. It is a whole generation that, trapped in its time, never knew how to overcome the tremendous pressure of treacherous leaderships. In addition, the revisionist stance of the SU leadership also encouraged and pushed many comrades into the guerrilla adventure.

The controversy centred on the situation in Bolivia: "By that time, differences had already begun to develop within the United Secretariat of the Fourth International about of the problem of armed struggle and guerrillaism ... The address of the SU, led by Ernest Mandel, Livio Maitan and Pierre Frank, was he was adapting to the pressures of Castroism ... The first controversy between Moreno and Mandel's followers on the problem of armed struggle had arisen in Bolivia since 1965. After the military coup of René Barrientes, the group oriented by Mandelism, led by by Hugo González Moscoso, proposed guerrilla action ... Moreno polemicized with González Moscoso's proposals ... This discussion was sharpened with the IX World Congress of the Fourth International (United Secretariat), held in France in April 1969, and in which delegates and observers from thirty countries. At that Congress, the orientation to promote "guerrilla wars" on a continental scale in Latin America..." (Idem- Ernesto González)

Several events had impacted the world situation. First the revolution in the United States against the Vietnam War and the struggle for civil rights that united the mass mobilizations struggle of the African-American people and youth against the war. In Paris the French May broke out, and in Czechoslovakia the "Prague Spring": "The international discussion had been developing in the within the United Secretariat (SU) since February 1968 ... Joseph Hansen (SWP leader) ... had expressed strong discrepancies with the perspective of guerrilla warfare ... explains the objective possibility of the new revolutionary upsurge in Western Europe... The central conclusion of the point was that the center of the world revolution was moving from the countries colonial and semi-colonial towards the imperialist countries" (Idem- Ernesto González) Livio Maitán disagreed with this characterization and continued to insist that the most important opportunity for the Fourth International was Latin America.

The leadership of the SU thought since 1965 that it was possible to advance in the construction of the Fourth International with Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and for this it had to launch the strategy of guerrilla warfare. This is how Ernesto Gon ́zalez explains it: "... the correspondence between Moreno and Livio Maitán, and between Moreno and Joseph Hansen shows that since 1965 it had been developing a strong discussion on the positions of the Fourth International with respect to the role of Che, of the leadership in Latin America and the proposal of the "guerrilla focus". In In that personal debate, Livio Maitán had been insisting on the position of not publicly polemicizing with Che or with the Cuban leadership... because there were prospects that Castro's positions on the Trotskyism and because, on the other hand, possibilities were opening up for improving the relationship between the Fourth International (SU) and them..." The revisionist position of the SU leadership headed by Ernest Mandel, Pierre Frank, and Livio Maitan was the same position of the revisionists towards Tito, or towards Mao when Michel Pablo was at the head of the Fourth International. But worse, the revisionists believed that they could recruit Che and Castro for the Fourth International.

The SWP of the United States led the polemic against these positions that capitulated to Castroism. "On March 5, 1969, Hansen writes a letter entitled "Returning to the Path of Trotskyism", in which he develops his criticism of pro-guerrilla positions ... From this position, he considers that Castroism had influenced not only the radicalized sectors but also Trotskyism, and what was happening was a direct reflection of the influence of Castroism on the International ... Pointing Out Before that nothing that Castro had already carried out attacks and repudiations malicious against Trotskyism ... The PRT-La Verdad believed that the international document of Hansen responded essentially well to the character of the new a stage that had been opened" (Idem- Ernesto González)

But two events happened that hit the "guerrilla theses" hard. On the one hand, Che Guevara was assassinated in Bolivia in 1967, and on the other hand, Fidel Castro publicly supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 by the Red Army to crush the "Prague Spring". Finally, Congress voted to recognize Santucho's PRT-ERP as an official section in Argentina: "... the SU of the Fourth International, at its Ninth Congress in mid-1969, it will recognize the PRT-C as an official Argentine section, although modifying the statutes of the International to recognize the PRT-LV as a "sympathetic section". The U.S. SWP proposed incorporating the category of "sympathetic section" ... thanks to the intervention of the SWP of the From then on, the United States was able to attend all the meetings of the Fourth International but with a consultative vote non-resolutive..." (Idem- Ernesto González)

"... History was repeating, in a way, of 1951, when the international leadership headed by Pablo had recognized Posadas' group, the GCI. As on that occasion, the basic question was a full agreement between the political positions of the leadership of the International and the fraction recognized as a section. Santucho's guerrillaism, his conception of the struggle for power, replacing the class struggle with the "combatants of the revolutionary army" fully coincided with the orientation that Mandelism had adopted..." (Idem- Ernesto González)

The whole orientation of the revisionist leadership headed by Mandel in the SU led the sections of the Fourth International in Latin America to a disaster: "... In Bolivia by 1971 the SU section was practically destroyed... In Brazil, the October 8 Revolutionary Movement developed the urban guerrilla ... In November 1969 he was killed by the bullets of the forces of repression and his Movement began a rapid agony. The FARN of Venezuela ... had the same purpose. In Argentina, PRT-IS Combatant ended up breaking with Trotskyism and later withdrew from the Fourth International... The deadly fate of thousands of revolutionary political cadres who embraced the guerrilla line was not only a tragedy for its result in human lives but also for its result for the class struggle insofar as it left the masses without a many of its best activists and leaders..." (Idem- Ernesto González)

The PST's "Morenazo" against revisionism

The adoption of the guerrilla strategy of the revisionist SU and its capitulation to Castroism precipitated the Fourth International into a new crisis and a new division. On the one hand there was the SU headed by the revisionists Mandel, Frank and Maitán, while on the other hand a bloc was formed between the SWP of the United States and the PRT-La Verdad: "The American Socialist Workers Party also began to question the line of the leadership of the SU ... it took us two or three years to form a trend with the SWP... " (Idem- Ernesto González) In Argentina, the PRT-La Verdad formed the basis for the launch of the Socialist Workers Party (PST), taking as its name the same name as the SWP of the United States as a tribute and a way of giving continuity to the trajectory in defense of orthodox Trotskyism embodied by the SWP, whose foundation had been promoted by Cannon with the support of Leon Trotsky.

Nahuel Moreno promoted the PST to take advantage of the opportunities posed by the new stage that was emerging in Argentina and the world: "... Castroism and Mandelism sent people to hide in hiding, because the dictatorship was going to repress, and to prepare the guerrillas, now urban. Moreno, on the other hand, called for the use of all the loopholes of democratic freedoms, which the mass struggle was imposing. To do so, he had to push the inertia of his own party, accustomed to clandestinity, and with a group of university militants he opened the first semi-legal premises, under the façade of a student cooperative. With the same audacity and drive, Moreno's party then unified with a left-wing fraction detached from the Socialist Party and headed by Juan Carlos Coral. Thus, in 1972, the Socialist Workers Party was founded..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

This is how the historic militant of the Nahuel Moreno current known as "Pelado" Matosas, tells it: "... Socialism Argentine, Choral Secretariat - which published the newspaper "Los de Abajo" - calling for the formation of a Revolutionary Front ... the Petiso Aguilar who brings him to the meeting and informs the National Directorate a meeting arises, made possible by the leader of the PS of Berazategui, between Coral, Hugo (Nahuel Moreno) and Arturo (Gómez), these two from the PRT leadership (The Truth). With this meeting, the first steps are taken to to form a new party that would finally be called PST..." (Raúl Corzo- "The most beautiful day" about the life of Pelado Matosas)

However, the disastrous consequences for the SU of the adoption of the guerrilla strategy were not only not modified, but deepened: "... the majority sector of the SU did not correct its politics but extended its errors by encouraging a policy avant-garde for Europe, supporting terrorist actions alien to revolutionary Marxism. In March 1973, as the Tenth World Congress approached and the deviations of the Majority of the International were accentuated, the SWP of the USA. The United States and the PST of Argentina constituted the Tendency Leninist Trotskyist. In August 1973 the Tendency was transformed into a fraction (FLT) to fight for a radical change in the policy and leadership of the Fourth International..." (Idem- Ernesto González)

However, the SWP in the United States had undergone changes in its direction. After James Cannon's departure from the leadership the SWP had a management team headed by Farrell Dobbs, then Joseph Hansen, and in 1972 a new leadership headed by Jack Barnes emerged. Nahuel Moreno had this opinion on the changes in the leadership of the SWP: "... The old leadership was Trotskyist: although with serious deviations from national-Trotskyism, it nevertheless reflected a Trotskyist and proletarian tradition. The new leadership that has come from the student movement has, since its emergence, communicating vessels of a social nature with the old and new European revisionist leadership: they are all part of the European or North American student movement... As the struggle with the revisionist majority of the SU developed and as new fundamental developments in the class struggle took place, the FLT itself began to split between an opportunist wing, which tended to collaborate with the majority of the SU despite its apparently antagonistic positions, and a wing that increasingly intensified the intransigent struggle against revisionism. The opportunist wing was headed by the new leadership of the SWP" (Idem- Update of the Transitional Program)

Jack Barnes led the SWP to a policy of support for the government of the Communist Party of Cuba under Fidel Castro, arguing that the Cuban government and Castroism were revolutionary, positions that implied a capitulation of the SWP leadership to Castroism. This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it: "... The FLT exploded between 1975 and 1976, splitting into two currents, one led by the SWP and the other by the PST... For their part, the leadership of the American party and its followers dissolved their faction in 1976 and merged once again with Mandelism, claiming that the differences had disappeared... " (Nahuel Moreno - The "Morenazo", Polemic with Mandel) Thecapitulation of the new leadership of the SWP to the government of Cuba and to Castroism led to the end of that last attempt to regroup orthodox Trotskyism withthe Trotskyist Leninist Action (FLT).

At the end of the experience with the FLT, Nahuel Moreno also ended a whole stage of trying to build an international leadership team together with the leaders of the SWP. In this way, orthodox Trotskyism had been left without a leadership. The old leadership of the SWP of which Cannon, Dobbs and Hansen had been a part, which had led the battle in defence of orthodox Trotskyism, had withdrawn. And the new leadership of Jack Barnes supporting Castroism crystallized as revisionist and naturally joined the SU led by Mandel. In this way, Nahuel Moreno understood that he had to assume the leadership of orthodox Trotskyism at the international level.

Between 1963 and 1973, in a period of only 10 years, Nahuel Moreno had lost the leadership team he had formed in Argentina, and then had lost the possibility of forming an international leadership team together with the leadership of the North American SWP. These events had extremely weakened the possibility of forming a tool to face the battle to set up a world current of orthodox Trotskyism, and to carry out the struggle against revisionism. Nahuel Moreno decided that it was time to systematize all the elaboration carried out in the battle against revisionism atthe Tenth World Congress of the United Secretariat (SU) of the Fourth International convened in1974.

At that World Congress, Ernest Mandel and the French Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) team made up of the Krivine brothers, Daniel Bensaïd, and Pierre Rousset presented a material entitled "In Defense of Leninism, in Defense of the Fourth International." In that work signed with the pseudonym of Germain, Mandel vindicated the policy he had raised at the previous ninth World Congress of the SU of taking as a central task in Latin America the creation or preparation of rural guerrillas. Nahuel Moreno responded to this work by Ernest Mandel and the SU team with a material called "A scandalous document" in which he polemicized with guerrillaism and ultra-leftism, claiming the construction of a Bolshevik party.

This work became one of Nahuel Moreno's most important works against revisionism in which he condenses the battle for the defense of principles in the field of the conception of revolutionary organization. The work had such an impact on the development of an orthodox Trotskyist current that the leaders and cadres baptized that text with the name of "El Morenazo" because "it provided the theoretical, political and methodological basis for the construction of the strong world Trotskyist current, which Moreno would go on to lead..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch) In this work adIn addition to polemicizing with the guerrilla, ultra-leftist and avant-garde strategy of Ernest Mandel, Nahuel Moreno established the characteristics of the Bolshevik organization, its central elements in the chapter "Leninist Party or Mandelist Party".

This chapter became so important that it has merited its separate publication as a fundamental work for the understanding of what it means to build a revolutionary organization. For Mandel, if the vanguard makes guerrillas, the revolutionary organization must adopt the guerrilla structure, if the vanguard does foquismo, the revolutionary organization must adopt a foquista structure, if the vanguard does syndicalism, The revolutionary organization must adopt such a structure. In "El Morenazo" Nahuel Moreno responds to Mandel that a revolutionary Marxist party has two fundamental pillars: professional militants and democratic centralism, and that it must win the vanguard for that party structure, fighting against all other types of organizational schemes. Also in the "Morenazo", Moreno raises what is the method to elaborate the slogans and their relationship with the program.

Nahuel Moreno refutes that the slogans are "for the vanguard" as Mandel puts it. Moreno states that slogans are elaborated towards the masses, and with that slogan we fight for the capture of the vanguard and activism. He also refutes that the slogans are elaborated "from the present consciousness" of the masses, and argues that the slogans start from the most pressing needs of the masses and only the levels of consciousness are taken into account for their formulation. All the analysis that Nahuel Moreno carries out in the "Morenazo" about the relationship between action, experience, consciousness, and about the method of elaborating slogans educated a whole generation of cadres in defense of orthodox Trotskyism.

"El Morenazo" and the formation of the PST are the expression of the new position that Nahuel Moreno gave himself in the 70s of the twentieth century to carry out the battle against revisionism. Moreno understood that there was no longer any possibility of forming an international leadership team, nor a leadership team in Argentina, because he had lost all his historical team under the pressure of Peronism and the guerrillas. Then Moreno decided to move forward laying the foundations of orthodox Trotskyism, placing itself at the head of the task, without having a management team to rely on and be up to the task of the company. Nahuel Moreno undertook an important battle to try to build an international and national leadership team with the aim of resolving the crisis generated in orthodox Trotskyism by the defection of the leaders he had bet on. It was a fruitless battle: Moreno never managed to form a leadership team up to the occasion beyond attempts of all kinds, with all kinds of combinations of new comrades that he put to the test.

Nahuel Moreno never managed to establish a leadership team capable of carrying out the struggle in defense of orthodox Trotskyism, which caused that after his death there was again a leadership vacuum in the orthodox Trotskyist current, as we will see later. Regardless of this, Nahuel Moreno was aware that the battle against revisionism in the Fourth International had largely fallen under his responsibility, which is why it was necessary to establish the bases of orthodox Trotskyism. He did not shirk the responsibility of assuming the leadership of orthodox Trotskyism; on the contrary, he undertook the task beginning with the development of the theoretical-political elements necessary to carry it out. The "Morenazo" was the starting signal for the assumption of the responsibility of leading that battle, key and crucial for the defense of Marxism and revolutionary strategy.

Under the blows of the Triple AAA and the dictatorship

From the foundation of the Socialist Workers Party (PST), Nahuel Moreno concentrated all his efforts on responding to the revolutionary upsurge that was beginning to develop in Argentina, as a result of the impact of the global and Latin American revolutionary upsurge. In Argentina, the revolutionary upsurge was expressed with the "Cordobazo", a workers' and people's insurrection that took place in 1969: "... The new Argentine promotion would be, as Moreno said, "the two-way test lines". Before the Cordobazo, Castroism and Mandelism sent the cadres and activism to get out of the factories and the universities, to take them to the countryside to preparing the rural guerrillas. Moreno, in On the other hand, he called for a concentration on the labor and student movement, where it was going to come and the mass struggle came... " (Idem- Biographical Sketch) The Cordobazo was a slap in the face of the revisionists and Castroists who denied the central role of the working class and the urban revolution, for them there was only the guerrilla in the countryside.

The Cordobazo and the powerful workers' and people's mobilizations that took place between 1969 and 1972 ended the dictatorship of Juan Carlos Onganía, which opened the way to elections. Nahuel Moreno argued that it was necessary to take advantage of the loopholes and democratic freedoms conquered by the struggle and launched the PST to achieve legality, obtaining 40,000 affiliations, which allowed it to run in the elections of March 11, 1973. In those elections Juan Perón could not run, and Héctor J Cámpora ran for Peronism, who again called elections for September 23, 1973 in which Juan Domingo Perón was consecrated president. In the March elections, the PST ran with the only presidential ticket that had a woman in its binomial with Juan Carlos Coral as candidate for president and union leader Nora Ciapponi as candidate for vice president.

The formula obtained 48,000 votes, equivalent to 0.62% of the votes, but six months later, in the September 23 elections that consecrated Juan Domingo Perón president for the third time, Coral completed as vice president the formula headed by Juan Carlos Páez, which jumped to 181,000,000 votes, 1.54%. On that occasion when the Communist Party and the guerrillas called for to support Peronism,the PST began the electoral process as a practically unknown party and spread throughout the country, with 50 premises and several thousand militants, respected by the working class. After Perón's death, his wife Isabel Perón assumed the presidency constituting a profoundly reactionary government, which aimed to defeat the workers' and popular uprising that had begun in 1969 with the Cordobazo.

A year earlier, in 1973, the government of Juan Domingo Perón began to organize from the state the paramilitary group Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA) popularly known as the "Triple A" that began the persecution, attack, murder and torture of activists and popular militants. The Triple A was a foretaste of what would later become the military dictatorship that carried out the 1976 coup, and the first three murdered by the Triple A were the PST militants who, arms in hand, defended the premises of General Pacheco, working class area of the north of Greater Buenos Aires Aires, of the fascist attacks, in the events known as the "Pacheco Massacre".

The Triple A began to hit the PST hard: "In November 1974, the Triple A riddled Negro César Robles with bullets, after he was persecuted by the street and lifted up in a police car. The following year, in the massacre of La Plata Eight Militants Murdered who were involved in supporting the strike of Petrochemicals. It was one blow after another. The party, reconcentrating on its firmness and traditions, paid homage and mourned its beloved dead, in great public acts, with clenched teeth and fists." (Idem- Biographical Sketch) Nahuel Moreno did not attend the Tenth Congress of the International because his wife Rita was diagnosed with cancer and died in August 1974.

The blows of the repression of the capitalist government of Isabel Perón once again destroyed the possibilities of building a new leadership team: "In May 1976 At the age of 38, the unexpected death of Arturo Gómez, due to an attack cardiac. He was the secretary general of the party, and fell due to the overload of work and tensions ... The losses of Negro César and Arturo were an irretrievable blow, in another sense. They were two of the most important leaders of the world. next-generation highlights, and Arturo at that time was the axis of the party leadership. With his death, the slow and laborious task, in which Moreno was engaged, to build a new leadership team, was tremendously difficult" (Idem- Biographical Sketch) It was the third important frustrated attempt to form a leadership team, after the failures to form an international team with the leadership of the SWP, and the dissolution of the team of Fucito, Pereyra, Lagar, and Bengoechea under the pressure of Peronism and the guerrillas.

Faced with these blows, Moreno faced the tasks of a new stage: "... He drew strength from weakness. Overcoming her grief and crisis personal, faced two colossal tasks ... One was to establish ties with the other Trotskyist parties and groups of the world, extending to them the discussions that Moreno had made in the SU ... At the service of ... of this international task, the Revista de América was published in Buenos Aires, under the direction of Moreno ... Another task... It was the preparation of the match for the passage into hiding. Moreno was on the list of the first condemned to death by the Triple A. The entire leadership of the party and many cadres were also marked. When the threats of various coups d'état were added to this, the decision to go first partially and then totally underground was adopted. Thus, when the genocidal dictatorship of Videla was installed in power, in 1976, the PST was on guard: the militants had safe houses and there were three printing machines ready to work..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

Imperialism had launched Plan Condor, a campaign of political repression and state terrorism that included coups d'état and the establishment of dictatorships throughout Latin America through intelligence operations and the assassination of opponents based on the joint work of the Pentagon, the National Security Advisor of the United States Henry Kissinger, the CIA, the Armed Forces and security services of Latin American countries. The Condor Plan sought to crush the revolutionary process in Latin America, with which Nahuel Moreno and the PST suffered the effects of this plan in Argentina with the establishment of the regime called "National Reorganization Process" headed by General Jorge Rafael Videla.

The PST went underground to resist, while Nahuel Moreno, condemned to death, along with other members of the leadership, had to go into exile: "... The bloodbath unleashed by the dictatorship ended the tragic and brave guerrilla experiences. Their organizations were semi-destroyed and its militants, kidnapped, murdered and imprisoned. The PST suffered equally. Lost more than a hundred militants, including the Cabezón, of the national leadership, and hundreds more were arrested and Tortured. Dozens spent years in prison. Among them, José Francisco Páez, a workers' leader of the Cordobazo ... The military coup forced Moreno to make decisions about his own location and that of the leaders of the party... Where to settle, then, to turn to international work and, at the same time, to help close to the PST? It couldn't be in Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile or Uruguay, known countries and loved by Moreno, but who were infested with dictatorships. He finally opted for Colombia, because there he had established political contact with a centrist group – the Socialist Bloc made up of university professors and students, of preponderant performance in the university struggles, at the end of the 1960s..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

Moreno settled in Bogotá, the capital of Colombia along with other Argentine cadres and militants, while more than one A hundred cadres of the Argentine Party traveled to different countries to to build the international current, as part of that same policy. "Moreno moved the Publishing House to Bogotá Pluma, founded in Buenos Aires before of the blow ... There she became the eldest Trotskyist editor in Spanish ... Moreno and the comrades threw themselves into battle for to beat the Socialist Bloc for the Fourth International... If for Moreno the Argentine PST was his natural party, the Socialist Bloc became his adopted party ... was consolidated and could have had a relevant intervention in the event that divided into two The history of that country: the national civic strike of 1977, the first general strike of Colombia, with which he began a revolutionary situation. Thanks to this great success, a few days After the strike, the comrades of the Bloc constituted the Socialist Party of the Workers." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

For the first time in his life, Moreno was left alone, as the only historical leader of the Fourth International who continued to defend the principled program. But in inverse proportion to this solitude in the heights, its current was strengthened from below: "Soon the Colombian PST joined the Argentine PST to build the current international. Its leaders participated of policy-making and some, such as Eduardo, Kemel George, Camilo González, Jaime Galarza, Ricardo Sánchez and others would travel abroad, even Argentina, to help in the construction of the parties ..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The Nicaraguan Revolution and the Simón Bolívar Brigade

Nahuel Moreno needed to regroup the revolutionaries from all over the world who were beginning to break with revisionism and were organizing around the proposals of the current that he was leading: "... In 1976, Moreno founded the Bolshevik tendency, converted into two years later in Fracción, to dispute the leadership of the Fourth. Moreno's Bolshevik Fraction grouped eighty percent of the forces that, within the SU, had opposed to the guerrilla and ultra-left deviation. The SWP could only keep the remaining minority. The FB gathered around twenty matches and groups ... Within the FB, the Argentine PST, although he was at the worst moment of the genocidal persecution continued to be solid foundation. The Colombian PST was on the rise and began to contribute to the work international..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

Nahuel Moreno was imprisoned in São Paulo, Brazil, in 1978 and was at risk of being deported to Argentina where he could be placed in the hands of the dictatorship. The FB launched the campaign for the freedom of Nahuel Moreno that was taken over and promoted by all the the Fourth International and achieved innumerable pronouncements by social organizations, parties, personalities and trade union organizations from all over the world, thanks to which months later, Moreno was released, although the government prohibited re-entry into Brazil. After that, he was able to return to Colombia, and at that time Moreno became aware of Ernest Mandel's statements about "Eurocommunism".

"Eurocommunism" was a movement that European Stalinism made to support and integrate with European imperialist regimes. Instead of criticizing "Eurocommunism," Mandel told the Barcelona magazine Topo Viejo: "Eurocommunism is a transitional policy, although no one knows where or what. Perhaps it represents a transition towards the reabsorption of the Communist Parties by Social Democracy, which in my opinion is unlikely... Perhaps it is a transition to a new Stalinism. And also, why not? it may be a transition, on the part of the workers' cadres of the Party, towards a reencounter with revolutionary Marxism, with Leninism... practical experience will tell us what is going to happen..." (Letter to the SU- Nahuel Moreno 1977)

Mandel's statements had as a reference the draft resolution of the United Secretariat entitled: "Socialist democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat", in which Mandel proposed that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a regime where there is the most unrestricted freedom for all political currents, including the bourgeois, and where there would be legal judgment of the counterrevolutionaries who take up arms against the revolution. Mandel's work expressed a totally revisionist conception of Marxism, Leninism and Trotskyism on the subject of the dictatorship of the proletariat and workers' democracy. The work was overall a capitulation to bourgeois democracy, and to Eurocommunism that had to be responded to taking into account that Mandel proposed that the text be one of the topics of debate important in the XI World Congress that was convened to be held in 1979.

Nahuel Moreno responded to Mandel's work during 1979 with the text "The Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in his exile in Bogotá: "... The general capitulation to Eurocommunism, which abandoned the line of the dictatorship of the proletariat—from the formal point of view, because orthodox Stalinism had already abandoned it of content—led Mandel to capitulate also to all the bourgeois-democratic prejudices of the social democracy and Eurocommunism. He thus created a Eurotrotskyism that maintained in fact that it was not going to be There will be no civil wars or major problems in the European revolution, nor in the world revolution in general..." (Nahuel Moreno- The Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 1979)

In this work Nahuel Moreno explains that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a regime that fights for the world revolution, is proletarian internationalist, is supported by organizations of self-determination of the masses, grants the broadest democratic freedoms in history but in the first place for the workers and the sectors of the people that promote the revolution. But they are not the same freedoms for the counterrevolutionaries, nor for the sectors of the ruling classes, even less so at a time when civil war breaks out, where he will not always make "legal judgments" for those who take up arms against the revolution. Mandel's conception led his current to abandon the slogan of "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" decades later. On the other hand, Nahuel Moreno's work "The Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat" became one of the pillars of orthodox Trotskyism.

But as soon as he achieved his release, Nahuel Moreno found himself facing a new revolution that was shaking the world: The Nicaraguan Revolution. In 1979 the revolution of the Nicaraguan people broke out against the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). Nahuel Moreno had learned the lessons of the Cuban revolution in which once again a guerrilla movement, after struggle in isolation for a long time In time, he went on to lead an insurrection of the triumphant masses: "... Moreno and the FB had been calling since 1977 to support the Sandinista struggle. In Nicaragua there was practically no Trotskyism. With great audacity, Moreno then proposed to form a International Brigade of Combatants, Rescuing the example of volunteers who had fought in the civil war Spaniard. It was now a matter of joining the armed struggle against Somoza, under the military command of Sandinismo. This is how it was born the Simón Bolívar Brigade. It was an example How Trotskyism, correctly oriented, can and should intervene in this type of revolution. The Simón Bolívar Brigade gathered a united front of volunteers, under the leadership of the Trotskyists. With a broad call, they achieved the sympathy of different sectors opposed to the dictator Somoza. (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

Then one of the most epic pages of the orthodox Trotskyist current led by Nahuel Moreno and the FB unfolds, in which the Simón Bolívar Brigade stars in an extraordinary example of proletarian internationalism: "... The offices of the PST were filled with volunteers, many of which came from other countries. 1,500 were registered. A commission took their data; another, to do the revision physician; and another directed the training military... Meanwhile, the artists donated works and the unions collected money, food and medicine... The Argentines Miguel Sorans and Nora Ciapponi and the Colombians Kemel George and Camilo González took office the command of the Brigade. A group of the it entered to fight in Nicaragua, in the Southern Front... There, the Brigade had three fatal casualties ... Another group of the brigadistas left Costa Rica and took the Nicaraguan port of Bluefields, taking it from the Somozas. On July 19, 1979, the Brigade triumphantly entered Managua, received by the people and by the Sandinistas. The weekly El Socialista, of the Colombian PST, had sold almost 20,000 copies a week, with direct news from the war front. In Bogotá, a direct telex service to Managua had been installed, through which Moreno discussed all the steps with Kemel, Camilo, Nora and Eduardo... " (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

But after having entered Nicaragua, the strategy of the Simón Bolívar Brigade clashed with the strategy of the Sandinistas, who under the orders of Fidel Castro were not interested in following deepening the revolution. For the FSLN and Castroism, the revolution had ended with the fall of the dictatorship, and it was preparing to form a government of "National Unity" called the Government Junta of National Reconstruction together with the historic Nicaraguan bourgeoisie headed by Violeta Chamorro. On the other hand, the strategy of the Simón Bolívar Brigade was completely opposite: Relying on the workers' and people's mobilization, the Simón Bolívar Brigade had organized more than 80 unions in a few days and had promoted the workers' and people's armament, with which it developed the strategy of continuing the revolution until the establishment of a workers' and people's government. on the road to socialism.

Castroism and the FSLN were not going to tolerate the development of the revolutionary strategy that would prevent the realization of the Government Junta of National Reconstruction, which is why they harshly repressed the Simón Bolívar Brigade. The brigadistas were expelled from Nicaragua detained, put on a plane and handed over to the dictatorship of Omar Torrijos in Panama, after being handed over to the Panamanian police. Valuable militants and leaders of the FB were imprisoned in the prisons of the Torrijos dictatorship and as a matter of principle, an international campaign was imposed to obtain the release of the political prisoners of the Simón Bolívar Brigade who were detained.

However, the revisionist leadership of Mandel and the SU committed one of the greatest betrayals: "... The majority of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International, which did not support to Sandinismo when he was fighting against Somoza, he later did what he always did: when he triumphed, he ran to throw himself at his feet. He joined the bourgeois chorus that applauded the expulsion of the brigadistas and decreed the prohibition of FB militants from to act in Central America. It was a crossroads for Moreno. In 1969 and in 1974, at the IX and Tenth Congresses of the International, he had had to endure that, with a factionalist and bureaucratic criterion, the SU decreed that the Argentine PST was sympathetic, while officially recognizing the Guerrillas. But what happened now was infinitely more serious: the SU supported the persecution of the Trotskyists, failing to proletarian morality, and forbade the very existence of Trotskyism. Moreno and the FB made the decision to break with the SU..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The long-awaited polemic on workers' democracy and bourgeois democracy and other issues raised by Mandel and criticized by Moreno that would be held at the XI World Congress came to pass, because after the expulsion of the Simón Bolívar Brigade (BSB) from Nicaragua and the support of Mandelismo and the SWP for the expulsion of the brigadistas, the FB withdrew from the SU, and broke definitively with it. The break with the SU reaffirmed the need to establish an international current in defense of orthodox Trotskyism because the SU had already abandoned the most elementary principles not only because of its support for counterrevolutionary and treacherous leaderships such as the FSLN, but had also abandoned basic principles such as the defense of Trotskyist prisoners in the hands of the capitalist dictatorship of Torrijos in Panama.

Pierre Lambert, who had been left out of the Fourth International in the remnants of the ICFI along with Healy for not recognizing Cuba as a workers' state, since his organization the OCI of France had a correct analysis and a fair policy in Nicaragua, similar to those of the FB, and condemned the SU for its violation of Trotskyist principles. This position opened the possibility of establishing an agreement with Lambert that would allow the reunification of the forces of orthodox Trotskyism in defense of the principles betrayed by the SU.

Moreno proposed to Lambert to carry out the unification of the currents around a programmatic document to create a global, centralist and democratic organization. "Moreno was overcome with joy enormous. Finally a principled agreement with another historical leader of Trotskyism! Finally a truly global match! Because the perspectives he was considering Moreno were immense. The FB with its weight in Latin America and the OCI with its weight in France, could be the springboard to spread throughout the old continent ... The unification took place at a Congress, in Paris, where the new organization was founded, nominated International Committee - Fourth International (ICFI)" (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The unification with Lambert raised the possibility of rebuilding the ICFI that the US SWP would be able to reconstruct. The U.S. had abandoned on principled grounds. Moreno gambled on implanting orthodox Trotskyism in Europe, the cradle of Marxism and of one of the strongest working classes of the world, with this objective Nahuel Moreno settled in Paris, in 1980. "... But The dream quickly vanished. In the In the 1981 elections, the Social Democrat François Mitterrand triumphed, inaugurating a Popular Front government, at the service of the French imperialist bourgeoisie. Lambert and the OIC had a capitulatory policy to that government. They still maintain it. Moreno and the Bolshevik Fraction they asked to open the discussion. It was not possible. Lambert bureaucratically prevented this, and even expelled him from his party to the militants who agreed to discuss, and prohibiting all exchange with the comrades of the FB..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

However, several comrades from the French OCI agreed with Nahuel Moreno: "... To one of the main leaders of his current, the Peruvian Ricardo Napurí, Lambert lo accused of refusing to contribute the salary that he was paid as a senator. For Moreno, that he had already returned to Bogotá, that attack on the morale of a Trotskyist, was a matter of principle. All his life had reacted in kind, with more force, even when the attacked person does not belonged to his party. When Healy slandered Hansen – an event that occurred after the rupture of political relations with the SWP: Moreno came to the defense of the comrade asking for a moral tribunal. The he did the same now with Napurí. Tanned called for the constitution of a tribunal, made up of anti-imperialist personalities, unsuspected of any partiality to Lambert, the FB or Napurí, to establish whether or not he contributed to his diet parliamentary to the party. The tribunal was constituted, investigated and established that Napurí was quoted. Had slandered, to prevent discussion democratic among the Trotskyists, on the capitulation of the OIC to Mitterrand..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

The Update of the Transition Program and the OIC Betrayal

The failure of the attempt to build a management team with Lambert meant for Nahuel Moreno a new frustration after the losses of the management team in Argentina in 1963, and a failed attempt to form a management team with the SWP headed by Jack Barnes in 1973. After the failed experience with Lambertism, important comrades such as the Peruvian Ricardo Napurí or the Venezuelan Alberto Franceschi joined the international current of Nahuel Moreno, however a positive product of all that experience were the important theoretical-political elaborations that were the fruit of the attempt to merge with the current of Lambert.

In the first place, Nahuel Moreno presented the Theses that would serve as the basis for elaborating the program of the Fourth International—International Committee (IC-IC), which emerged in 1980 as a merger of the FB and Pierre Lambert's OIC. That text was called the Thesis Project for the Reorganization (Reconstruction) of the Fourth International, and was published in the magazine Correspondencia Internacional – La Verdad, Bogotá, in January 1981, later popularized under the title "Update of the Transition Program". The Theses are a monumental work in which Nahuel Moreno synthesized all the political elaboration developed up to that time, and exposed for the first time in a complete and systematic way the changes that he believed should be introduced in the two pillars of the Trotskyist conception: the Theory of Permanent Revolution and The Transition Program.

The Theses mark the years of his richest and most revolutionary theoretical and political production, in which the fundamental categories and definitions of orthodox Trotskyism are reflected: "... These theses do not repeat the analyses and tasks formulated in the Transitional Programme, the founding document of the Fourth International. It is not that we consider that this document is outdated or surpassed by history, but exactly the opposite. The stage we are living in is characterized by two fundamental facts: the definitive crisis of imperialism and the Stalinist bureaucracy... and the re-entry into the historical scene of the proletariat of the most industrialized countries, as a fundamental protagonist of the process. In such circumstances, the Transitional Program and its central axis, the building of the Fourth International in all countries of the world to defeat the counterrevolutionary bureaucratic apparatuses, overcome the crisis of revolutionary leadership, and bring the world socialist revolution to completion—are more relevant than ever..." (Transitional Program Update. Nahuel Moreno- 1980)

The Theses reaffirm and enrich the Theory of Permanent Revolution, they reaffirm the character of the epoch of the socialist revolution, at a time when 99% of the world's leftist currents propose that the epoch of the socialist revolution is over and no longer exists. He points out that the world economy is a totality dominated by imperialism and that there are no two economies just at a time when 99% of the world left affirms that there are two economies, one of the United States and the other of China and the BRIC's: "... We also show how one of the essential tenets of the program—the productive forces of humanity have ceased to grow—is confirmed and enriched—as the boom of the imperialist economy develops the destructive forces and subjects the vast majority of humanity to increasing misery and super-exploitation..." (Update of the Transitional Program. Nahuel Moreno- 1980)

In the Theses, Moreno states that new slogans are incorporated and some old ones are reaffirmed: "... We affirm that in the stage of transition from capitalism to socialism ... they raise several new slogans and the extension of old ones, which acquire greater weight ... the new weight that democratic slogans have acquired... guerrilla warfare; the character of the post-war revolutions; as the "February" revolutions have become widespread at this stage... and how the internal logic of this phenomenon confirms the permanent revolution. In other words, our theses aim to confirm the Transitional Programme and its method, enriched by the new phenomena that occurred after its drafting. We want to demonstrate how its fundamental analyses and postulates are ratified... in which we witness the greatest revolutionary upsurge that humanity has ever known..." (Update of the Transition Program. Nahuel Moreno- 1980)

The Theses postulate that the entire world situation since the Second World War The World expresses the character of the epoch of mortal struggle between revolution and counter-revolution. Democratic tasks are fundamental levers of the revolution such as the struggle against dictatorships, the rights of the most oppressed sectors, nationalities, women, races, sexual minorities, native peoples, etc. The Theses reaffirm the character of guerrilla warfare as revolutionary wars that in the twentieth century were revolutions such as the Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, or Nicaraguan, among others; just as today in the twenty-first century are the revolutions in Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, Rojava, etc. and the growing process of self-organization and self-defense that confronts dictatorial regimes such as those of Assad in Syria, Iran, Israel, Putin, as well as NATO forces, inflicting important defeats on these armies and regimes.

Nahuel Moreno incorporates in the Theses the definitions of revolutions of February and October that he had formulated in the work for the Leeds Conference of 1957. The category of "February Revolutions" expressed essentially in Thesis XV "A stage of February revolutions and no October revolution" is fundamental to understanding the events of the twentieth century, but this category is also definitely essential to understand the revolutions of the twenty-first century, and the different revolutionary waves that have been developing and constitute as Nahuel Moreno would say "... thegreatest revolutionary upsurge that humanity has ever known..." (Update of the Transition Program. Nahuel Moreno- 1980)

Regarding the formulation of the concept of the February Revolution, Moreno advances in the elaboration more deeply towards 1984: "... Trotsky of the general strike (of 1936) in France... He literally says that the general strike is the French February Revolution. That is, you define the general strike as the February revolution... Why, for us, is it a terrible appointment against Mandelism? Because Mandelism is attacking us, saying that it is ridiculous that there are revolutions in February, unconscious. He says that there are only February revolutions where there is feudalism. So this quote demonstrates, first, that there is a February revolution in France, a country of high capitalist development, that is to say that the February revolution is not bourgeois democratic against feudalism, and second, that it is super unconscious, something that no one can deny... Why does Trotsky call it the February revolution? ... Trotsky says that this general strike is the beginning of the revolution. In the sense that it is a February revolution and that the process began around October. That is what we want to say" (Escuela de Cuadros Argentina- 1984. Theory of the Revolution)

The Theses also incorporate the elaborations and definitions formulated in the work for the Leeds Conference of 1957 in relation to the political revolution. Nahuel Moreno formulates that the political revolution is not only the struggle against the Stalinist regime in the workers' states, but also the struggle against all the counterrevolutionary leaderships of the workers and the people worldwide. Today, when in the 21st century we are witnessing the collapse of social democracy, Stalinism, guerrillaism or bourgeois nationalist movements after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the successive revolutionary waves place this elaboration of Nahuel Moreno among the most important because they are fundamental to understanding this process that is unfolding before our eyes today and is crucial to resolve the crisis of revolutionary leadership.

From Lambert's break with the OCI emerges another political theoretical work by Nahuel Moreno that constitutes one of the backbones of orthodox Trotskyism: The Betrayal of the OCI. In this work, Nahuel Moreno takes Lambert's capitulation to the Popular Front in France to develop the battle against the conception of support for the "progressive" bourgeois blocs. Today, when 99% of the world's left has the popular front policy of support and integration into "progressive" bourgeois governments and coalitions, this polemical work with Pierre Lambert is a fundamental guide to combat the false strategies of the "workers' united front" and other similar apparently "unitary" proposals that seek in reality to lead activism and the world vanguard on the road to capitulation to the "progressive" pro-imperialist governments.

The elaborations for the Leeds Conference embodied in the "Update of the Transitional Program," the "Morenazo," "The Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as well as "The Betrayal of the OCI" are the backbones of orthodox Trotskyism. The "Update of the Transitional Program" established the definitions of the February Revolution, the world revolutionary situation, the principled position in the face of the phenomenon of Guerrilla Warfare, and the development of the political revolution, all concepts that represent a fundamental elaboration for the understanding of the Theory of Permanent Revolution. The "Morenazo" defines the central elements that characterize a revolutionary and Bolshevik party. On the other hand, "The Betrayal of the OCI" polemicizes with the revisionist and opportunist positions of the "theory of progressive camps". These works are the bases of the Morenoite current, pillars around which Nahuel Moreno built the current of orthodox Trotskyism. The experience of the constitution of the ICFI with Lambert made it possible to draw many of these conclusions and to develop these fundamental elaborations.

The crisis and the battle with the "old leadership"

As Nahuel Moreno continued to develop the political theoretical elaboration, the last failed attempt to build a leadership team with Lambert made his loneliness more and more evident. Nahuel Moreno was completely alone to carry out the battle against revisionism. The capitulation of the SWP to Castroism, as well as the capitulation of the leadership of Palabra Obrera to the guerrillas, the coups provoked by the Triple AAA and the military dictatorship to the PST, as well as Lambert's capitulation to the Popular Front in France had left Nahuel Moreno in a situation of complete solitude and isolation when it came to being able to advance in the development of a leadership team that would allow the struggle to develop against revisionism in defense of orthodox Trotskyism.

In order to overcome this contradiction, Nahuel Moreno tried to rely on various comrades at different times such as Eduardo Expósito, Ernesto González, Aníbal Tesoro, Juan Robles and Pedro Pujals from Argentina, Eduardo "Edu" Almeida from Brazil, Nora Ciapponi, Aldo Romero, Mercedes Petit, Roberto Ramírez from Argentina, Eduardo "Negro" Barragán and Patricia Lee Wynne from Colombia, Alba Naiman, Martín Sagra, Eugenio Greco, Silvia Díaz, Eduardo Sorans from Argentina, Alberto Franceschi from Venezuela, Mario Doglio, Marina, Orlando Mattolini, Jorge Guidobono, Silvia "Pestaña" Santos, Armando Esquivel, Alfredo "Cabezón" Silva from Argentina, among other comrades.

However, all these attempts were unsuccessful. Pondering the sacrifice and dedication of all these very young comrades when they joined Nahuel Moreno, and older during the last stage and death of Nahuel Moreno, the reality is that all these attempts failed with those who later became known as the "old leadership". It was generally a group of comrades from the student movement, with the exceptions of Eduardo Expósito, or Ernesto González. A whole generation of a petty-bourgeois character with pedantic traits, of low political level, incapable of elaborating anything serious politically.

The actions of the "old leadership" opened permanent crises in the PST of Argentina, as well as in the international current. Nahuel Moreno was clear about the characterization of this group of leaders, his vision of them was clearly recorded in the work known as "The Anti-Identikit". By 1980, these leaders had published a material called "El identitik" where they formulated a "profile" of the party in Argentina. Nahuel Moreno, horrified by the positions that these leaders were developing, polemicized against the positions of the "old leadership": "...I'm furious with all of you. I think that they do not read the documents, that they do not study, that they have been lost these virtues. It seems to me that none of you have feedback mechanisms... They become bureaucratic, empirical, arrogant. I'm scared that they have gotten on the horse. That they do not know how to be humble. That they are not careful or purposely put them in the background knowing that it is essential to make a team where the strengths and weaknesses of each one are combined..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Nahuel Moreno was especially concerned about the petty-bourgeois character of the "old leadership", a product of its student extraction, the petty-bourgeois origin of its members, the same social extraction of which the revisionist leaders of Mandelism were part. "I have the impression that they have become haughty, even arrogant, without compensation or compensation mechanisms. feedback that compensate for their weaknesses. I want everyone, and in particular, you, E., who is the most important leader, have those mechanisms of feedback that are sacred ... The bulletin itself shows this lack of feedback mechanisms that allow us to balance our documents, our political conduct..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Nahuel Moreno warns that the "old leadership" carries forward a conception of the social democratic party, far from the conception of the Bolshevik and revolutionary party: "... I think it is very dangerous. If it is said that the profile only describes the elements with which you are present to the masses today within their ignorance ... they are capitulating to some extent... if they want to make the profile of the party, that is, define what distinguishes the party of the other political organizations, so the description is bad. If they say that those points are those that characterize the party, they are watering down its program and biasing it, falling into opportunism..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Nahuel Moreno polemicized with the conception that the party must "be in all the struggles" to destroy the conception that the party and its militants must run from one place to another "supporting the struggles." Moreno affirmed that it is an economistic, syndicalist, and social-democratic position, and that a Bolshevik party is exactly the opposite: "How is the party defined? ..: The first point to the profile says categorically: "We are the party that participates in all struggles"... The identification is wrong and it is very dangerous. Almost always the Trotskyist parties they are the ones who participate in the fewest struggles in relation to the large majority parties ... And then, if a small group of comrades in a country in which who are very weak, they "identify" themselves by saying that they are the ones who participate in all the struggles, they are lying..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Then Nahuel Moreno polemicizes with the conception that the party is "that of the resistance": "... It's not what characterizes the construction of the party. You are — and this must be clarified very well — the party that proposes to overthrow with insurrectionary methods ... they are the insurrectionary party... They make a wrong definition, they don't principled, of the party. The party is not characterized by being that of the resistance... The parties in Nicaragua or El Salvador (referring to the sections of the FB) were not characterized by being the The only parties of the resistance, but they were the parties of the resistance by way of the mobilization of the masses towards the workers' and people's insurrection. This is our party in Argentina and everywhere. Have lost even language..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Nahuel Moreno then takes up the polemic against the idea of the "old leadership" that the party that runs from one place to another to be in the struggles, in the resistance: "... (The document "The Identikit" says) The Resistance Party is built by actively participating in the resistance" ... taken in the context of our current policy, as a profile, it is incorrect. The problem is what that "participation" means. Does it mean that the he has to run and kill himself, to be in "all" (as the introduction says) "the places where is there resistance"? That is precisely what the party should not and cannot do. We have to go back to read Lenin..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980) Moreno responds to the "old leadership" that drives this orientation by explaining to them what is the Bolshevik conception of the party, completely opposite to the one they expose in the "identikit".

This is how Nahuel Moreno responds: "... The role of the party is to denounce, to be the great denouncer – in a centralized way, through the through the newspaper—, from the government. The party can never encompass the whole objective reality, which is much more extensive than it. Resistance is an objective phenomenon and it is logical that There will be many expressions of resistance in which the party cannot intervene, intervene Late or intervene from the beginning but badly. Just what needs to be explained to the party to educate him solidly, that is a secondary problem. To intervene in the resistance is not an individual, cellular or regional problem but a political problem which translates into having an organ and a policy that denounces the government. There are two different orientations. One is the one I am giving and the other, the one in the bulletin, is the one that leads to the economism and even unintentionally, to reformism, to run after conflicts without politics correct and without a centralizing body..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

For Nahuel Moreno there are two strategies in the controversy over the "identikit": The strategy of the "old leadership" which is to "run" from one side to the other, supporting "all the struggles" orientation that leads to reformism, as well as economism, and on the other hand the strategy that Nahuel Moreno defends, which is to intervene with centralized agitation against the government through a central organ that is the revolutionary press: "... This is one of the central problems: they must transform themselves into the party of resistance without run like crazy to intervene in all the foci of resistance that exist, because we are the political-historical expression of that resistance through the party line that explains its organs, mainly the newspaper. It is through our organs that we try to bind ourselves to resistance and express it consciously, as a policy of the party..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Nahuel Moreno makes it clear that the Bolshevik and revolutionary strategy is that of the scientific, serious study of the class struggle, and the rhythms of the political situation for the formulation of the appropriate slogans: "... The phrase about how participate in resistance... It is economistic and not political... In nowhere in the document is it pointed out that the great way to intervene in the resistance is starting with studying it. I don't see you saying to your middle cadres: don't run because running you gain nothing, do not kill yourselves for intervening, although you have the obligation to intervene, now that the most important thing is the political study to achieve the appropriate slogans for the intervention and propaganda-agitation of party policy to popularize denunciations, the facts and the slogans, through its organs... That is why I warn against the phrase "the party of resistance is built by actively participating in resistance", because it gives the document as a whole an economistic orientation, voluntarist, practicalist, and not of having a correct policy and a central organ, as a task primordial, that expresses it." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

The controversy included the policy against the military dictatorship in Argentina formulated by the "old leadership": "... Where are our slogans for the military dictatorship to go, for free elections? And that of the Constituent Assembly? And the general strike to confront the government? ... They're not at any point in the profile... It is not that the party must at all times and inexorably link itself to all resistance and to everything that happens, even if linking is an obligation. No, the party must subjectively reflect that objective process... propagandizing his political program Down with the dictatorship! General strike to confront it! Constituent Assembly! And how are they going to explain and achieve it? With correct analyses, with an accurate organizational line and essentially with a newspaper that is the expression of resistance and confrontation with the government until its revolutionary defeat..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Moreno polemicized against the "old leadership" in the unions. "The party is the one that organized all the strikes ... the one who is preparing the general strike of the union ... in building a new direction... organizing themselves in every little fact ... ". As a characterization of our union principles that sharply differentiate us from the other parties ... this is false... What characterizes the party's policy in the trade union field is not to "organize strikes" or to give "a leadership"... Nor does it sharply differentiate between wanting to "build a new direction" or "organize in every little event"... No, what sharply differentiates our party is that we want revolutionary unions in general, and today in Argentina we want union leaderships that prepare the revolutionary general strike to overthrow the government, to achieve democracy for the workers' and people's movement. It is pure trade unionism, economism, it does not link trade union life to politics" (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

Nahuel Moreno explained that he and the old leadership defend two completely different party models. One is a model of "running to all struggles" to show oneself, to impact activism or public opinion, a model that is economistic, reformist, and social democratic. On the other hand, Nahuel Moreno's model is that of centralized intervention through a central organ, the revolutionary press, to agitate slogans against the government, elaborated from the deep study of the reality of the class struggle. (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980) Nahuel Moreno entered the final stretch of his political and personal life immersed as always in a political battle with revisionism. But this time revisionism is not only Mandelism, but is also embodied in the "old leadership", its own cadres such as Eduardo Expósito, Martin Sagra, Pedro Pujals, Mercedes Petit, Nora Ciaponne, Aldo Casas, or Miguel Sorans, etc. Moreno made it very clear what he thought of all of them in "El Antiidentikit".

This work by Nahuel Moreno allows us to understand why this group of the "old leadership" was unable to defend orthodox Trotskyism afterthe death of Nahuel Moreno, which led to the explosion of the current founded by Nahuel Moreno a few years after his death. A group of petty-bourgeois leaders, of low political level, and bureaucratic methods that had remained for a long time had become a serious problem that had somehow been generated by their own responsibility. For this reason, about his mistakes Moreno responded: "...Another very serious mistake was having had so many professional militants in the party. If I could go back In the past, I think that this should be avoided, and that many of the colleagues who were hired professionals by the party they should have gone to work and inserted themselves into society..." (Conversations with Nahuel Moreno- 1986)

The IWL- FI and the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS)

After the failed attempt to rebuild the Fourth International that meant the merger with Lambert and the OCI, Nahuel Moreno understood that he had to lead the organization of an orthodox Trotskyist current, for which he promoted the foundation of the International Workers' League IWL-Fourth International (FI) in Bogotá in Bogotá. January 1982. Nahuel Moreno tried to knot the historical thread broken by Pablo in 1951, by Mandel in the SU of 1979 and by Lambert in 1981. The base of the IWL- FI was the FB, comrades Napurí and Franceschi who left the OCI because of their capitulation to Mitterrand and joined to the IWL (FI) accompanied by the major part of the Lambertist militants of Venezuela and Peru: "The IWL (FI) was a greater challenge for Moreno. It was no longer treated as in the former Bolshevik Fraction, of to make an opposition nucleus within of the United Secretariat, but of making only, as a historical leader, a party independent organization, its own statutes, program, policy, finance, magazine and directing team" (Biographical Sketch of Nahuel Moreno, Hernán Félix Cuello and Carmen Carrasco- 1988)

In this way, the Fourth International since 1948 From then on, it finally settled into two currents international: the SU and the IWL (FI): "Although the IWL (FI) was, from many years before, the most dynamic current, Moreno never believed that he was at the end of the road. He always considered that he was still a long way from the great workers' party of the world revolution. The IWL (FI) only it had strength in Latin America and lacked an important presence in Europe. For this reason, Moreno tirelessly encouraged unity with the revolutionary currents that break with the bureaucratic institutions, considered the IWL (FI) as One part, the principled part, of Trotskyism. But he never thought that the Fourth International alone could be proclaimed. Until the last day of his life he fought for The principled unity of the Trotskyists, in a centralized world organization. So, with a tired heart, he traveled to in November 1986, to meet with the leaders of the Workers Revolutionary Party of Great Britain, some of them acquaintances of his in his thirties or forty years, like Bill Hunter..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

In Argentina, the government of the dictatorship headed by Argentine General Leopoldo Galtieri embarked on a war with Great Britain for the possession of the Malvinas Islands on April 2, 1982 that led to a war with NATO and in turn unleashed the national mobilization of the people, the workers Argentines and a mobilization anti-imperialist continental. The dictatorship surrendered to the British government of Margaret Thatcher caused the enraged people to overthrow the Galtieri government in June 1982. The PST and the IWL-FI had placed themselves in the military camp of Argentina in the oppressed country, and had been in the revolutionary mobilizations of these days. In July 1982 the Executive Committee of the IWL (FI) proposed that Nahuel Moreno, the entire international leadership and the Argentine militants in exile return to Argentina: "... Moreno left immediately. Before in a meeting with the Argentine leaders, proposed that the PST – proscribed by the dictatorship – will adopt the name MAS (Movement Towards Socialism). Thus began the 5 years Moreno's ends..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

Nahuel Moreno's return to Argentina took place in conditions that were still clandestine: "... Moreno entered through the land border of Uruguay. His presence in Buenos Aires It was kept secret. He settled in a small apartment to which only the Executive Committee of the PST had access. It was Moreno who insisted that the party rented a premises, on Peru Street, of the Barrio de San Telmo, in the Capital, of immense dimensions ... On the third floor of that premises, whose access was closed, Moreno installed his office. He came and went at night, for a passage... Only in October 1983, Moreno left his semi-clandestine ..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

When Nahuel Moreno arrived in Argentina, he found a party deeply in crisis: "... On arriving to Buenos Aires, Moreno had found the PST at a bad time. After six years of dictatorship and genocide, the traces were deep. There was depoliticization and bureaucratic features, as a consequence of vertical operation during the secrecy. In addition, the match had been concentrated in the center of Buenos Aires and away from the workers' bastions. Tanned He put his effort into changing this situation. He did so, as always, preparing theoretically, politically and organizationally; helping to go back to the working class and dedicating his days and nights to building a management team..." (Idem- Biographical Sketch)

In Argentina, the fall of the dictatorship opened a revolutionary stage: "... Moreno revolutionized pushed the PST out of hiding guiding him to use the legal margins and reach large layers of workers. The MAS was founded just three months after Moreno's arrival, and faced the electoral campaign with the party style Characteristic: Opening hundreds of in popular neighborhoods throughout the country. The electoral result was meager, There was no mass break with the Peronism... But even so, the MAS it began to be implanted everywhere. Moreno continued the battle pushing to the party to get into the factories, where The new union leadership is emerging and politics in the fight against bureaucracy Peronist trade union..." (Idem- Biographical Notice)

The MAS became a party of thousands of members, the largest Trotskyist party in the world at the time, and one of the largest in history. Never again did Trotskyism see a party like this in Argentina. During this period, Nahuel Moreno advanced even more in theoretical-political elaborations. In the Theses of Foundation of the IWL-FI of 1984 and the Manifesto of the IWL-FI of 1985 he established the concepts of chronic crisis of the world economy, the expression of the crisis of capitalism at that time at the end of the twentieth century. On the other hand, the Theses and the Manifesto reflect the analysis of the concept of "world revolutionary upsurge", the revolutionary waves that were developing at that time. And on the other hand, in these materials the concept of the "World Counterrevolutionary Front" was embodied to analyze the struggle between revolution and counterrevolution.

The concept of the "World Counterrevolutionary Front" is vital to understanding the situation of the class struggle: "... In this world war between exploiters and exploited, in the face of the revolution the front of the the imperialist and bureaucratic counterrevolution. The bourgeoisie, the rich middle class, the Bureaucrats... join that front. To its head is U.S. imperialism, the main enemy of the peoples of the world. Surrounding it in a solid unity, there are the imperialisms of Western Europe and Japan, weaker but so fierce like him. Watching their backs, the churches, capitalists and governments of the United States are aligned. the backward countries and the bureaucrats of the so-called "socialist" countries (Stalinism). All of them come together to try to stop the advance of the revolution..." (Manifesto of the IWL-FI- 1985)

The definition of the existence of a single world counterrevolutionary front is a fundamental category for understanding the world political reality, even more so when today 99% of the world left adopted the "Theory of Decoupling" proposing the "end of the hegemony of the United States". The existence of "two fronts" of the ruling classes. Nahuel Moreno fought against all these crazy theories, as he explained: "...Several current currents of Marxism, and also of those who claim to be part of the movement Trotskyist theory, they maintain that the economic crisis and the revolutionary upsurge have caused a deep division in the ranks of imperialism and the bourgeoisie. According to these interpretations, the The crisis exacerbates the contradictions between German and Japanese imperialism, and the great boss of the United States. Moreover, they point out that U.S. imperialism began its decline and loses terrain, especially against Japan." (Thesis on the World Situation- Project of the International Secretariat of the IWL- FI- October 20, 1984)

In the Theses and the Manifesto, Moreno fought against the "Theory of Decoupling" in its twentieth-century version, a world current that affirmed, as is done today in China, that Germany and Japan disputed the hegemony of the United States. It was being overtaken by Japan. This is how Moreno explains it: "... The situation, however, is the opposite. For us, never in the history of capitalism in In this century, the different imperialisms and the national exploiters have been so united, so dominated and as controlled by an imperialist power, as is the case today with the United States... Economic might, if we include technological control and military power, is overwhelmingly favorable to the United States. If we take into account the data of the development of traditional industries and of the exchange We would conclude that Japan and Germany are beginning to dominate the United States. United. But if we take into account the arms industry, rocketry, energy, the arsenal nuclear, the power of the United States. The U.S. is overwhelming and every day better..." (Idem- Thesis on the World Situation)

Nahuel Moreno fought 40 years ago the idea propagated by the mass media and the "Theory of Decoupling" that the world is heading towards the "Third World War": "... These inter-imperialist relations lead us to affirm that there is no real possibility that the differences between the imperialist powers be settled in a war between them ... the dominant feature of inter-bourgeois relations ... is the impossibility of an inter-imperialist World War III ... The dominance of the United States. The U.S. on imperialism as a whole does not make differences disappear and contradictions within the camp of the exploiters. On the contrary, the economic crisis and the intensification of the class struggle sharpen these differences and contradictions. But that exacerbation, unlike in other historical opportunities, cannot destroy in the coming years of the deep unity orchestrated around U.S. imperialism. (Thesis on the World Situation- Project of the International Secretariat of the IWL- FI- October 20, 1984)

Along with the category of "World Counterrevolutionary Front", Nahuel Moreno elaborated the category of "Front for "Social Peace" and "Democracy", which was established both in the Theses of 1984 and in the Manifesto of the IWL of 1985: "... This failure of open political and military confrontation as a method to stop the revolution, gave ample ground for another counterrevolutionary policy: to try the same thing through deception and deception. betrayal; trying to convince the masses that they should stop fighting... on the side of the great imperialist bosses... a parallel General Staff was constituted within the front of the exploiters and Privileged. An oppressive propaganda in favor of "social peace", "democracy"... what the fighting would cease, arms would be laid down and peace and elections would reign. Around this policy they realigned themselves, in a "Front for Social Peace and Democracy" Thick sections of imperialism--the U.S. Democratic Party---the U.S. Democratic Party---the U.S. Democratic Party-the U.S. Democratic Party-- A fringe of the Party itself Republicans and some European imperialist governments, their junior partners, the bourgeoisies of backward countries; the bureaucratic governments of the workers' states - from the Kremlin to the Castro... the Communist Parties, the entire Second International social democrats, the union bureaucracies, the churches headed by the Pope and the Vatican, almost all of the so-called "left" and many guerrilla commanders, mainly the Sandinistas and those of the Salvadoran FMLN. This "Front for Social Peace and Democracy" has become the most perfidious enemy of the workers and poor of the world..." (Idem- Manifesto of the IWL- FI- 1985)

In turn, the elaborations established in the Update of the Transition Program were more fully reflected in the work "Revolutions of the Twentieth Century". He sought to achieve a synthesis in a treatise on revolutions for which several cadre schools were carried out that were published as "Argentina School of Cadres – 1984", an extraordinary elaboration for the study of revolutions and counterrevolutions after Trotsky, who did not manage to theorize about the revolutions of the post-world war. assassinated by Stalinism: "...Why have we thrown this serious problem over the head of new comrades, almost without a cultural level, much less a Marxist one? Because, in that sense, I still believe that the latter is to some extent the former. Just by grasping all these very serious theoretical problems, what is a revolution, what is a reform, what is a regime, what is a stage, what is a situation? , that is, by beginning to elaborate a general theory or a general treatise on revolutions and reforms, on a world scale and on the scale of the century, we can give the comrades the conceptual tools..." (Escuela de Cuadros Argentina- 1984. Theory of the Revolution)

Nahuel Moreno did not see it possible to rebuild the Fourth International with the leaders of the currents headed by Mandel, nor Barnes grouped in the SU who had consolidated themselves as revisionists. That is to say, he did not see that the reconstruction of the Fourth International was possible through the "unity" of the Trotskyist groups. Moreno saw that the reconstruction of the Fourth was possible by capturing the best of world activism, and the leaders that emerge in the revolutions that cross the world, and for this he took up the tactic that he had been developing of the Revolutionary United Front (FUR) to bring together the revolutionaries of the world, with the IWL-CI being the platform at the service of that tactic: "... The Fourth International will be built through the fusion of our current with organizations and groups that break with the treacherous and reformist leaderships and constitute revolutionary fronts at the national and international level..." (Idem- Manifesto of the IWL- CI- 1985)

For the development of the FUR, Nahuel Moreno proposed a program with very clear bases: 1- Struggle against the offensive of hunger and unemployment 2- Defense and unconditional support for the mass struggles that are erupting in the world 3- Rejection of all "truce", "concertation", "pact" and "agreement" with the enemy. 4- For the triumph of the socialist revolution 5- Not trusting the bourgeoisie, its parties and its governments: "... We fight for a class policy, independent of bourgeois parties and governments. We call not to trust the bourgeoisie, nor to support it. We oppose and denounce all kinds of political front with her. We accuse of being agents of the bourgeoisie and imperialism those who call on the masses to trust in bourgeois governments..." (Thesis of the IWL-CI- 1984) 6- The Socialist revolution can only win if it is led by the working class and the revolutionary party. 7- For the workers' government, and the destruction of the bourgeois state. 8- For workers' democracy in the parties, trade unions and workers' states. Against every totalitarian regime.

These last years of Nahuel Moreno leading the construction of an orthodox Trotskyist organization and establishing a theoretical-political elaboration that consolidates the entire elaboration of more than forty years of work, are among the most important of his entire political career. All the efforts of recent years were based on the deep conviction expressed in January 1982 at the Founding Conference of the IWL-FI: "Wrong or not ... The existence of a single current or tendency The orthodox world government, the direct enemy of the revisionism of the United Secretariat (SU) and the OIC, is a fact. And that fact, that this current exists and is unique, is corroborated by... this Conference, ... which reflects the existence of a single Trotskyist current consistent on a world scale..." (Nahuel Moreno- End of unity with Lambertism- 1982, Bogotá. Colombia)

Death of Nahuel Moreno and disintegration of orthodox Trotskyism

Nahuel Moreno died in Buenos Aires on January 25, 1987. The year was just beginning, and he only asked to be able to live "5 more years" to be able to appreciate the great political events that were coming. He was right: Just two years later, the Berlin Wall fell, which meant the beginning of the fall of world Stalinism, one of the most important political events in history with enormous consequences for capitalism and the class struggle. The farewell to Moreno was impressive, with almost 10,000 people mobilized in a long march through the streets of Buenos Aires among friends, family, militants and supporters, as well as delegations from other countries that traveled especially. At the same time, thousands of greetings and condolences were received from trade union, social and world Trotskyist leaders, something that did not happen with any Trotskyist leader in the world, since none had such an enormous farewell ceremony and only very few leaders of world Marxism had one.

The fall of the Berlin Wall detonated a cataclysm in the world left. As Nahuel Moreno foresaw, the collapse of Stalinism at the hands of mass mobilizations throughout the world produced the entry into crisis of all the traitorous leaderships, Stalinists, social democrats, ex-guerrillas, etc., which began a process of crisis and explosion. And like the shadow of the body, the fall of these apparatuses detonated the crisis and disintegration of all the revisionist groups of Trotskyism. At the 1995 SU Congress, the international organization led by Michel Pablo rejoined the United Secretariat, bringing the Pablo and Mandel currents back together in the same organization. AndMandel died eight years after Nahuel Moreno and his current removed the slogan of "dictatorship of the proletariat" from the program, with which it renounced the struggle for a workers' and people's government, breaking spectacularly and publicly with Marxism, to form an openly social-democratic group that had as its flagship the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) in France.

After the death of Nahuel Moreno, the leadership of the world current of orthodox Trotskyism was left in the hands of the group of leaders known as the "old leadership", who were unable to give a principled response tothe fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolutions that overthrew Stalinism. The wrong answers and the course towards revisionism led to the outbreak of the IWL-FI three years after the death of Nahuel Moreno highlighting the contradiction between the experience, the theoretical, political and cultural level of Moreno, andthe "old leadership" of low political level, bureaucratic methods and petty-bourgeois extraction.

This is how Nahuel Moreno described them in "El Antiidentikit": "... We have to make everyone socially and geographically located. I think there is a social problem in the apparatus. There are colleagues who have been professionals for many years and then they lose their sense of reality, they become lumpenized. I believe that we must act very strongly to change this situation. Most of the professionals or former professionals have to go to work in places with the possibility of developing the party ... You don't read the classics. The comrades of the Secretariat are ignorant of Marxism, but they dictate and write fundamental documents on their own. Whoever prescribes without studying is not a doctor but a healer and you do curanderismo..." (Nahuel Moreno. The Antiidentikit- 1980)

A year after the death of Nahuel Moreno Petroni, Manes and Albamonte broke with orthodox Trotskyism to constitute the group known today as "Daily Left" that joined Mandelism for 30 years, until the outbreak of the NPA. It defends bourgeois democracy, its axis is electoralism, it collaborates with the bourgeois parties by approving their projects in Parliament, it manages the business of state cooperatives of recovered factories, and the media to obtain resources from the bourgeois state and arm its apparatus of a reformist character, as a petty-bourgeois group, charquero, intellectualoid based on university "progressivism".

With the outbreak of the crisis in the LIT and the MAS, the "old leadership" began to demolish all the pillars of the organization. The militants and cadres went out in all countries to fight against the course of the "old leadership" but they did not find a leadership to defeat it. Two years after the death of Nahuel Moreno, the "old leadership", mired in disrepute and rejected by the rank and file, divided the organization into two major tendencies: the "Morenist Tendency" and the "Bolshevik Tendency" from where it continued to demolish the organization and destroy orthodox Trotskyism, which gave rise to various organizations.

From the "Morenista Tendency" emerged the UIT, that is, the Socialist Left of Argentina led by Mercedes Petit, the late Silvia "Pestaña" Santos and Miguel Sorans, a group that capitulated to bourgeois democracy, had electoral participation as its axis, collaborated with the governments and bourgeois parties in Parliament by voting their laws, and joined coalitions capitalists such as "Brazil of Hope" that governs Brazil with Lula, or the Broad Front in Peru with which they obtained seats. They havecapitulated to the Chávez regime in Venezuela, and they are calling for a vote for bourgeois coalitions such as that of Castillo in Peru, Boric in Chile, or Massa in Argentina. The group adopted the reformist strategy but has a perfidious attitude of continuing to call itself "Morenoist" by publishing a website with the works of Nahuel Moreno, while abandoning all reference and public support to orthodox Trotskyism.

Also from the "Morenista Tendency" emerged another group that is the MST of Argentina with Mario Doglio, Alejandro Bodart and Carlos Maradona who also after breaking with orthodox Trotskyism joined Mandelism. They currently form a group called LIS that is part of the capitalist coalition "Brazil of Hope" that today is the capitalist government of Brazil. It supported the capitalist government of Chávez in Venezuela, defends the bourgeois democratic regime, its axis is electoral participation, they collaborate with the bourgeois parties by approving their projects in Parliament. They carry out the reformist program of state cooperatives of the unemployed, which has allowed them to build an apparatus based on the income from the bourgeois state, which consolidates it as a reformist group.

Also from the "Morenista Tendency" emerged the MES of Brazil headed by Pedro Pujals, Luciana Genro and Roberto Robaina. Pedro Pujals was the one who gave the official speech on behalf of the MAS leadership at the farewell ceremony for the death of Nahuel Moreno, and today he heads a group that after breaking with orthodox Trotskyism officially joined Mandelism and the Progressive International. It is a group that defends bourgeois democracy and is part of the Brazilian government coalition headed by Lula, and its deputies defend in Parliament the laws of the capitalist government, closely linked to the DSA of the United States, and the Progressive International.

From the "Bolshevik Tendency" emerged the New MAS, a group headed by Roberto Ramírez that broke with orthodox Trotskyism and went to Mandelism, and after the outbreak of the NPA in France joined the NPA (R). It started from staying with the legality of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), militants, a local in the Federal Capital and its axis is the elections of bourgeois democracy. They broke with Trotsky by affirming that workers' states never existed in a faded photocopy of the theories of the revisionists of 1940, the "anti-defensists" Shachtman and Burnham, evidencing the petty-bourgeois, charquero, intellectualoid character of the group based on university "progressivism".

Another sector from the "Bolshevik Tendency," the group headed by Aldo Casas and Nora Ciaponni, postulated a similar rehash of the "anti-defensist" theory of the revisionists Shachtman and Burnham. After breaking with orthodox Trotskyism, they ended up adopting the fashion of "autonomism" and "Zapatismo" by promoting the state cooperatives of the Darío Santillán Front in Argentina, with a policy of critical support for Chavismo and Kirchnerism. They promoted a "theoretical" magazine promoted by Aldo Casas called "Tool", where all charlatans and revisionists found their place to attack Marxism. The break with orthodox Trotskyism led them to the worst reformism, resulting in an intellectual, charquera and reformist current similar to Izquierda Diario, or the New MAS.

The IWL-FI founded by Nahuel Moreno came under the control of the "Bolshevik Tendency" based on the PSTU of Brazil headed by Eduardo "Edu" Almeida, Eduardo "Negro" Barragán and Martin Sagra. This group developed a deep integration into the bourgeois state through the management of a trade union centre that allowed them access to large union funds and control of a small trade union apparatus, which has allowed them to build a strong apparatus of their own based on the income from the bourgeois state disproportionate to the fact that they are a small group.

The IWL-FI still formally vindicates Nahuel Moreno but just as the UIT-Socialist Left breaks with the Morenoist current in fact, carrying out a policy of support for coalitions or capitalist projects such as the "Plurinational" capitalist Constitution of the "capitalist" Boric government in Chile, or the "Historic Pact" coalitionof the capitalist government of Gustavo Petro in Colombia by campaigning for affiliation in support of a capitalist leader linked to imperialism such as Francia Márquez. In the case of the leadership of the LIT, in addition to abandoning all reference and public support to orthodox Trotskyism, they have become a group of professional slanderers who have carried out campaigns of slander against several leaders who had dissidences with the leadership of the IWL-FI.

Other members of the "old leadership" such as Silvia Díaz, or Ricardo Napurí ended up capitulating to Chavismo or Kirchnerism, Juan Robles ended up in Mandelismo, Patricia Lee Wynne ended up supporting the capitalist dictatorship of Putin's war criminal, and the Venezuelan Alberto Franceschi ended up being a furious defender of capitalism, a militant of the Venezuelan right. The mention of this whole constellation of groups, currents and leaders has nothing to do with their importance in the world class struggle, because they are currently irrelevant. The only purpose of the mention is to illustrate how far they were from orthodox Trotskyism.

After having been left with thousands of militants from regionals, or organizations, appropriating the remains of the organization that Nahuel Moreno built, these sectors have become small groups that continue to retreat day by day. The only thing they have known how to do is build apparatuses based on resources from the bourgeois state, as Moreno warned, frightened by the apparatus that the party had in Argentina. Because of their low political level, and the fact that they are "healers" they have not produced anything from the theoretical-political point of view. Poverty and political illiteracy, in addition to the conversion into "functionaries" dependent on the state, make them a transmission belt for all the fashions and charlatanism of revisionism, a cesspool of functionaries who repeat what the Progressive International says of "struggle against the right".

The Regroupment of Revolutionaries and the Reconstruction of Orthodox Trotskyism

Orthodox Trotskyism disintegrated because after the death of Nahuel Moreno it did not find leaders willing to defend it. That all these groups and leaders have abandoned orthodox Trotskyism and gone to revisionism is not from the historical point of view, any political novelty. Saving the distances, but in the same sense, what happened after the death of Nahuel Moreno turned out to be similar to what happened after the death of Marx and Engels with Bebel, Kaustky and Bernenstein, or the same as Lenin suffered with Zinoviev, Kamenev, or Stalin. They suffered the difficulties that forced them to fight against their own disciples or followers who tended to go to revisionism, to the social democratic conception, betraying their own leader and inspirer, who educated and formed them. Nahuel Moreno had already faced this problem when the old leadership team he had built capitulated to the guerrillas in the 1960s.

But in the case of the "old leadership" Nahuel Moreno polemicized with a generation of cadres also trapped in their time that capitulated to the pressure of the treacherous leaderships, and was incapable of rising to the task of building and defending orthodox Trotskyism. Thebalance sheet of the reasons for the disintegration of orthodox Trotskyism allows us to understand what are the tasks necessary in the future to carry out the regroupment of revolutionaries. The reality is that, after the death of Nahuel Moreno, orthodox Trotskyism disappeared because the "old leadership" was in charge of demolishing all the pillars of the orthodox Trotskyist current, with which they fulfilled a nefarious role, consciously collaborating with the strengthening and development of revisionism. Those who are still alive continue to fulfill that role, that is why they remove "El Antiidentikit" from the list of works by Nahuel Moreno that they publish, they try to hide what he thought Nahuel Moreno of them.

It is therefore a question of clearly establishing the precise orientation to carry out the international regroupment of revolutionaries. As we have stated, it is task number one, of a strategic and vital nature to wage the battle to resolve the crisis of revolutionary leadership. In turn, this lies concretely in the fact that orthodox Trotskyism has been almost completely dispersed and disintegrated, which prevents it from being able to fight for the reconstruction of the Fourth International. That is to say, it is impossible to wage a battle for the reconstruction of the Fourth International without waging a battle against revisionism by reconstructing orthodox Trotskyism.

This is the way to carry out the regroupment of revolutionaries, we need to regroup a base of militant cadres, groups and organizations that form a platform and starting point but it is a task that cannot be carried out around any program, but the program of orthodox Trotskyism. It is not serious to group without these bases. Any process of regroupment that is not carried out around these solid foundations inevitably goes into crisis under the inevitable blows of the events of the world class struggle. This is the reason why Marxists follow Nahuel Moreno.

Those who claim that the resolution of the crisis of revolutionary leadership is resolved by the way of the "unity of the left" are lying. The only way to resolve the crisis of revolutionary leadership is through a hard-fought battle against the 99% of the world left: the social democrats, the Stalinists, the ex-guerrillas, and the revisionist Trotskyists. They are different layers of revisionism, of enemies of Marxism that we must defeat. Withoutabsolute clarity on this task, a serious and solid cadre organization cannot be built.

They are groups that have been around for decades and have failed. With its disintegration, the moral, political and social decomposition of its leaders is advancing. But as this failed world left disintegrates and decomposes, thousands of valuable and honest comrades continue to look to Marxism for answers. In the battle for the regroupment of revolutionarieswe respect the different traditions from which the comrades come, but we do not lie about them. There is only one consistent revolutionary tradition: The orthodox Trotskyist current, which was that of Nahuel Moreno, the others, did not pass the test of history. We claim "orthodox Trotskyism" and those who are close to our current, even if they agree on many aspects of our program, should know that Bolshevism and Trotskyism have a history, in which we educate and form ourselves. Nahuel Moreno's teaching is that without the struggle against revisionism, there is no Marxism, no Trotskyism.

So, without a struggle against revisionism and without denouncing the treacherous leaderships, there are no conditions to advance in the resolution of the crisis of revolutionary leadership. The Regroupment of Revolutionaries is a tactical step on the road to our strategy of rebuilding the Fourth International. To build Bolshevik parties for the struggle for power and workers' government. There are currents that affirm that the Fourth International should not be rebuilt but "refounded", or the Fifth International should be built or something else should be done. All these proposals are wrong. We ratify the strategy of the reconstruction of the Fourth International not on a whim, but out of scientific conviction. This is how Nahuel Moreno explains it: "... the foundation of our International was the greatest success of Trotsky and of our world movement... It responds to the same need ... to unite all revolutionary Marxists around a program that would synthesize all that has been learned by the world Marxist movement...To defend these conquests of Marxism, synthesized in Trotskyism and its program..." (Nahuel Moreno - Update of the Transition Program - 1980)

For this task, we do not start from nothing. Our theoretical and programmatic bases are the Communist Manifesto and all the work of Marx and Engels, all the work of Lenin, the First Four Congresses of the Communist International, the Transitional Program, all the work of Leon Trotsky, and the pillars of orthodox Trotskyism established by Nahuel Moreno as theelaborations for the Leeds Conference. the "Updating of the Transitional Program", the "Morenazo", "The Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat", "The Betrayal of the OCI", the "Theses of the LIT", and the "Manifesto of the LIT". These are the bases of the Morenoite current, the pillars around which Nahuel Moreno built the current of orthodox Trotskyism.

The revisionists have invented the existence of "Trotskyisms" in the plural, and they organize events where the different "Trotskyisms" are presented, pretending to show that there are many strands of Trotskyism and all of them are valid. That is false, it is lying to the working class and the people, to the activists and fighters of the world. There is only one Trotskyism, orthodox Trotskyism, the rest is revisionism disguised as Marxism, which ends up being reformism.

Moreno's written work is only a part of his enormous work of theoretical and political elaboration that he also presented in courses, conferences and interventions in national and international party organizations. Some elaborations are scattered in internal materials, texts of the party organizations, letters, newspapers, magazines and pamphlets. Many of these materials were carried out in the midst of the vicissitudes of the class struggle, suffering long periods of clandestinity, imprisonment and exile.

It is a question of following the path proposed by Jean van Heijenoort, Trotsky's secretary, who, together with Felix Morrow, and Albert Goldman in the SWP of the USA, have been working on the path of Trotsky. The U.S. proposed to support the partisans in Europe.

It is a question of following in the footsteps of our heroes of France, comrades Marcel Hic, Yves Bodenez and a large part of the leadership of the POI murdered in Hitler's concentration camps, as well as the Trotskyists of Belgium, Abraham Léon, LéonLesoil, Martin Monath or "Viktor", Léon De Lee and Lucien Renery de Liégemassacred by the Nazi high command. It is about following in the footsteps of the Vietnamese leader Tạ Thu Thâu, shot in September 1945 by Ho Chi Minh's Stalinism.

It is a question of following the dignified path of Natalia Sedova by refusing to capitulate to the Stalinists of Yugoslavia, of Bill Hunter in England, of Comrades Peng Shuzi and Chen Duxiue of China, of Marcel Bleibtreu of France, of the comrades of the glorious leadership of the SWP of the United States who founded orthodox Trotskyism in 1953 James Cannon, Joseph Hansen, and Farrell Dobbs, although we may have later disagreed with the subsequent course they assumed, no one will ever take away from them the historical merit of having founded orthodox Trotskyism. We follow the path of Ernesto González and those of thousands of militants of the orthodox Trotskyist current headed by Nahuel Moreno who refused to capitulate to the counterrevolutionary leaderships. This is our base, our genesis, we are proud of our teachers who came before us.

From this rich history we start our elaborations that update Marxism in order to defend it, and to wage battle against revisionism, which is the only way to carry out the task of reconstructing orthodox Trotskyism in order to carry out the Regroupment of Revolutionaries. Marxists follow Nahuel Moreno because the strategy of the reconstruction of the Fourth International is only possible to be carried out by resuming the path of orthodox Trotskyism, through a pole of regroupment that allows us to carry out this task. We are not starting from anything, we have a rich history behind us, and a promising future of thousands of new revolutionaries ahead of us.

Leave Your Message