No subject

organisation. At the first encounter a condemnation of capitalism and
a correct characterisation regarding the structural crisis won out.
The following year, in Mexico, held in the midst of the collapse of
the Soviet Union, a shift towards adaptation began, with the FSP taken
to the verge of splitting. Two principal blocs formed: those that,
faced with this new situation, looked towards finding their place in
what at the time was called the ``new world order'', and those who
held revolutionary socialist positions.

The principal forces of the more than 100 organisations that made up
the FSP were the PT, PCC, Frente Farabundo Mart=ED para la Liberaci=F3n
Nacional (FMLN,Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, El
Salvador), Frente Sandinista de Liberaci=F3n Nacional (FSLN, Sandinista
National Liberation Front, Nicaragua), Partido de la Revoluci=F3n
Democr=E1tica (PRD, Party of the Democratic Revolution, Mexico), Frente
Amplio (FA, Broad Front, Uruguay) and the Partido Socialista de Chile
(PSCh, Socialist Party of Chile).

Despite the fact that a split did not occur in Mexico, and that the
resolution of the second encounter did not adopt the position proposed
by the rightwing, ever since then the FSP has been systematically
pushed towards reformism.

The ideological battle was fought out basically between four currents:

a) PCC

b) social democracy

c) social christianism

d) diverse organisations who called themselves Trotskyists, each of
them very different in regards to each other.

As is known, at that time Cuba entered into the ``Special period''.
The PT had come out of a defeat in the 1989 elections. The FSLN had
already incorporated itself into the [social democratic] Socialist
International. The FMLN had confirmed that it had reached a strategic
military deadlock and began peace negotiations. Meanwhile, the world,
and in particular Latin America, entered into the ``neoliberal''
decade.

In the ensuing encounters of the FSP, beyond the speeches made and
declarations approved, it became clear that the position of two of the
four currents had converged: social democracy and social christianism.
The Trotskyist tendencies withdrew from the FSP (and became
debilitated to the point of extinction). The revolutionary current
headed by the PCC (made up of a big majority of the organisations of
the whole hemisphere) did not cohere itself, with its role diluted to
the point of being limited to a few good speeches at each encounter,
without generating any consequences.

Today, the FSP is an empty shell in the hands of those most opposed to
any revolutionary ideas, and specifically to the Bolivarian
Revolution. Beyond individual positions, within the leadership
structures of the PT, PRD, FA and PSCh, Chavez is a synonym for
Lucifer. It should be specifically pointed out that in November 2001,
in the encounter in La Habana, it was not possible to reach an
agreement to send a delegation in solidarity with Chavez in the face
of the evidence of an escalating coup plot. Recently, the PRD delegate
who habitually represents this party in the FSP participated in the
congress of the Venezuelan Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS, Movement
Towards Socialism) [which is part of the opposition].

This drift of the FSP contributed in a significant manner to the
destruction and/or neutralisation of tens of thousands of cadres and
middle cadres in Latin America.

Conjuncture

The dispersal of forces who define themselves as favouring a
revolutionary solution =96 and are willing to fight for it =96 is today
the principal point that imperialism and the national bourgeoisies
count in their favour.

Out of those militant sectors dragged towards reformism by their
leaderships, we can presume that a percentage is willing to join an
alternative that once again proposes what it was that convinced them
to enter into political activity. Another contingent coming from that
period is dispersed in innumerable organisations, a good part of which
should also be in a position to incorporate themselves into an
international movement that contributes to the creation, orientation
and development of national organisations of important political
weight. But it is highly probable that the most important contingent
of militants for a new Latin American revolutionary alternative will
be unorganised youth who today are politically active, but whose
forces are dispersed in social organisations, small newspapers,
community radio stations and other expressions of militancy without a
strategy to struggle for power.

If it is left solely up to the existing political-organisational
relations and definitions at the national level, we cannot expect to
see, at least for a long time, the recomposition of these militant
contingents.

The permanence of tens of thousands of cadres and activists in this
current state, despite the fact that this immense force today sees
itself compelled towards the perspective of Latin American revolution,
will assure, in a relative short timeframe, the destruction in high
proportions of this revolutionary force.

On the contrary, the existence of a general political orientation, of
a recognised leadership, could put into action a powerful
revolutionary human force that is today inert, saving from degradation
and subsequent destruction, hundreds of thousands of militants across
Latin America.

This capacity for orientation and leadership can only be based on
revolutionary leaderships with deep roots, prestige and sufficient
energy in front of this collection of revolutionary militants. Fidel
Castro and Hugo Chavez, as symbols and representatives of the
revolutions in Cuba and Venezuela, are today the only possible centre
that could play this role.

Moreover, the long-term attack already put in train by imperialism,
with the resolute collaboration of social democracy and social
christianism, urgently requires defining positions, marking out a
general strategic line of action and organising grand human
contingents to impede the counterrevolutionary pincer advancing
forward, drowning in blood the growing revolutionary process in Latin
America.

At the Ibero-American summit in Santiago, this alignment became
graphically clear: the social democratic [president of Spain] Jose
Rodriguez Zapatero defended the neoliberal strategy and ``social
cohesion'' under capitalism. He even tried to impose this on the
meeting, with a blatant manoeuvre in this closing speech, violating
the methodology of the summit. Faced with the response by Chavez, the
Spanish president Zapatero did not hesitate to come out in defence of
the fascist Jose Maria Aznar, ex-president of Spain. The social
democracy-social christianism-fascism convergence was clear for
millions to see during this episode, topped off by the sharp remarks
of the king and his later abandonment of the meeting during the
denunciation made by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.

At the trade union level, this convergence has already taken an
organic form over the last few years, with the coming together of the
union confederations of the Vatican and social democracy in the
International Trade Union Confederation, that is now beginning to
articulate itself in Latin America, where in Argentina it counts on
the support of some wings of the CTA.

The first step in advancing towards the organisation of a Latin
American-Caribbean political structure that, despite the fact that it
depends on the decision of Chavez and Fidel to undertake the task,
will from the beginning have an international projection.....

<snip>

......The organisation of a revolutionary international with these
characteristics, far from being a distant perspective is an immediate
necessity. Defence of the revolutionary processes underway in
Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador cannot be postponed, nor can
effort towards the recomposition of revolutionary social forces in the
rest of the countries in the region. Both tasks are beyond the
possibilities of the dispersed and confused militants in Argentina,
the country that most needs this Latin American anchor in order to
lift, rise up and recuperate its powerful revolutionary force.