Alarm, the far right is advancing! More than three years ago (30 April 2019), the BBC News website reported: “Traditional institutions are horrified by the emergence of forces that in many cases use rhetoric strikingly similar to that of the darkest era of recent Europe”. Now barely overshadowed by the conflict in Ukraine, the alarm bells are still ringing: “The far right is advancing!” echoes much of the political and media spectrum. And the possible drift of this rise is not to be underestimated. For their part, the longer the horrified leaders have taken turns at the helm of power, the greater the dismay and surprise at such an unfortunate anomaly, unexpected and sudden, like a bolt of lightning in a cloudless sky. But the predictable cynicism of these traditional institutions and the press in their service is not the problem, or at least it is the part of the problem that we do not and cannot influence: pretending is part and parcel of their function as CEOs of capital. And it would be naïve to expect honest self-critical reflection from the establishment, which would place at the root of this rise the frustration and hopelessness in which the social order they themselves defend and maintain has plunged a good part of humanity.

The problem is on this side, on the anti-capitalist left. It seems that the urgency for solutions to the seriousness of the problems afflicting the world is clearer to the depoliticised masses than to the leaders and parties of the left themselves, with few exceptions. Growing unemployment; forced migrations; real or induced insecurity; armed conflicts; geopolitical disputes; instability; undeniable imbalance of natural processes due to human action; uncertainty or scepticism about the future are some of the problems on which the right structures its reactionary discourse and its “simple” explanations, easy to digest and repeat for the depoliticised masses. This unshaven right wing thus offers a hope whose falsity is evident, but not to those who have come to repudiate politics and all that it represents: the realm of lies; of accommodation; of manipulation. Seduced by hearing quick and drastic answers to real and serious problems, groping, hand in hand with their own enemy, they choose the emergency exit that leads to the abyss in the belief of escaping from an unbearable present. The left, for its part, is careful with form. With a few honourable exceptions, it continues to be gripped by the defeat of the socialist project symbolised by the dismemberment of the former USSR. Neither those within the left camp who suffered this implosion as a regrettable defeat, nor those who welcomed it as a confirmation of their critical positions, dare to imagine and propose a radical break with the established order. Instead, they insist on proposals that do not take their feet off the plate. Candidates are put forward who propose such and such improvements to what already exists, always within the framework of what is permitted. Is it possible to think of reversing hopelessness with proposals such as “representing women and young people; being paid like a teacher (the legislative allowance) and rotating positions”? One would think not. Instead of taking advantage of the few media spaces that present themselves when there are elections to expose the reasons for the unviability of the capitalist system, its inherent contradictions, the inevitability of its crises, hunger and wars included, they opt instead for these lukewarm ambiguities. Except for those who practice this form of “moving towards socialism”, it is clear that two or three or so legislators do not have the slightest chance of changing the course of history: the goal of becoming the third or fourth political force looks, considering the circumstances and to put it mildly, very modest indeed. It is not by patronising those who shout against communism and showing ourselves to be “civilised and trustworthy” that we will contribute to our goal, if it is still to end capitalism. History is full of lessons regarding the outcome of such “realism”. 

Are there objective conditions for a revolution on a planetary scale? There are plenty, some of them enunciated above. And the subjective conditions? Not only are they completely absent: as we have seen, it is the right wing that is advancing. Is it possible to reverse the situation? The left-wing press is trying: pointing out the calamities provoked by rulers of all kinds; denouncing the capitulations of the trade union bureaucracies; making a permanent account of its own participation in marches, assemblies, popular pots, mobilisations and other partial struggles. A necessary task, but repeated identically to itself regardless of the results becomes an automatism only significant for its protagonists. For their part, intellectuals and academics are also trying to do their part: with theoretical developments on the classics of Marxism; with critical analyses of the current reality; with participation in debate forums; in social networks. This work is also essential, but we are seeing that it is not enough: resignation, scepticism and then the right wing are advancing. And time is running out.

However, one thing is clear to anyone who dares to look at it: the anti-system imposture of the right is telling us that it is precisely there, in this radicalism and in this daring, which in them are simulated and false, that these growing masses are nevertheless looking for a way out: for big problems, big solutions. Instead of tearing our hair out over the “unusual” advance of the right, let us on the left take up this radicalism and this anti-system boldness.

Back in 1968 there were the great days of protest, jointly led by workers and students, which went down in history as the French May. Perhaps its best-known slogan, which is still remembered today, was “Let’s be realistic, let’s ask for the impossible”. A bold slogan, which generated much enthusiasm and support. Today, however, in the light of the time that has passed, it can be seen that the key to its failure, as an attempt to radically change reality, was already in germ in the slogan itself. Because implicit in this “let’s ask” was the recognition that there was a place where decisions were made, that is, a place of power, and at the same time it was assumed that this place was occupied by another. Today we cannot make the same mistake: at a time of a planetary crisis of multiple aspects, including the ecological one, which could have no return, the slogan that is being imposed is “Let’s be realistic, let’s do the impossible”.

Revolutionary general strike?

From what we have just said about the kind of dominant subjectivity and the kind of politics proposed by left organisations, a revolutionary general strike would seem to be out of the question even in the boldest dream.

Let us for the moment, however, do the exercise of imagining it: in times of globalised capital, an equally globalised strike. Unlike all strikes, this one will not be accompanied by any demands: we will not ask for the impossible, we will do it. The strike will not be driven by such and such demands. There will be no demands whose satisfaction will end with the strike: the purpose of this strike will not be to obtain improvements of any kind or to denounce few or many of the iniquities of the system. The function of this general strike will be none other than to completely paralyse the functioning of the system. To generate such a breakdown that, after the foreseeable, multiple and unsuccessful attempts to restore normality, governments will have no choice but to leave power. More precisely, when the very notion of power, in its character of domination, has been replaced by a grimace of impotence, a mere gesticulation empty of meaning. Only when there is no one left in a position to give orders, and no one in a position to carry out those previously received, will the strike be lifted, but in the new conditions established by a project previously conceived, developed and obviously oriented towards socialism.

Back to the present

It is a proven premise, not only in the field of political action, that success is often preceded by failure many times over. That one must persevere. Thus, patience was one of the outstanding traits of and by great revolutionaries such as Ho Chi Minh and Che. But under this necessary premise there is also often takes shelter an unproductive recurrence, a repetition of methods that, in the light of the results, should be critically reviewed. This is the case with the usual logic of the left (even when it assumes the need for internationalism) when it comes to the struggle for power: it invariably involves construction and development on a national scale. But today the degree of development of the instruments of capitalist intervention make it impossible to have any illusion that anti-capitalist and socialist processes can be initiated and sustained within the borders of national states: they are either co-opted by capital or aborted by legal fraud or directly by armed intervention. This classical logic of the left has become obsolete, it is necessary to think on a global scale, the same scale that encompasses the class enemy.

While it is true what was described at the beginning with regard to the dominant type of subjectivity, it is also true that groups are constantly emerging in different parts of the world with multiple and diverse demands and proposals with a progressive content, in opposition to the regressions proposed by the right. Disperse and unconnected, with no explicit directionality, they nevertheless share a common trait: the weariness of an unsustainable, undeserved, unjust reality, and the desire to change it. However, just as they emerge, many dissipate or decay, probably in part due to the wear and tear of permanent street action, generally in the context of repression. But it is also possible to conjecture that the lack of a projection that would allow them to transcend the limited condition of petitioner, of demanding, plays a decisive role in this inconsistency. Many of these groups or movements, when they do not disappear, tend to drift towards forms of incorporation into the structures of the system. Even with the best of intentions, it is not uncommon for them to end up being swallowed by the establishment. Alongside this, the functioning and reproduction of the system is increasingly dependent on technology: computerisation and robotisation of the processes of production, trade and management have been generalised and deepened now by the effects of the pandemic. Industrial production; fishing; agricultural production; transport; energy production and distribution; banking; stock exchange operations; communications; port and airport operations; trade are some of the activities and tasks that the system concentrates in the hands of a few operators, thereby creating as many vulnerabilities. 

The concurrent existence of active nonconformists and dispersed operators of nodal centres of the reproductive apparatus of the system, and the dual membership of a fraction of the working class in these groups enable the question: What if it were possible to initiate some form of globalised coordination of those who deploy this dual membership?

In saying active non-conformists, it goes without saying that we are not thinking, as is de rigueur on the left, of dismissing anyone who does not know The Manifesto by heart. What we are thinking of here is not to add acolytes to a sect, nor to establish with precision the borderline between reformists and genuine revolutionaries, nor any of the tasks that party lefts usually take on with such zeal and such poor results: we are only trying to imagine ways of destroying the capitalist social order and going for socialism. All those people and organisations from different latitudes who express, in one way or another, the rejection of the consequences of this criminal and suicidal system called capitalism would serve this goal. Regardless of whether or not they explicitly adhere to this or that political party or social organisation, it would be enough that they realise that this form of society is no longer acceptable, that a radical change is essential, and that they are willing to contribute their efforts, in order to become part of the process of radical change that humanity and so many other forms of life urgently need.

Where to start?

If, as we conjecture, not only the French May but also the current attempts are diluted by the lack of an action-oriented project, and therefore of the necessary organisation to carry it out, these two elements should be at the starting point.

For example, an orienting project and at the same time organising element could consist of collective work dedicated to imagining and designing a structure of production and distribution that instead of being governed by the “laws of the market” is based on the real needs and capacities of the social whole; in which private ownership of the means of production has been completely socialised and in which decisions are in the hands of the consumer producers themselves through their own non-hierarchical organisations.

Why such a task? Certainly not as an academic exercise or to present to the United Nations or any other body of power to ask for the implementation of such a change. Not to “ask for the impossible”. Instead, it would have a double function: to provide the groundwork for a collective work that would involve, through various activities aimed at assessing local realities in terms of needs and capacities, neighbours; neighbourhood leaders; activists and organisations of different kinds: social, trade union, political, cultural, etc.; and at the same time to contribute to the essential information base for a first draft of this programme which, we said, should already be conceived and awaiting that hypothetical revolutionary general strike to open the way for it.

If, at the same time as promoting this kind of localised survey of productive capacities and consumption needs as massively and extensively as possible, contact were established with the active non-conformists who also operate key points of the apparatus of reproduction of the system, with the general strike and the new project of society as a horizon, perhaps conditions would be created so that the revolutionary general strike, so much talked about in theory, would begin to have the conditions for realisation.

But how to take a first step? It is obvious that such a move will not happen spontaneously. How to start? In other words, how to begin to put together an initial group willing to collectively consider the idea, to debate it, to reformulate it, and then to initiate contacts with people and organisations from different parts of the world? For this starting point, intellectuals (and the publications that disseminate their writings) who assume themselves to be Marxists and who, for the sake of coherence, take into account that statement in the Theses on Feuerbach: not to stop at interpreting the world but to set out to transform it, could play a crucial role. The active involvement of such comrades could be the key to taking this first step, given the influence they exert on part of the militancy, and at the same time would be a major contribution to constructively criticising the initiative.

What we are only sketching out here could, predictably, be regarded as a sign of pure voluntarism. Those who do so are absolutely right: up to now, consistently, well-known Marxists usually conclude their analyses and developments by affirming, as Rosa Luxemburg had already warned, the necessity of revolution as the only way out of the return to barbarism. These are perfectly grounded developments, and the necessary revolution is invoked with emphasis and conviction. And that is all. Then, each time on a lower and lower rung, we continue to wait for the combination of objective and subjective conditions, which, compared to the speed with which the general crisis is expanding, is tantamount to sitting at the door waiting to see the corpse of our enemy pass by. It will certainly happen, but we will not be sitting there to see it: we will go together.

Predictably, too, the parties and intellectuals who for years have held the keys to the revolution will find these lines hardly, if at all, worthy of a gesture of disdain. It would not, of course, have the support of any of the various existing “real” Internationals, which, in the light of their respective realities, should not imply much practical impact.

So, just as the Bolsheviks disregarded theoretical constraints and “voluntarily” pushed forward the socialist revolution in a backward country, we could allow ourselves a similar audacity.

Of course, such a collective action would require a planning and coordination effort whose magnitude is only comparable to the size of the historical rupture it could mean. This only justifies the effort. In particular, it would be necessary to foresee the mechanisms for supplying basic subsistence inputs to the entire population for the duration of the strike, and until the socialist economy reaches a sufficient level of functioning through the organisation of the consumer producers themselves. Various alternatives could be devised to solve some of the difficulties which can easily be imagined to arise. By way of example, the problem of force: there is no need to claim on the role that weapons play in preserving a certain order of things on the part of their beneficiaries. Logically, processes that have attempted radical, revolutionary changes have therefore also had to resort to arms. Now, in the present conditions, if we were to accept that the only way to defeat the capitalist order is to confront armed power on a global scale, we would already be defeated. Karl Marx said: “It is true that the weapon of critique cannot replace the critique of arms, that material power must be overthrown by means of material power, but also theory becomes material power as soon as it takes hold of the masses. And theory is able to seize the masses …. when it becomes radical. To be radical is to attack the problem at the root. And the root, for man, is man himself”. Then, for example, from these nodes of control in the hands of an organisation of internationalists against capitalism and for socialism, it would be possible to demand the surrender of arms and equipment by the personnel of the armed and security forces as a condition for the unblocking of their salary accounts and their inclusion in the temporary supply distribution lists.

Collecting and processing such a mass of information on a planetary scale would undoubtedly be an enormous task. However, given today’s communication and data processing capabilities, it is entirely feasible: back in the 1970s, with computer resources far inferior to those available today, Salvador Allende’s government in Chile implemented the so-called Synco Project, which aimed to explore the possibilities of socialist production planning, a project that was obviously aborted by the military coup.

Having overcome complexities and setbacks impossible to foresee, which could only be discovered and resolved through practical action, now came the key moment, the moment that would give meaning to all the previous effort: the strike. Now, in times of globalised capital, an equally globalised strike. A planetary strike, capable of multiplying the classic general consequences of any strike by taking advantage of the new vulnerabilities of the system: when, in previous times, would it have been possible to imagine and provoke that, on those huge electronic boards that cover the walls of the dens of speculation and plunder called stock exchanges, an immutable and rigorous number zero would be displayed for each item, to mention just one example? Or that the investment banking registers where the great expropriators of other people’s labour keep the fetish of their booty, to mention another example? Or that the gigantic container transports, whose contents are only intended for the valorisation of capital, stop sailing the oceans with their cargo of replacements for the goods of programmed obsolescence and get stuck in the harbours?

As we acknowledged above, these lines may have no more substance than that contained in an optimistic and delirious dream. It may also be that the boundary imposed by “sanity” is too narrow to find a way out of this delirious and decaying world. Unless self-delusion is practised, there is no doubt that the days of humanity’s future are numbered, with or without the advance of the ultra-right, and that the “progressive” solutions that believe they distinguish between a bad, “neoliberal” capitalism and a good, productive one with a human face are part of the false illusions that have brought us to this point. In any case, if the proposed boldness had the effect of stimulating the imagination of other paths to the defeat of the regime of capital and the construction of socialism, the attempt could be considered justified.

---