The new struggle for Socialism

Socialism was born and took its first steps in the 20th century. The Paris Commune, which occurred in 1871, lasted only two months, confined to the French capital. Therefore, historical experiences of the continuous structuring of a socialist system alternative to capitalism only began in the 20th century. And how long did its first experience, the Soviet Revolution, last? Just over seventy years. This is a short time to prevail as a new political, economic, and social formation on the historical stage. Capitalism only prevailed over feudalism after a long period in history.

In a more didactic way, we can say, figuratively, that the ideologues of capitalism would be geriatricians, while the ideologues of socialism would be pediatricians. It is a new system that is being born and developing.

The new struggle for socialism stems from an analysis of the lessons learned from the revolutionary experiences and the construction of socialism in the 20th century. The foundations and contributions bequeathed by the Soviet Revolution to the world are diverse and lasting, promoting the greatest and most profound process of social mobility in human history. And its existence led the capitalist world to advance in the structuring of Welfare States and to propel the decolonization processes after the Second World War.

The evolution of world history in the last century has been characterized by the implementation and collapse of the Soviet revolutionary experience. Among the lessons of this prominent revolutionary undertaking is the debate that seeks to account for the setback experienced by the first socialist experiment. The proletarian revolution had to develop and consolidate itself in exceptional and unique concrete historical circumstances. This phenomenon results in structural dilemmas, and the way to answer these dilemmas is the guiding thread that can shed light on the causes of the setback and equip us for contemporary challenges.

The new struggle for socialism unfolds in the 21st century within a global context of profound imbalances and tensions, a shift in power dynamics, and growing economic and social inequalities. Communist and leftist forces are calling for a new struggle to overcome capitalism. In our understanding, this concept of a "new struggle for socialism" aims to interpret the meaning of numerous contemporary struggles, many of which are anti-capitalist in nature.

Capitalism can no longer cope with the level of technology and innovation that it has itself developed. The forces of production have reached a gigantic level, never seen before, based on the modern development of science, technology, and innovation. However, capitalist relations of production and their principle of wealth distribution, as a whole, are becoming increasingly powerless to transform this immense productive capacity and wealth for the benefit of all humanity.

In contrast, the truth is that capitalism exposes an increasingly concentrated system, generating the deepest social inequality, greater marginalization, with huge contingents living in extreme poverty, and profound regional asymmetries in the level of development.

The common sense instilled by the "prophets" of the end of history and the eternity of capitalism after the dismantling of the Soviet Union is long gone, despite the short time that has passed. It is becoming increasingly evident that – despite the great strategic defeat of socialism as a world system in its infancy – communism in its socialist stage did not die. Socialism was born in the 20th century and continues with a new struggle of a new dimension in the current century.

Contemporary experiences of socialism
Of the revolutionary experiences of the 20th century that conquered state power, what remains? The decisive dilemma for socialist societies today finds its own alternatives in the experiences of renewal – Chinese (since 1978), Vietnamese (since 1986) and, later, Cuban (since 2011) – which manage to overcome the impasses and give materiality to socialism in the current historical period, achieving high levels of development of the productive forces, distancing themselves from the “Soviet model” of an exceptional period, opening the way in the current socialist transition and incorporating contemporary forms. China is structuring a sovereign national state and becoming a major world power, already being the world's largest economy according to the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) criterion.

The beginning of the socialist transition period is premised on the constitution of a national, democratic, and popular state, dominated by the forces interested in this transition to the new society. The national question – independence and sovereignty – is paramount both for the conquest of power and for the construction of socialism, through the formation of a powerful national state.

Socialism has emerged since the beginning of the 20th century in relatively backward and pre-capitalist capitalist societies, imposing on the ruling forces the primary task of creating (and developing) material wealth, not socializing (non-)existent material wealth – hence the centrality of the development of productive forces in socialist experiments. In the Marxist view, socialism presupposes high levels of social wealth – hence Marx's prediction that the Socialist Revolution would arise in the most developed capitalist societies – allowing it to assert socialism as superior to capitalism. Directly, there is no socialism in poverty, the effect of which would be to generalize misery.

Understanding the construction of socialism in the course of contemporary history, both in current and past experiences, lies in the fact that socialism exists and operates within the framework of an international economy dominated by capitalism and its productive and financial monopolies.

The advancement of knowledge in the current experiences of the ongoing socialist transition process in the world has revived the debate on the question of the construction of socialism and its stages, from both an economic point of view and in terms of the form of socialist democracy, the legal and institutional constitution of the State. Today, in these experiences, the concept of the primary stage of socialism, which corresponds to the constitution of a socialist market economy, is gaining prominence.

Beginning of the 21st century – a world in transition

The new struggle for socialism encompasses the context of a current world undergoing significant changes, whether in the power relations of the international system, in the changes within contemporary capitalism, or in the productive and technological base.

One can then understand the most significant trends in the international system and its unfolding. The great capitalist crisis, which began in 2007-2008, is more complex than that of 1929, since a way out of economic reconstruction has not yet been found, and the recovery is limited and apathetic. In contrast, this situation has deepened the crisis of neoliberal globalization, which began with the end of the Bretton Woods agreement on August 15, 1971. The unipolar order that emerged with the end of the Cold War – in which the United States is at the apex of world power – is also entering a process of decline, tending towards multipolarization. This situation is shaping a world power system in transition, with the advent of new power centers emerging from the periphery of the international system, outside the world capitalist-imperialist center.

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa) perfectly exemplifies this new geopolitical trend in the world, especially highlighting the prominence of China as a major world power and the resurgence of Russia, a major nuclear power, which is once again assuming an important geopolitical role. All of this is happening in a short historical period.

This system of global trends comprises the so-called fourth industrial revolution – technological and productive – or Industry 4.0, centered on the Internet of Things and a new component called artificial intelligence, which are cognitive systems embedded in equipment. These technological transformations will profoundly alter various industrial complexes, and even the very configuration of industry.

Consequences for the political and ideological superstructure

Considering these trends in the international system, one can deduce the magnitude of the impact and its consequences on production and labor relations, and its implications on the political and ideological level. Within this framework of profound changes in the world order – with neoliberal dominance and new forms of neocolonial subjugation – imperialist action, with its combined undertakings, imposes a powerful structural dominance that the countries on the periphery of the world system cannot reach, much less overcome. Even the progressive cycle in Latin America, which began in the late 1990s, has not threatened this structural dominance.

In the course of neoliberal globalization, the Washington Consensus emerged in 1989, consisting of a set of basic rules for imposing "macroeconomic adjustment" on developing countries. It became official IMF policy in 1990, aiming to consolidate the neoliberal program. This became the dominant ideology, permeating all economic practices and transforming large industrial and agribusiness entrepreneurs into major rentiers. It subjugated corporate media, state and parastatal structures, and universities, gave prominence to "market" economists, was adopted by right-wing parties, and influenced left-wing parties. Its framework devalues ​​politics, portraying it as something "dirty." Meritocracy is "glorious," dictating the course of the political game; and private enterprise is competent and efficient, unlike state-owned enterprises.

The difficulties and obstacles faced by the labor movement have tended to diminish its organizing and mobilizing role, in the face of increasing job insecurity, unemployment, the fragmentation of the working classes, and setbacks in social and labor rights. In the Brazilian case, the so-called labor reform aims to improve labor productivity for the international market, not for the weakening domestic market.

The increasing precariousness of labor relations, with the advent of gig economy, has led to a decline in class consciousness. It has provoked significant social regression, with the growth of competitiveness among workers, who are forced to accept lower pay to fill the position of someone who already earned little. Under the conditions of the capitalist system, in current labor relations, the advent of the fourth industrial revolution could lead to increased unemployment and the precariousness of new job categories.

Imperialist and financial oligarchy counteroffensive in Latin America

After more than a decade of progressive cycle in Latin America and the Caribbean, this oligarchic, financial, and imperialist dominance is now entering its major offensive phase on the continent. Its objective is to close the institutional space achieved by the left and to politically liquidate it, including criminalizing its main leaders: such as Lula in Brazil and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina. They do not allow the left to have any institutional instruments, much less central executive power in its hands, nor the alternation of power with the left.

In the parliamentary coup d'état in Brazil, as in the 1964 military dictatorship, the fingerprints of US imperialism are appearing: its direct and indirect participation in the plot orchestrated by the coup coalition of the Brazilian ruling class. The nation is weakened, the country is being dismantled, and the government is realigning itself with the Central Powers, especially the United States, placing itself geopolitically on the most backward side.

Therefore, the definition of a transformative project on the continent and in Brazil, according to the particularities of each country, must be conceived to confront and defeat the main counter-trend that pervades the current century: neocolonialism, salient for its imperialist dominance, combined with its other political, economic, and ideological face, which is neoliberalism. It is impossible to separate the struggle against neoliberalism from the struggle against neocolonization, or to make the anti-neoliberal struggle exclusive. This would be a flawed and inconsequential path.

Return to the national question

The crisis of neoliberal globalization – the "unease" for workers and peoples caused by its current course – has brought to the forefront the national question, the emphasis on the nation-state, and the defense of economic growth.

Neoliberal globalization, established by big capital and sponsoring extremely concentrated and exclusionary policies, has severely degraded workers and the popular classes, who have begun to rise up in the streets and, more markedly, in recent large-scale electoral processes, such as Brexit in the United Kingdom and the impactful presidential victory of Donald Trump in the USA. However, these events reflect contradictions within the capitalist ruling class, in "response" to the systemic crisis that is spreading, resulting in the vicious cycle of economic stagnation.

The issue returns to the centrality of the national question in the thought and practice of the left and other progressive forces. This question takes us back to the stage of imperialism in the international evolution of capitalism since the end of the 19th century, very well characterized by Vladimir I. Lenin. Since then, the law of uneven development of the capitalist system has prevailed, in which, outside the center of the system, are situated the countries of the so-called periphery or semi-periphery, dependent on the international division of labor.

This is a strategic dispute that, above all, demands the safeguarding of national independence, encompassing the entire Latin American continent, where Brazil is located – and not only – and extending to countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, etc. It manifests itself in the dilemma: the yearning of peoples and nations for self-determination and deeper social development and progress versus the powerful interest of structural and permanent imperialist domination associated with its internal allies, which hinder independent developmental expansion.

The colonialism of the military phase and direct political domination has given way, in contemporary times, to economic-technological-judicial-cultural neocolonialism and the permanent military threat, expansion of military bases on all continents, naval dominance in all oceans and seas, nuclear and communications hegemony, and the very geopolitical dimension of the internet. Imperialist domination has become more sophisticated, devastating, and permanent – ​​see the extraordinarily invasive instruments of direct espionage, cyberwarfare, and the dominance of so-called cyberspace.

The new dangers and hotspots of war have worsened – neocolonial wars labeled “humanitarian,” aimed at regime change, which have resulted in devastating situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya – as a consequence of the imperialist action of the US, along with the European Union, through NATO, to relentlessly consolidate its global hegemony in the current transitional phase, characterized by the weakening of its relative power in the world order; and the coups d'état that continue today in parliamentary-judicial-media form.

It is up to the left and progressive forces to lead the national task. This task has long since ceased to be led by sectors of the bourgeoisie. The banner of defending national sovereignty and independence is the banner of the advanced forces, of the left. The national question becomes central. In our Latin American and Caribbean continent, the national, democratic, and popular project, the progressive project, has as its main enemies the globalized financial oligarchy and imperialist domination, associated with the dominant internal oligarchies.

On the one hand, imperialism associated with endogenous oligarchies has always been the dominant force in all contemporary periods through which the Continent has passed, demonstrating its permanent and imperial hegemony: in the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s; then during the imposition of neoliberalism, since the 1990s, also predominant on the Continent. Therefore, a permanent, continental, and imperial domination. On the other hand, in the progressive political shift since 1999 in Latin America, this domination has occurred precisely against these dominant imperialist and oligarchic forces, both internal and external.

The national question, translated into the construction of a sovereign, democratic nation-state capable of leading an autonomous development project that can unite the vast majority of the nation, is the strategic path that gains centrality in countries considered to be developing, more specifically those of the Latin American and Caribbean continent.

Current Status of the New National Development Project

Today, for developing countries – dependent on subordinate inequality in the international division of labor, subject to neocolonial domination, in conjunction with the imposition of the neoliberal order – the result is a situation in which the national question assumes a strategic role in the struggle for hegemony over political power.

And, as experience has shown, the correct relationship, in a program that combines national sovereignty with the social question and the democratic cause, forms a single reality and has been a factor in the victory of progressive forces.

In the course of democratization processes, during the progressive turn in Latin America, the alternatives generally follow (or followed) the structuring of a new national development project, associated with a line of integration geared towards regional development.

One can also consider the experience of national development in Southeast Asian countries. The prevailing approach has been that of an autonomous, independent national development project, guided, controlled, and planned by the State. Development goals are central to planning and are pursued as a priority. These countries have achieved high levels of development.

In short, from our point of view, the following are within the framework of the new struggle for socialism: the experiences of building contemporary socialism; the relevance of national projects aimed at paving the way for a society that will overcome capitalism; and the multiple struggles of workers and social sectors in an anti-capitalist direction.

In light of Brazil's current reality, we believe there is a pressing need for the definition and systematization of a new national development project that opens up new perspectives for the country. The PCdoB, in its program in effect since 2009, aims to achieve a period of socialist transition. With this goal in mind, and as a means of addressing this revolutionary perspective, the program outlines the strategic path, with different stages, for the construction and implementation of a New National Development Project. In short, it proposes: "The viable solution today is the new national development project, the Brazilian path to socialism."

Resumption of the New National Development Project

From the perspective of present-day Brazil, the resumption of the New National Development Project is imperative, going beyond short-termism, since a retrograde order has prevailed: national deconstruction; dismantling of major social achievements; deviation from the functions of the powers of the Republic; institutional chaos; growth of exceptional measures within the rule of law. We need a new Project whose basic foundations include: independence, national sovereignty and self-determination; autonomous national development; deepening democracy with a focus on greater popular participation; social progress based on the growth of productive forces that sustain social mobility; structural defense of the environment and the ecosystem; an independent foreign policy and integration at all levels with neighbors and the country's strategic environment; modernization of National Defense for a continental country with immense resources, borders and coastline. National development: that is associated with the integration and development of the common continental region; and geared towards insertion and impetus to the trend towards multipolarization of the international system.

Reindustrialization, a key component of the national project.

Looking to the future, the core problem of contemporary national development lies in establishing a national reindustrialization strategy. Industrialization is the foundation that sustains social mobility, and the historical period from 1930 until the mid-1980s proves this.

The process of deindustrialization in Brazil has been ongoing since the mid-1980s. There has been a prevailing accommodation to the model of re-primarization of production, of renewed extractivism – income distribution based on the export of food, raw materials, and commodities (Gilberto Bercovici – Head of the Department of Economic Law at USP).
Deindustrialization accelerated after the implementation of the post-Real Plan macroeconomic tripod: the highest interest rates in the world for decades; an overvalued exchange rate for a long period; and a guarantee of a primary surplus. This is the macroeconomic matrix (which needs to be reversed) imposed by the dominant classes to escape hyperinflation and maintain their rent-seeking, replacing the overnight market practice, which allowed large financial capital to make considerable gains from inflation.

Brazil is reverting to the status of a primary export economy, where the economy fluctuated according to international trade. Basic inputs for industry, such as oil, energy, iron, and steel, are no longer important and are not under state control; they are destined solely for export and fall under the control of foreign capital. Today, neoliberal ideologues claim that everything can be privatized, such as Eletrobrás, Petrobras, and Banco do Brasil, among other companies. And they spread the alien concept that industry in Brazil is dispensable. Where have we arrived?!

Throughout Brazilian history, all periods of national industrialization, since its origins in 1930, have been led, coordinated, and planned by the State; and without large state-owned banks, there will be no sustainable and lasting development.

In short, everything indicates that the solution that can actually prevail for establishing a new national project with autonomy is state-led reindustrialization, with a new macroeconomic matrix focused on national development that can reduce the gap with the fourth industrial revolution. This would involve a systemic relationship with key sectors of the economy, the formation of large state-owned enterprises with rivalry among them; priority for large investments in infrastructure to extend the already limited integration and articulation of the vast national territory; a financial system under state control; and state coordination of foreign trade. Therefore, this is the basic outline of a political economy conception diametrically opposed to the orthodox, neoliberal view.

Transformation of State structures: a fundamental component of the National Project.
For the success of a new national project, within the framework of the political and institutional superstructure, the question arises of a democratic, sovereign state, supported by instruments of increasing popular participation, aimed at affirming national identity.

It is not possible to promote national development, deepen democracy, and advance social progress under the cover of a State viscerally devoted to maintaining the order of neoliberal and neocolonial dominance. The character of the Brazilian State is anti-democratic, with deep roots dating back to the time of colonization and slavery, which still show through in its current structures, with an elitist and alien bureaucracy, formed by a social base where its "modern" ideal is a simulacrum of American life.

Facing this great challenge leads us to the essential need for broader structural reforms of the political order, such as: a profound political reform of the electoral system, capable of resolving the crisis of political representation; improvement of forms of direct and participatory democracy of the people; democratization of the judicial system, external control and fixed terms for ministers of the Supreme Federal Court (STF); new methods for selecting and training the state bureaucracy.

Obviously, the formulation of a new national development project includes other important components. For example, the high significance of a progressive tax reform that stops burdening the majority of the nation through indirect taxation and directly taxes the wealthiest.

Finally, I mention two strategic components whose insights are essential in the formulation of the national project: the specific development project for the Amazon region, for which there are already significant proposals shelved within the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs (SAE); and the concept of National Defense discerned in the important elaboration of documents, such as the National Defense Policy, the National Defense Strategy, and the White Paper on National Defense, within the scope of the Ministry of Defense.