In response to the SEP of Turkey

A few days ago, the SEP of Turkey made public its decision to separate from the International Socialist League. We regret this decision. With the comrades of the SEP, we took the first steps together in the construction of the ISL and quickly managed to build a dynamic international organization.

Unfortunately, the long text in which they justify their decision is full of falsehoods, slander, misrepresentations of the facts and a debate about the politics toward the Ukraine war that they never chose to carry out within the ISL. Thus culminates a very mistaken attitude that they have maintained for several months, during which we saw emerge the methods of a small group without a working-class tradition or internationalist experience. They ignored essential rules among revolutionaries, such as respect for collective debate, patience in the face of differences and accepting to be in a minority, respecting the majority’s opinions.

What happens is that, in the face of some initial differences that they expressed within the ISL, instead of carrying out the debate thoroughly and loyally, what V. U. Arslan, representative of the SEP in the International Executive Committee (IEC), did was request expulsions, get angry like a teenager, withdraw from the organizations to which he had been voted by a Congress, not answer the letters and calls for him to debate again with full guarantees, and in the end, yes, locked up in his own country with his small group, content himself with publishing a long text of poor political quality.

Those of us building the International Socialist League on a daily basis in the different continents and dozens of countries in the world, have different politics, different methods and a different conception of how to debate, taking care of what we build together. And part of that method, even more so when an organization violates it with lies, is to thoroughly clarify the debate and shed light, as Lenin said, on the politics, the strategy, the tactics and the facts that are being distorted. Therefore, despite the fact that the SEP is a small organization that decided, of its own free will, to withdraw and take refuge in national Trotskyism, we are still going to answer their unusual text. Because our responsibility is to politicize and clarify everything, knowing that, for revolutionaries, the true facts, the politics and the strategy always come first, clarifying intrigues and fabrications.

The facts and the development of the debate

The SEP says that “in a matter of months, the MST comrades unilaterally changed the ISL’s policy.” They also claim that their warnings about politics in Ukraine were ignored, that they had to publish an article criticizing another text that had been presented to the IEC before being published, and that after the publication of a bulletin that the ISL published for all the membership, including the SEP’s position, they should have at least had the right to answer to those who debated with them. In addition, they criticize the fact that they were asked to respect the ISL statute and to not make public attacks against other leaders and organizations.

Sincerely, it is very difficult to find a text so full of falsehoods and unreal facts that at the same time hides what really happened, which can be verified by listening to the recordings and reading the minutes of the ISL meetings, the letters and texts sent by the ISL leadership to the SEP and the opinions expressed in internal meetings. Everything is verifiable and leaves no room for fallacies.

The true facts are more than clear. In the last ISL Executive Committee meeting in which the SEP participated, in July of this year, not only did they not warn of anything, but they did not even directly criticize Alejandro Bodart’s text, which they criticized publicly days later. The center of the SEP representative’s intervention in that IEC was the unusual request that Oleg Vernik and the Ukrainian section of the ISL be expelled due to political differences that the SEP had with them. At that moment there was, yes, in his argumentation, an abandonment by the SEP of the positions that we had previously held in common regarding the war. Those of us who have a long history in internationalist construction receive with astonishment and concern anyone wanting to expel another organization because of political differences. Therefore, he was told that his request was inadmissible. The surprise that the proposal caused us reminded us that, months earlier, the SEP had expelled comrades from their own organization, also because of political differences. Evidently, this is a harmful method of their construction and a malformation, which they simply tried to transfer to the ISL. Only that, in our international, we will never accept that undemocratic method. In the ISL everything is discussed without impositions or threats of expulsion because of differences.

On the other hand, the SEP did not “have to” publish a text against the majority positions of the ISL with criticism aimed at other leaders of the international. It did so deliberately, knowing that we had already agreed at the July 2022 IEC to carry out the debate first with all the membership of all the parties through an Internal Discussion Bulletin (IDB), as we had done each time differences had arisen, and as befits a revolutionary organization. They complain that the text that they unilaterally made public was not published on the ISL website, but that website is not there for each to publish what they wish. It is under the leadership of the IEC, which decides what is published. And the IEC had decided to publish the debate in a special IDB, not on the web. Despite this, they tried to upload it to the website, violating the majority decision of the IEC, in a clear provocation, which forced us to take it down and suspend their access to the website until discussing the issue in the next IEC.

Despite their method of acting unilaterally, without respecting the decisions of the IEC majority, which is clearly anti-democratic, the ISL leadership nonetheless published the special IDB and included the SEP’s position within it so that all the organizations and militants knew it. Because our method is not to hide debates, but to carry them out correctly, first in the organisms and with the militants of the international. And yes, of course, we asked them to respect the ISL statute and the leadership elected by the Congress. Perhaps this surprises the SEP, but for an internationalist and revolutionary organization, the statute voted by a Congress is precisely meant to be complied with and respected all the time, not at one or another’s convenience. The same is true for resolutions taken by the leadership elected by the Congress of the whole international. What we did not do was take disciplinary measures for this series of serious offenses, because we bet on the political and methodological debate.

Since then, the SEP decided to withdraw from the ISL leadership body. They never asked for the right to answer other texts or anything of the sort. A few hours before the start of the following IEC meeting, on August 2022, where the agenda included continuing the debate and deciding how to channel it, we received a letter from the SEP’s member of the IEC informing us that they had decided to no longer participate in meetings until “resolving our differences on Ukraine.” That is, until we agree to expel the Ukrainian section and agree with the SEP in a debate in which they had remained in the absolute minority! A rarely seen barbarity. Despite the letters that were sent to them, asking them to rejoin the body voted by Congress to debate there, they never replied or participated in the IEC or in the activities that were carried out, to which they were invited, such as the Global Socio-environmental Forum.

This methodological series of actions is just a confirmation that the SEP never broke with national-Trotskyism or with the methodological and factionalist deviations that it originally had. They had a brief stint in our international organization, and, faced with the first debate in which the absolute majority did not agree with them, they decided to leave without debating in the leadership bodies or with the militant base of the ISL, slandering and clinging to supposed revealed truths within the borders of their country. From there, and being a small group that has not passed any important test in the class struggle, it intends to force Ukrainian militants at war against an invading power, to do what the SEP wants them to do, and to expel them if they do not. From there, they want to teach us how to act in each place on the planet, when they have not yet shown that they know how to act in their own country, where they are just a very small group. From there, they ridiculously accuse the ISL of acting with a “mother party” method, when it is the SEP itself that has that method ingrained, expecting an entire international to abide by its political turns and methodological disasters and, since that is not accepted, they leave.

The ravings and lies of their latest text reach such a point that, in a childish attack on the leadership of the ISL, they try to make us believe that it is made up mostly of Argentines from the MST… and they add, denying themselves, “except Pakistan, the very young and small section from Chile and the Ukrainian section…” Turkey and Spain were also represented in the IEC, we would add, thus confirming the opposite of what they denounce: the ISL’s IEC is made up of organizations from different countries and continents, and different traditions of origin, elected unanimously in the last Congress, with the votes of the SEP delegates included. This lack of respect for the different organizations that make up the ISL, and for the Argentine comrades in particular, to try to dirty the field and avoid a frank debate, is also an attack on militant internationalism, motivated by the fact that no one, of any nationality, in the IEC or the ISL, agreed with them, and shows the petty bourgeois and nationalist character of this group.

The real political debates

About the political debates, it is evident that the SEP was changing its position and approaching a de facto pro-Russian position, abandoning an elementary principle of Marxism: the defense of a semi-colonial country when it is invaded by an international or regional power. For this reason, the SEP expresses shock at the ISL, which since its first statement stood in solidarity with the working people of the invaded Ukraine, saying that the invaders must be defeated, while at the same time denouncing NATO, even calling for its complete dissolution. This takes the position of the SEP to the limit of ridiculousness, since it implies believing that it is possible to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian working class while asking them to lose their war against invading tanks.

They also say in their text that “the policy of the ISL is unilateral” though we speak of the dual nature of the war. But what happens here is the opposite; the ISL has a policy in line with our characterization. First of all, we defend the just right of the Ukrainian people to confront and defeat the invaders and, at the same time, we condemn the plans of NATO and the Zelensky government. It is the SEP that shifted towards a totally unilateral position, having no policy or slogan of support or defense of the invaded country. And by criticizing the demand for Russia’s defeat, they remain in the camp of those who want Russia’s victory. So much so, that the SEP writes the following: “the slogan of defeating Russia, presented as the official position of the ISL, is a slogan that will regress the consciousness of the working class.” Crystal clear: the SEP wants the victory of Russia, that is to say, of the power that is invading an oppressed country. This really does imply losing all revolutionary perspective and not passing the test of war and the class struggle. Because in wars there is no possible third position, and the SEP decided to abandon the Ukrainian working class and people who put more than 300,000 volunteers on the front lines in defense of their right no national self-determination. On top of that, they are annoyed by the fact that our Ukrainian organization, which luckily does not follow any of advice from Turkey, is admirably participating in the resistance on the frontlines and in tasks of solidarity and support.

But it is worthwhile to make an important clarification, again of method, about what the SEP intends to show “as the official position of the ISL…” The official position of the ISL on the war is reflected in its three public statements that can be read on the international’s website. It was not possible to issue a fourth one because, at the July IEC, we ended up discussing the barbarity of whether or not our Ukrainian section had to be expelled. From then on, what there have been are positions that reflect the positions of parties and leaders. The SEP, for example, had published a text on the ISL website before that IEC, under the title “Re-Sharing of the world, Ukraine and revolutionary defeatism” where it developed a policy that did not reflect the positions of the IEC and was in contradiction with the declarations approved unanimously, with the SEP’s own vote, and no one thought of censoring them or saying that that article expressed the official policy of the ISL, because official positions are resolved by voting in the orgnisms and are signed by the IEC or the Congresses. The SEP’s arbitrary use of articles signed by comrades of the IEC or our parties, assigning them an official character, when they reflect debates or positions of specific parties or individuals, is part of this despicable method that does not seek to contribute to the truth or to a clarifying debate. Comrade Bodart’s text “A contribution on the war and the debates on the left” that the SEP presents as an official position was presented to the IEC in July and, though it surely reflects a majority position in the organization, since no one expressed a contrary opinion in the meeting, not even the SEP, and several members of the IEC expressed their support, it was not voted on by the body, therefore it should be taken for what it is, as its title suggests, a contribution, not an official position. Clearing up the falsehoods on this issue is important, because, as with the previous statements on the war, if the debate was had not been clouded with moral accusations and calls for expulsions, it was possible to reach a new consensus statement on the basis of the three pillars that guided the previous ones: support for the Ukrainian resistance, NATO out of Eastern Europe and Russia out of Ukraine. If this was not possible, it is entirely the responsibility of the SEP, which withdrew from the IEC and then from the ISL without debating or seeking a positive solution to the crisis.

Returning to the SEP’s text

In the “Special Bulletin on the War” that was distributed to the entire membership in July, in which we published the different texts prepared by members of the IEC on the war, including V. U. Arslan’s text, there is an extensive response to the political debate raised again by the SEP. Once again, they insist on presenting the conflict as a war between NATO and Russia, when the reality is a little more complex than this. The direct war is between Russia, which has invaded Ukraine, and the latter, which is defending itself against the aggression. The US and NATO have taken advantage of the Russian invasion to reposition themselves in the entire area and globally, after a long period of decline, and they rely on the Zelensky regime to bring water to their mill. They provide material aid to Ukraine to weaken Russia, but are careful not to enter into a direct war. This is sharpening the inter-imperialist friction and, although in the future we cannot rule out the possibility of the situation progressing to a direct confrontation that would imply the start of World War III with unpredictable consequences, this has not happened yet. Keeping this in mind is important because, if this happens, our policy will not be the same as the one we have to carry out today.

Today we must respond to two questions at the same time, due to the double nature of the war: on the one hand, Russia’s aggression, which the Ukrainian working masses are suffering first and foremost and have a complete right to defend their selves from, and, on the other, the friction between the US/NATO and Russia. If the situation evolves, the center will become responding to the start of a third world war, applying the policy of defeatism and denouncing the war as imperialist. But a mistaken characterization of what is happening today inevitably leads to a mistaken policy and to the SEP denying the just struggle of the Ukrainian people to defend their right to self-determination and to prevent any foreign power from invading it and taking its territory.

And the argument that the US sends a lot of money and weapons, which is true, does not eliminate the need to defend Ukraine’s democratic and national right to defend itself. In any case, it adds one more element to our policy, which is to always warn against NATO’s plans in the region and demand, as we have done from day one, NATO’s exit from all of Eastern Europe.

Regarding economic and material aid from imperialist powers to Ukraine, the SEP, which ignores the historical experience of Marxism and the IV International, has also been reminded that in the 1940s, faced with a situation with similar elements, as the invasion of China by the far superior Japanese power, and with the US as a rising power financing semi-colonial China to harm Japan and England, the IV International also recommended fighting for the victory of the Chinese resistance, because it was their democratic right against an invading country. That is why the declaration of the IV International, after mentioning the US economic aid, ends by saying that “this will not prevent revolutionaries from continuing to be in favor of the victory of the Chinese armies against the Japanese invader.” However, while writing the falsehoods that the SEP now disseminates, it keeps absolutely silent about this great historical example, because it demolishes all the SEP’s arguments.

At the same time, in the long and embarrassing text they have published, they take one step further in their lack of understanding or ignorance of the Marxist position towards wars. Because they are amazed that we say that we are in the Ukrainian military camp, but not in its political camp, they say: “As if the political and the military could be separated from each other. To speak of such a distinction is to fail to understand the nature of imperialism because, in the era of imperialism, the economic, military, and geopolitical fields are intertwined.” Here, they abandon a long list of historical Marxist examples. The Bolsheviks were in Kerensky’s military camp against Kornilov’s coup but remained politically independent as Kerensky’s opponents. Trotsky recommended being an active part of the republican military camp in Spain, while maintaining political independence from the Stalinists and reformist socialists. He also called those who did not want to fight alongside oppressed China invaded by imperial Japan cowards, and he did so while denouncing the Chinese government. (Letter from Trotsky to D. R. on the Sino-Japanese War).

Trotsky also explained that if, hypothetically, imperialist Britain were to invade Brazil, where there was a dictatorship at the time, he would side with Brazil and would logically do so without politically supporting the dictatorship. In Argentina, during the Malvinas War, we promoted a military victory against England and the militants of the PST, predecessor of the MST, enlisted for the war, but politically denounced the ruling dictatorship. We could go on with a long list of examples where, for Marxists, the military position can always be developed with a policy critical of the political leadership of the attacked country and maintaining independence at all times. At this point, the only surprise is that the SEP does not know this.

At the same time, the SEP, as a result of not understanding in the least the anti-imperialist and national defense tasks of an invaded semi-colonial country, now does not understand the causes of why Russia got bogged down and even retreated and lost important cities. To make reality fit in the mistaken framework that the SEP built for itself, its text now simplifies everything with an incredibly low political level and says: “Russia’s advance in Donbas came to a halt as of July, as NATO countries increasingly supplied more effective weapons to Ukraine. As a matter of fact, throughout September, the possibility of a collapse of the Russian army on all fronts appeared. We watch the Russian army, deliberately exaggerated as the world’s second most powerful army in ISL policy.”

Here the SEP’s confusions are remarkable. First, Russia is the world’s second largest exporter of military weapons and therefore its own army is very well equipped and powerful, not because the ISL says so, but because these are the facts. Second, Russia evidently also has significant military problems. Both issues are dialectically related without negating each other. But the problem cannot be solved by minimizing Russia’s military might or by attempting to explain everything through NATO’s aid. What the SEP loses sight of, which is rare in a Marxist analysis, is the role of the peoples, and in particular that of an invaded people. This element is very important in explaining the advances of Ukraine and the retreat of Russia. The former have high morale and the support of the population in the cities, because, even though the SEP does not understand it, the Ukrainians are part of a just struggle for their land and that moralizes them. In contrast, the Russian army has low morale, of soldiers who do not entirely know why they are risking their lives there. Desertion has become widespread in the invading Russian army since the war started. But the SEP says none of this. Like the campists, they are content with explaining everything through NATO’s weapons, which logically exist and play a role, but cannot explain everything that happens. To believe that in wars everything can be explained by weapons is anti-Marxist, because it leaves aside the role of humans, of the mass movements and the causes they defend. If everything was determined by the might of the weapons, the revolution would be impossible, and, to avoid boring with obvious examples, backward Vietnam defeating the world’s main power, the USA, suffices.

This anti-Marxist analysis that does not take into account the class struggle, the living forces of the mass movement, runs through the SEP’s entire text. That is why they are not interested in the repercussions of events on the Ukrainian or Russian working class, or on the workers of the entire region. For them, the only actors are the US imperial superstructure, the NATO powers, and the regimes commanded by Putin or Zelensky. No reader will find any reference to the mass movement, to the relation of forces between the classes, to how they are intervening, to what can happen among the workers depending on whether one result or another takes place, etc.

In its eagerness to justify Russia and the reactionary Putin regime, the SEP now states: “we emphasize that Russia is only an imperialist power in the 3rd category.” This definition may be correct or beneficial to the imperial plans of the Putin regime, depending on how it is used and in what context. The way the SEP utilizes it, it is an affirmation to capitulate to Putin. On the one hand, it is true that the US continues to be a superior imperialist power and the most important one in the world, even in the midst of its crisis. That is why the ISL always denounces all its political, economic and military actions and plans. But what the SEP hides in its new pro-campist turn is that, in Eastern Europe, Russia does not play an imperial role of the “third order” but the role of the main oppressive power, that throughout its history, except for the few and admirable years Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevism, Russia always had an arrogant, violent and usurping attitude against all the nationalities and countries of the region. To deny this is to deny the history and the present, to not understand a single worker in the region nor show interest in doing so. And it is the reason why the SEP, from a distance, is mistaken through and through. Among many other things, because they never set foot in Ukraine in the middle of the war despite being invited to do so by the coordination of the ISL, which traveled with a delegation led by Alejandro Bodart and supported the conference of our Ukrainian section in Kyiv in the midst of the bombings. Because of its nationalist and superstructural vision, far removed from the reality of this part of the world, the SEP does not understand why the Ukrainian masses do not want Russian tanks on their territory, and do, with good reason, want to defeat them, despite the fact that the SEP does not seem to like seeing Russian tanks retreating.

Along with all these political debates, the SEP finally ends up, not coincidentally, directly slandering the ISL. It thus replicates the worst of part of the Trotskyist movement, for example the British wing, which has split and split into a thousand pieces because of this manner of debating with slanders instead of honestly debating politics.

The SEP now says that: “the Kyiv regime should never be supported, and NATO propaganda and projects should not be backed up. But that didn’t happen! ISL now gives unconditional support to the Kyiv regime.” Honestly, such a statement only deserves the harshest repudiation. Only scoundrels who understand little to nothing about internationalism and serious debate can lie so deliberately in the middle of a debate and seek to tarnish comrades who organize within an invaded country. The Ukrainian comrades of the ISL not only experience the consequences of the war, but also confront each of the measures of the Kyiv regime and propagandize these denunciations and confrontations. Any worker can enter the ISL website and see there the permanent denunciations they make in each article about Ukraine, even under the difficult and daily militancy in the midst of the war. We make the same denunciations in the official declarations of the ISL and in specific articles about the war in Ukraine. And all the solidarity actions that have been carried out in various countries have always included the slogans of denunciation of NATO and our delimitation from the Zelensky regime. Whoever says or writes the opposite, is simply behaving and debating with a petty bourgeois method of lying and lying, to see if something remains. A simply reprehensible method.

About other nonsense

The 22 pages of factional attacks that the SEP has written speak for themselves of the type of organization they have become or have always been while deceiving everyone by entering the ISL and approving its founding documents, which specifically repudiate the methods they are now applying. They attack our Venezuelan comrades who, in very difficult conditions, organize to build a genuine socialist alternative to a regime bending more and more towards Right and becoming more oppressive in the process with every passing day. They have called for the expulsion of the Ukrainian organization, made up of valuable labor leaders who have built independent unions and remained independent of Stalinism and the bourgeoisie. They have belittled the entire IEC. They have slandered the tradition of one of the components of the ISL, the Morenist one, with falsehoods that the comrades who come from there will surely answer. And they have furiously attacked the comrades of the Argentine MST. The ridiculously schizophrenic thing is that less than a year ago, when the SEP visited Argentina, they tired of appraising the MST militants, who were trained in the Morenist tradition, to the point of saying in the inaugural rally of our Congress in Plaza de Mayo the absurdity that, seeing the thousands of militants gathered there, they were convinced that Argentina was close to the taking of power. Like any impressionist petty bourgeois, they went from considering the Argentines the closest thing to the Bolsheviks to worse than the Mensheviks in just 6 months!

In passing, in their long text where they talk about everything human and divine, they have also revealed another extremely serious fact: that the SEP did not support nor had policies to fight for the leadership of the popular uprisings against the Al Asad regime or against Gaddafi, which later, precisely because of the lack of revolutionary forces, ended up degenerating. We had already had a debate on the mobilization process in Cuba in recent months. They never collaborated with the campaign we carried out for Nicaraguan prisoners and, as we have seen, they defend the pro-Russian regime that fell with the Maidan of 2014 and now, beyond all rhetoric, that of Putin and his army against the Ukrainian people. On the one hand this is due to their weakness and ignorance of Marxism, on the other hand, to their class character. As we have seen, they confuse processes of the class struggle with their leaderships. This is the basis, on the one hand, of the opportunism that has led different organizations to give their support to non-revolutionary leaderships when they were at the front of rebellions or revolutions, but also of sectarianism, as is the case of the SEP, which denies revolutionary mobilization processes and does not support them when they have non-revolutionary leaderships at their front. Worst of all, they abstain from participating and fighting for the leadership against the currents that intervene to stop, divert or lead each rebellion or revolution to a dead end. What it is about is taking advantage of the mobilization to intervene with an independent policy and fight for the leadership of the working class against all the factions in which the bourgeoisie and imperialism are divided. Only in this way can we build revolutionary parties, which is the essence of revolutionary socialism.

We defend the ISL’s method

As a conclusion to this debate is the obvious fact that always, beyond the slander and falsehoods, we must focus on the political debate, without hiding anything and thoroughly debating everything that is necessary. Unfortunately, the SEP decided not to adopt this method and clung on to the worst of the national-Trotskyist methods of having a supposed revealed truth that is not verified anywhere and is written in a small office in Turkey.

Why does the SEP do this? Why this attitude that seems incomprehensible? Evidently, we are dealing with a small group, with no insertion or tradition in the working class, essentially student-based and from the well-to-do petty bourgeoisie of two large Turkish cities: Istanbul and Ankara. Trained without international contact, with a dubious Marxist tradition in a country that oppresses peoples, which has led them to a profound misunderstanding of national problems and how to act against them. Due to their social composition, they were unable to withstand the pressure of Stalinist and campist groups that have evidently acted on them, as is the case of the WSWS website, representative of what remains of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) that was led by the Englishman Gerry Healy, infamous for his immoral, nefarious and classless methods that are widely known by the international Trotskyist movement. From them they have surely drawn methods closer to Stalinism than the tradition of Bolshevism in the lifetimes of Lenin and Trotsky. That is why they employ the amalgamation of positions, lies, and slanders to cover up their political weakness.

We pity them, and we are saddened by their absolute misunderstanding of what internationalist and revolutionary construction is. The ISL will continue with the policy that it debates in its organisms and events, with our policy we will proudly continue advancing in building a revolutionary organization in Ukraine and in other Eastern European countries. And we approach a new international Congress to debate collectively, to specify, improve and determine new tasks and objectives.

On the other hand, the harmful actions of this small group from Turkey could make some reconsider if it is correct to continue insisting on the path proposed by the ISL, of respect for different traditions, of building together while respecting different positions, of focusing on agreements but knowing that we will have nuances or partial differences with organizations that join. Any doubt is logical. But we believe that the best option is to continue along the path that we have been tracing, which has allowed us to get to know and work together with various organizations. To renounce this path is to renounce building a great revolutionary international and to lock ourselves up once again in the 100% homogeneous international sect model that has already failed.

We must know that on the way to leaping forward, there will surely be many good experiences and also some bad ones like this one. We will assimilate them and continue our march. Because more than ever we need to strengthen the ISL. And the Congress that we will hold in the first months of 2023 will be the confirmation of that course and of the steps we have taken in different countries and continents. That is out path. The ISL continues to advance in Ukraine and in several Eastern European countries under very difficult conditions. Our young Kenyan section consolidates and advances in its relationship with organizations from a dozen African countries. In the coming months, the unification of our organizations in Brazil will take place, opening a huge opportunity in Latin America’s main country. A similar process is taking place in Colombia. We have influenced the Nicaraguan process and we have strengthened our organization in Central America with the process of incorporating the comrades from Costa Rica that is underway. With comrades in Mexico, we are developing a campaign in support of the rebellion in Haiti. We have started political work in the UK. In France, we started an exchange with an organization that acts within the NPA, and has been fighting for a unitary and revolutionary course. We have maintained a relationship of comradery with organizations in the US and Australia. In Lebanon, we are consolidating our group. All this, in addition to continuing to strengthen our organizations in Pakistan, Argentina and the dozens of countries where we have a presence. And we have no doubt that even in Turkey there will be valuable comrades who will accompany us with their experience and militancy.

Executive Committee


On the ISL and SEP debate.  By Oleg Vernyk – 22-11-2022

Special Bulletin on the War in UkraineJuly 2022