The Challenge of Our Era: Socio-environmental Crisis, Revolution, and Socialist Transition

International Executive Committee

The matrix of production and consumption subordinated to private profit, its regime of private ownership concentrated in large corporations, its national borders that artificially divide the peoples of the world, and its socio-environmental consequences—places human civilization before an unprecedented epochal challenge. We aim to address the coordinates for a rescue plan for our world, now collapsing under a historically obsolete mode of production, appropriation, and depredation, from a Marxist, socialist, internationalist, and revolutionary perspective.

We fight for a comprehensive reorganization of the economy, social relations, political life, and the construction of a new relationship between humanity and nature, based on a different rationality—one free from the logic of capital and private accumulation as its supreme law. Therefore, we counterpose a socio-environmental perspective that we define as ecosocialist to the ecocidal course of the capitalist system. In the face of a relatively new phenomenon, this poses theoretical-political, programmatic, and organizational challenges for the left. There are deep debates within the socio-environmental movement that demand categorical positions both in principles and strategy, without dogmatism. Positions that appeal to collective elaboration in order to interpret the unprecedented situations of the twenty-first century. However, we are not starting from scratch: Marxism as a method provides a rich foundation that allows us to move forward on firm ground.

Ultimately, this issue has great importance for the International Socialist League (ISL) for the following reasons:

• The planetary scale of the consequences of the ecological disaster and its social impacts. There is no region of the world free from their effects.

• It is a problem that appeals to the sensitivity and mobilization of broad sectors of the vanguard, which, although unevenly, is present around the world and particularly (though not exclusively) concerns the youth—a key sector for building our sections and training new revolutionary cadres. In addition, there are growing numbers of critical researchers and scientists, anti-capitalist research journalists, and progressive intellectuals who are developing positions that represent both an opportunity for us to influence and to recruit for the ISL.

• For an international revolutionary project that aims to lead revolutions to take power and build the transition to socialism, it is absolutely critical to have a program of “transitional” measures for the socio-environmental remediation of the disaster with which humanity will have to contend once capitalism has been overcome. Within the perspective of recovering what Marx called the metabolism between human society and nature, fractured by the logic of private accumulation.

A Catastrophe in Progress

We are witnessing a planetary level cycle of ecological changes that feed back into disturbances in economy and politics. Back in 2015, the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme published a report estimating that humanity had al- 6 ready surpassed three out of nine parameters’ thresholds upon which the environmental sustainability of human existence depends2:

• Concentration of greenhouse gases.

• Destruction of biodiversity.

• Disruption of the nitrogen cycle.

A decade later, the same researchers state that sustainability thresholds have also been exceeded for freshwater availability, soil degradation, and pollution caused by new chemical entities. It is also highly probable that the threshold of ocean acidification has been crossed. Therefore, the ecological catastrophe is a fact—not a future threat. Now the task is to halt it, reduce it, and avoid falling into a cataclysm—understood as an event comparable in scale to the asteroid impact that likely caused the extinction of dinosaurs sixty million years ago. The qualitative difference is that in that case, it was a natural cataclysm. Now, the productivist frenzy of capital amplifies the threat of cataclysms provoked by the current mode of production and consumption.

Science has already documented several forms of potential cataclysms:

• One lesser-known form is the death of oceans, which could result from the disruption of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.

• A more familiar one is the chain of positive feedback loops of global warming that could push the Earth into a new energetic regime: the “steam planet.”

It is important to note that this chain could begin even below two degrees Celsius and could quite rapidly drive the planet to five degrees of warming. Last year, for the first time, the threshold of 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average was surpassed. We are in the danger zone.

A cataclysm such as the steam planet would be irreversible on a human scale. Its ecological and social consequences are unimaginable:

• Sea levels would raise by more than ten meters.

• The Earth could even return to being an ice-free planet.

From the standpoint of consequences, we have entered a scenario of extreme uncertainty. But two things are absolutely certain: quantitatively, this tipping point is incompatible with the existence of eight billion human beings on Earth; qualitatively, it is incompatible with what we call civilization as it has developed since the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago. We would undoubtedly enter a period of structural barbarism and failed humanity.

Considering all this, modern science and technology are probably capable of deflecting an asteroid heading toward Earth. However, under the leadership of capital, they are powerless to stop the ecological catastrophe. The knowledge of mainstream science proves to be useless since hegemonic science refuses to acknowledge the social cause of the catastrophe—the basic law of capitalist accumulation, and also because ultimately, the struggle against ecological catastrophe is a class struggle.

Ecofascism and Green Capitalism: The Ruling Class’ Two Recipes

Extreme global polarization is also expressed in the socio-environmental field. In fact, within the world’s ruling class there are two tactically opposed yet strategically convergent variants:

• The reactionary and eco-fascism productivism of the global far right which combines incentives to the fossil fuel industry with climate denialism, ideological flat-earthism, racism, and xenophobia. It is the school of Trump and its followers around the world. They represent the most concentrated sectors of oil corporations, banks, and extractive multinationals. Their thesis is that climate change is a natural phenomenon and that opponents of the oil industry are enemies of development and economic growth. Although they have little direct influence among the mobilized youth—quite the opposite—this is the political orientation they put forward through trade union bureaucracies within the workers’ movement. Hence their importance and the need for us to fight them decisively, especially in trade unions and workers’ organizations in general, exposing what they truly represent.

• Green capitalism—the “Green New Deal” of reformism and progressive currents of all kinds (starting with the United States and then its European variants). It proposes “pollution regulation,” “tax incentives for green production,” and other reformist and unsustainable measures within the framework of capitalism, environmentally offering no real solutions. It is a blend of neo-Keynesianism and “green economics.” They denounce global warming and agree in costly climate summits on environmental protection measures, regulations, and big objectives for emission reduction, which have remained dead letter. Their measures are generally related to “carbon taxes” meant to discourage the use of hydrocarbons. Within the framework of capitalism, however, these taxes do not discourage production—they merely allow corporations to transfer the tax burden into final prices, paid by working-class consumers. There is nothing progressive about this; rather, it creates a new business niche for “green” capitalist enterprises subsidized by those same taxes through the state. A lucrative—and polluting—business.

In the broader political arena, and within this field of competing orientations, frustration with the variants of green capitalism—which neither reduce environmental destruction nor ensure a real transition nor reverse the social consequences of capitalist crises—paves the way for denialist ecofascism. They gain influence among sectors of the impoverished working class and popular masses by rejecting “anti-development ecologism”, promoting slogans such as using all necessary natural resources to ensure economic growth, and thereby promising improvements for the working class. They frame all socio-environmental critique as a “middle-class, anti-worker, anti-development ecologist ideology.”

Ultimately, they are complementary poles of the capitalist logic that exploits both labor force and nature, using different tactics and rhythm but sharing the same class character.

The Eco-Cultural Battle: Debates Within the Socio-Environmental Movement

Capitalist depredation has placed the “ecological question” on the global agenda as a fact that is increasingly difficult to conceal. Before the pandemic, the activist movement inspired by Greta Thunberg—diverse yet widespread around the world—helped amplify a new vanguard in this field. Even today, there are no crystallized, immovable apparatuses or bureaucracies that have hegemonized the movement. Therefore, identifying the different currents active in it and with which we compete, systematizing their positions and our critiques, is essential and instrumental to train the cadres of the ISL politically and theoretically.

• Anti-party autonomist current: This tendency holds a certain ideological influence among the vanguard and argues that, faced with the difficulty of confronting capitalism, its centralized states, and their control over production and consumption, the way forward is to build “non-capitalist islands” of “autonomous self-management” outside the state. It elevates localized experiences of social movements around cooperatives, fair-trade networks, and similar initiatives into a strategic model. This is the postmodern theory of coexistence with predatory, polluting capitalism. It nourishes, in the face of skepticism, a form of resigned possibilism. We must explain that while we support localized experiences of social resistance, their survival depends entirely on the balance of forces, and when that changes, such “non-capitalist islands” are easily buried. In any case, these experiences must serve as support points for a strategy of global and systemic transformation of capitalism as a whole.

• “Popular ecologism” and variants of eco-feminism: they promote a conception that places indigenous peoples, peasants, and the feminist movement as the subjects of the post-capitalist “transition.” They value the relationship these sectors maintain with nature, based on the undeniable fact that, in many regions of the world, these groups have played an important role in territorial resistance to extractivist capitalism (mega-mining, agribusiness, or fracking). They obviously deny the central role of the working class and, at the same time, promote sort of a return to “rurality,” idealizing pre-Marxist conceptions. We defend the broadest unity in action with all these sectors in the struggle against corporations and governments that plunder, pollute, and destroy the planet. At the same time, we debate over the strategic subject, insist on the necessity of a revolutionary party, counterpose a transitional program to partial demands, and explain that the socialism we defend includes agrarian reform, an anti-patriarchal program, and is fully compatible with the demands of indigenous peoples for self-determination and plurinational or federal forms of organization free of asymmetries or oppression.

• Degrowth as a solution: In synthesis, this current proposes a form of individual self-limitation in consumption patterns as a way to fight against the “ideology of growth,” without any reference to class. The French intellectual Serge Latouche3 promotes this approach, which has deeply reactionary, semi-Malthusian tendencies, attributing socio-environmental crisis to population growth. When pointing out the phenomenon of the poor South hemisphere, it slides into distinctly right-wing Eurocentrism. There are left-wing versions of this argument, but instead of advocating for structural, systemic transformation, they emphasize individual and cultural responsibility—an idealist view—as the solution to the civilizational catastrophe. Our polemic with them consists in explaining our characterization of the socio-environmental crisis’s causes and our program of transitional measures.

• Theories of “disobedience”: One of the collectives that gained the most influence among mobilized youth in several countries is Extinction Rebellion (XR), founded in England. Its program promotes peaceful resistance and civil disobedience, drawing inspiration from authors such as the American Thoreau, as well as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. It argues the idea that it is collective action that “forces” governments to react and change. In several countries, XR is a significant competitor for the left-wing vanguard4 . Its appeal lies in direct action tactics such as boycotts, while maintaining the reformist illusion that “positive laws” can be won in parliaments or other institutions within the framework of capitalism. Once again, in this case we engage in unity in action in mobilizations, supporting boycotts and campaigns for progressive legislation that can serve as leverage for partial demands. But we must always explain that without systemic economic, political, and social transformation, no partial reformist measure can endure over time.

• Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International “Ecosocialism”: This current, which traces its lineage to old Mandelism, essentially presents two key strategic limitations. On the one 8 hand, it includes the working class merely as one more subject among the multiple social forces that must be articulated to overcome the thresholds of capitalism. On the other, it assigns no value whatsoever to the militant construction of a world revolutionary party for the struggle toward a socialist transition. Our tactical use of the term “ecosocialist” to popularize socialism within the socio-environmental movement obviously carries an entirely different content and conception—one that is revolutionary, militant, and internationalist.

• Left Productivism and Theoretical Snobbery: We also deal with polemics regarding certain tendencies within Trotskyism that oscillate between rusty dogmatism—unwilling to incorporate any innovation that, with a Marxist method, could help interpret the new phenomena of 21st-century decaying capitalism—and others that adapt opportunistically to the latest theoretical fashions in environmental debates.

In the first group we could include currents such as the UIT (CI) for whom there is nothing new and everything has already been written in the works of Marx and Engels. Or PO in Argentina, which although it is not part of any international current, has some relations in the world and also shares the position that beyond supporting occasional environmental struggles or participating in some united front instance that may arise, programmatically, their mantra is workers’ control solves everything.

In other words, their stance is that capitalism developed the productive forces up to a certain point, and that the historical task of the working class is to now wrest political control of society from the bourgeoisie, placing the entire productive structure under workers’ control, and thereby solve all environmental issues. This perspective overlooks crucial aspects of the development of destructive forces under capitalism in its current stage—featuring entire economy branches that have no socially useful purpose in their very nature, not merely in the way capitalists organize them. The heritage that capitalism, in its descent into barbarism, will leave to humanity in the socialist transition will necessarily require abolishing certain industries and entire branches of production, replacing them with new ones while retraining workers from those sectors. All extractivist activities (agribusiness, fracking, mega-mining), the capitalist advertising industry, the production model of planned obsolescence, and other variants fall into this category. Issues such as animal abuse and the food industry in general also require programmatic reconsideration beyond any productivist dogma.

A special case is that of the LIT (CI) that is going through a new and very deep crisis, with several ruptures. The environmental question was one of the debates, according to their resolution published by the official leadership on that issue. This current, such as PO or the UIT, has for years, approached the confusions of activism and false ideologies in a dogmatic and sectarian way. Apparently, their intention is to update their positions, we will see if this ends up in an advance in the socio-environmental field, among other issues, or if they keep their wrong stance.

Evidently the opposite unilateral and mistaken pole is represented by the Trotskyist Fraction (CI), which spreads all the on trend postmodern authors in the field of environmental theory without conducting a thorough critique of their flawed programmatic implications. These usually converge around the same key points: the social subject (whether the working class remains strategic today or not), the political subject (party, international, etc.), and the question of democratic economic planning. Of course we need to study everything, and we can incorporate any useful or positive elements from certain authors but always in order to integrate them into a revolutionary strategy for socio-environmental transition and to incorporate, from the standpoint of scientific Marxism, theoretical innovations that strengthen our program and our political approach to intervene effectively in environmental struggles, dispute leadership within the movement, and recruit the best activists to the ISL. Generally speaking, these currents, even if they intervene in socio-environmental struggles, have had great difficulty in building lasting groups or achieving sustained growth. The ISL has a relative advantage thanks to our accumulated experience in this field within several sections of our International. Our task now is to systematize and share those experiences so that they can be utilized by all our sections.

The Dialectic of Revolution, Transition, and Socialism

The socio-environmental movement and the debates within it demand that the ISL and all its militants study this issue thoroughly since it features trained activism, involves scientific aspects, is closely linked to economics and other disciplines, and because if we aim to build an organic current with a strong ideological personality, we must place great value on the battle of ideas and be programmatically trained. This requires not only having an initial response to the most pressing issues and an alternative program, but also the ability to handle what we might call the dialectic of revolution, transition, and socialism, with the unequal and combined rhythms of the class struggle.

Within this framework, before moving on to defining specific programmatic elements regarding the socio-environmental field, we want to raise a few key issues:

1. The transitional program we uphold proposes the bridge between overcoming capitalism and building socialism. We define measures for the comprehensive reorganization of the economy, social relations, the political system, and humanity’s interaction with non-human nature as a strategic horizon. In other words: we outline the scheme of the world we are fighting for.

2. However, throughout that transition, there will be class struggle, revolution, counterrevolution, and uncertain scenarios that require us to consider tactical flexibility on certain issues.

Let us illustrate this with a few examples currently debated in different regions of the world:

• Nuclear energy and its use: our strategic horizon points toward dispensing with this source of energy, understanding of the dangers posed by radioactive waste management, the enormous costs of building nuclear plants, and their limited lifespan. However, in the socialist transition—beyond the energy or medical use of nuclear energy—we also affirm the inalienable right of workers and peoples in revolution to appeal to nuclear energy as a resource of military self-defense.

• Lithium extraction and energy use: we do not rule out the use of lithium as an input to contribute to a non-polluting energy vector within a planned energy transition oriented toward social needs (not elite electric cars, but ambulances, public transport, etc.). This must be based on research into ways of exploiting it with minimal environmental costs and through democratic, social, and plurinational debate, including the territorial communities affected by the economic decision in question. However, under current extractivist capitalism, we propose to declare lithium a common good and non-exploitable social heritage, since today lithium is a commodity of inter-capitalist dispute, a raw material for industries producing goods and exchange value under the logic of programmed obsolescence, in conditions of imperialist plunder, condemning lithium-rich areas to become sacrifice zones, with extraction methods chosen not because they are the only ways of extracting it, but because they are the most profitable.

Therefore, in both cases our program takes into account the socio-environmental impact of nuclear energy or lithium productive use, while in the transition it allows enough tactical flexibility to subordinate decisions to the rhythms and needs of revolution and class struggle.

Having clarified this, we can outline a set of programmatic guidelines to address the main issues in this field and complement the program proposal of the 1st International Discussion Bulletin as well as add some specific aspects to contribute to this debate:

• Demand the immediate declaration of a Socio-Environmental Emergency in each of our countries, directed at the capitalist governments in power. For wetlands, forests, jungles, mountain ranges, and other key ecosystems to be declared as common goods and inalienable social heritage essential for socio-environmental health.

• Energy transition toward clean and renewable sources, based on the expropriation of hydrocarbon industries under workers’ control and the creation of a new, non–petro-dependent but diversified matrix combining multiple energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, etc.).

• The previous point must include the occupational and professional reconversion of all workers from affected industries, guaranteeing continuity of wages and preserving previous labor rights.

• Ban fracking, agribusiness, mega-mining, and speculative urban cement expansion. Put forward a productive reconversion based on real social needs through democratic planning with working-class participation.

• Establish a new food model based on agroecological principles, free of GMOs and agrotoxins, to guarantee food as a social right—for it to be sufficient, healthy, and accessible. Challenge the capitalist industrial agri-livestock model, which is exploitative, abusive toward plant and animal life, and polluting. Ban pig mega-farms and feedlots. Implement comprehensive agrarian reform, expropriating without compensation planting pools and agribusiness corporations.

• Guarantee public services as a social right, starting with state-run transportation under social control by workers and users. Nationalize all privatized utilities and expand public infrastructure as an additional way to discourage individual car use.

• Reorganize global health systems by unifying all public and private infrastructure into a single public and staterun system under the control of health workers and users’ committees. Reinforce budgets through the cancellation of debts to the IMF and other international financial institutions.

• Redistribute working hours among all available labor and reduce the workday. Incorporate technology massively— not to replace people with machines, but to lighten the collective burden of labor.

• Eliminate the packaging industry and reduce waste through source separation, recycling, and state-led socio-environmental education at all school levels.

• Ban the capitalist advertising industry, which promotes artificial consumption, confuses, and deceives the population. Replace it with the social right to public information. Democratize mass media through state ownership under social control.

• Establish binding popular consultation mechanisms, allowing the peoples to decide on any controversy regarding the establishment of potentially polluting industries. Incorporate the precautionary principle of environmental law: any productive activity that may have socio-environmental impacts must be suspended and subjected to social investigation and debate.

• Allocate budgets financed through the expropriation of assets from polluting companies for environmental remediation and species preservation, for native forests and other common goods of nature.

• Open all borders to climate migration flows.

These are approximate axes that can be combined and adapted in each country according to the specific national reality. Of course, they are all fundamentally linked to the struggle for workers’ governments on the road to regional and world socialism. This constitutes a minimum common platform to guide the political and programmatic unity of the ISL at the international scale.

Anti-Marxist Fake News: Refuting Prejudices and Myths

Although the main focus of Marx’s, and even Engels’, theoretical analysis was not the environmental issue, they did elaborate on a series of coordinates, methodological clues, or hypotheses to be developed that feature enormous potential to think about the current situation of the XXI century:

• In Capital, he states that this system, through its logic of accumulation and competition, “tends to exhaust the two sources of all wealth.” He was referring to human labor and nature.5

• He further states that capitalism, by installing a dynamic that pursues exclusively private accumulation, “produces for the sake of production” (productivism), and therefore capital “has as its ultimate aim its own reproduction (accumulation).” That is why it transforms humanity’s relationship with its environment—with nature. Marx writes that capitalism “breaks or fractures the metabolism between humanity and nature.”

• One of his objectives, then, was to restore the “rational management” of that fractured exchange through a reorganization of social production, distribution, and consumption.6

These three definitions—the exhaustion of the “two sources”, the “fracture of metabolism”, and “rational management” of the human–nature relation—must, in our opinion, be the starting point for thinking creatively, innovatively, and courageously about all the consequences of global warming and the general alteration of the conditions of life on the planet, as well as about the specific expressions of imperialist capitalism in regions such as Latin America, particularly its extractivist character.

In addition, we must draw a sharp line apart from the Stalinist and bureaucratic experience, which was deeply polluting and disastrous. We must explain why, therefore, it is not enough merely to socialize the means of production and place everything under workers’ control: we must also consider other parameters.

On the one hand, the conception of “inheritance,” as we call it, is mistaken and can even lead to reactionary conclusions. Specifically, the notion that the task of the working class and revolutionary socialists is simply to expropriate the bourgeoisie, take over its already-developed productive forces, and merely change the social content of their administration or management, is limited. In its decadence and historical survival, capitalism—seeking to counteract the tendency of the rate of profit to fall—does not merely “exhaust the two sources”; it squeezes, plunders, and destroys them. The entire use of applied science in the service of that antisocial and antihuman goal—profit—is the foundation of today’s socio-environmental disasters. At this point, it is essential to state categorically that not all technologies are “neutral” (meaning that their effects depend solely on which class controls them), nor are all branches of production useful or capable of being adapted within the framework of a socialist transition.

An essential objective of the “socio-environmental rescue” within the socialist transition is to radically reduce the material volume of what is produced and transported. This does not mean social “deprivation” or “self-limitation.” The anarchy of capital overproduces by promoting hyper-consumption through deceptive capitalist advertising and planned obsolescence—the method of designing materials and goods with artificially limited lifespans in order to restart the production cycle quickly. That reasoning—of producing commodities, things to be sold and get surplus value—is ecologically unsustainable. Democratic planning of production and distribution for use-values, for socially necessary goods, completely alters the socio-environmental equation and becomes the starting point for “re-establishing the fractured metabolism.” This means producing and transporting less.

Entire branches of production that are socially useless and ecologically disastrous must be eliminated: mega-mining, fracking, agribusiness, capitalist commercial advertising, and others. This does not mean “expropriating and putting them under workers’ control,” but rather abolishing them. And, of course, it requires reconverting production and labor activity for the workers involved—that is fundamental.

In addition, we must engage with avant-garde debates that respond to distortions produced by capitalism, such as industrial agri-livestock production—its polluting and health-damaging effects, and its brutal levels of human and animal exploitation. We must do so without falling into the one-sidedness of some militant collectives within the sector. We must confront this issue, which socialists will also need to address with revolutionary criteria: the question of the human diet on a global scale and the destructive role of the capitalist food industry.

Our standpoint, of course, is shaped by a decisive variable: all these transitional and strategic measures for reorganizing production on bases that guarantee what is socially necessary in sustainable relation with nature will inevitably go through the mediation of the class struggle, its uneven development, and the transitional needs of the world revolution. However, as a strategy, we insist that the socio-environmental challenge must be integrated as a central task in the socialist reorganization of civilization.

Our Orientation: Being on the Frontline of Struggles, Strengthening the Ideological Battle, and Building a Militant Organization

Capitalism, as Marx said, destroys both human labor force and nature7. The latter specifically implies a war plan against the social majority, provoking reaction, mobilization, and new processes. The socio-environmental front is a window of opportunity for our intervention and militant construction.

There is widespread socio-environmental awareness with a highly positive component of anti-capitalist questioning, a predisposition toward the international unity of struggles, and a strong call for democracy and direct action. At the same time, it is a heterogeneous movement that includes ideological struggles and disputes over the strategic way forward. To earn a position of authority in the fight to lead the movement, it is necessary to be on the front line of the struggles, but also to possess theoretical, programmatic, and political solidity in order to win the battle of ideas and recruit the best activists emerging from the movement.

Several of the ISL sections are experienced and have participated in the movement, with successes, mistakes, and programmatic elaboration. We must stand as a political force within this process—one that connects with the main concerns of the best sectors of activism and provides an answer to the need for a revolutionary transition that can overcome predatory capitalism.

Naturally, the world is not homogeneous. There are different situations depending on the region of the planet we find ourselves in and the varying influence of ideological and political currents, as well as the differing degrees of development of our organizations in each country. However, drawing on the ISL most advanced experiences in this area can help us progress worldwide. There is potential for recruitment—of young activists to our organizations and program—technically everywhere.

The condition for connecting with that sector is to start from their immediate needs and level of consciousness. This means having a political orientation and a program for that sector, while at the same time avoiding two equivalent unilateral errors:

• Abstract propagandism of socialism in general.

• Its opposing pole: ecologist trade unionism based on a minimal program.

We must engage politically through the dialectic of the transitional program—linking immediate demands with the strategic outcome. Within this general framework, we propose the following orientation actions for the ISL in this front of militant action:

• Intervening in the sector’s struggles, raising a transitional program that begins by us being the best activists in every just claim, while at the same time spreading our global, revolutionary, and internationalist ecosocialist program.

• Participating in the ideological debate taking place within the movement—at forums, summits, counter-summits, conferences, and events attended by many interested activists. Likewise, organizing our own debate events to attract new vanguard sectors.

• Building collateral organizations or groups within the sector, linked to and lead by our sections in each country, as a tactic to consolidate influence through our politics and recruit militants for the global strategy of our International. For some time now, the ISL has been tactically using the ‘eco-socialist’ identity through groups with very positive results in the struggle. However, if in a country where organizations that are in the process of integrating into the ISL are active and have been acting with another tactical variant, this will also be valid.

• Although the main focus of our orientation is recruiting young members within the movement and taking our positions to the student movement, we must also study experiences and develop political approaches to take our orientation to the workers’ movement, in order to confront the bureaucracies that act as transmission belts either for denialist eco-fascism or the reformist variants of green capitalism.

• Drafting an ISL Manifesto on this subject to make our positions more popular.

• Designing a propaganda plan with courses, workshops, and seminars to train cadres and raise political understanding of this issue, which has specific complexities—starting with the regular publication of related articles on our website and in our magazine.

• Working to create a Socio-Environmental Commission of the ISL.

1. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume 3. By Karl Marx.

2. http://www.igbp.net/download/18.950c2fa1495db7081e25bf/1433835587044/IGBP-AR_2014-web.pdf

3. Latouche. S. (2011), Le temps de la décroissance.

4. Broffoni, F. (2020), Extinción.

5. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume 3. By Karl Marx.

6. Idem. 7. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume 1. By Karl Marx

Adopted by the III World Congress of the ISL