The extraordinary development made possible by the destruc?tions of the "second" world war began to show its first limits in some parts of the world in the fifties, and since then the crisis has started again and we have been hearing the same speeches again about the necessity of "restrictions", of a "national effort" to increase the production, etc. In the same time, workers' struggles against that state of facts have started over. This was only the first sign of the cyclical crisis of the capital, to which some parts of the world are no more profitable. These regions have never recovered their former growth rhythm.
But those effects were distributed amongst the capitalistic areas in such a way that the economy continued to expand in some countries until the next signs of the crisis: l960, 1974?75, 1981?82, which destroyed the mythology of a capitalism without generalized crisis definitely. In the fifties, the crisis could be kept back in some areas, in the sixties there were only a few places that did not feel its effects, and in the years 1974?75 and 1981?82, no country could stay out of it.
Moreover, the cycle of growth is always shorter between two depressions of the economic situation and it is always more ridiculous in its positive effects. In the years 1983?85, the positive par of the cycle, on a world basis, will lead to almost no accumulation, unemployment will not be reduced even in that period, and the under?use of the productive capacity will not change. All this tells us that the hardest times of the depression are still to come.
In the end of the fifties and in the sixties the bourgeois answer to the crisis (direct increase in the exploitation rate, reduction of real salaries) carried on its anti?worker brutality in the most affected areas in the world and was presented as the exclusive policy of some fractions of the capital (1), but from the years 74?75, it could no more be presented as the monopoly of some "barbarian" fractions of the bourgeoisie: it is, without any exception, the policy of all fractions of the capital in all the countries of the world.
Today, the blocking of salaries, the increase in prices, the battle of production and the "national effort to in?crease production", together with the necessary state terror, do not only characterize Argentina, Poland, West Germany, Italy, Cuba and Chile any more but also hit the whole world, including the big centres of international capitalism: the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.
From the bourgeois point of view a new expansion is only possible with rebuilding. The imperialistic war, which, in fact, never ceased since the "second" world war, tends more and more to expand on the whole planet. Once more, we can witness the dramatic cycle of capitalism expansion ? crisis ? generalized war ? reconstruction ? expansion ? crisis (2). Today like yesterday the only prospect is either a general war, or a communist revolution. Today like yesterday, the communist order is to oppose a revolutionary war against the bourgeoisie (our own one and all the others) to the imperialistic war.
The victory of the world communist revolution is only possible by eliminating the past weaknesses. That means that the proletariat must understand its past experiments, identify its mistakes in the big struggles and fight with all its force against all the ideologies that succeeded in disarming it in the past.
The class struggle has never stopped in spite of the failure of many rebellions for the last years, but the counter?revolutionary period that started after 1917?1923, the longest and the hardest the proletariat ever experienced, is still dominating today. The generalization of the world crisis starts only now to wake up the revolutionary class from its long sleep. This process is slow and is limited to some areas (especially in the fifties). The capital tries to beat the proletariat country by country but it will not be able to stop the general rebirth of revolutionary movements on a larger and higher scale (in quantity and quality) as in the 1967?1983 period everywhere in the world. The difference in the world share of the crisis brings about differences in the timing of the counter?revolutionary attacks, in their means and their tactics against the proletariat, and this leads to uncoordinated answers of the proletariat in time and intensity (3).
The bourgeoisie makes use of it to isolate each struggle in "its own" country. Obviously the situation of the work?ing class is different in every part of the world and so is the class struggle. But the crisis of capital is a world?wide one and it shows more and more the anti?worker contents of all states, whatever the means, the myths and the tactics used by the bourgeoisie to force the proletariat to digest the crisis. Whatever the form, the phase and the intensity of the proletarian struggle in the world are, its contents and its perspective are communist and world?wide. Any revolutionary action, even if it meets problems of co?ordination in time, tactics and intensity, can never lose the perspective of the world?wide struggle of the two opposed classes. For example, it would mean suicide to ignore the fact that in some areas, the counter?revolution situation is the hardest the proletariat has ever known in its whole history (4). The breakthrough cannot be confined to some areas but it will be the result of explosions in the areas where the proletariat of this generation has not been defeated. One must always remember that the main point is the international situation of the proletariat and not its counter?revolutionary submission in some parts of the world.
Between the bourgeois policy of dividing the proletariat and the generalization of the historical crisis of capital, there is a dialectical tension: proletarian defeats in 50me parts of the world sometimes have serious consequences on the world?wide struggle, but today workers' struggle against the general policy of austerity and intensification of work, cannot be confined inside any frontier. This leads to the world?wide revolutionary struggle. This is the perspective of our class, this is the communist perspective.
(1) Once more, the names of "right" and "left" cannot
help to understand anything; in South America, it is the so?called "right"
that puts this kind of policy into prac?tice, while the so?called "left"
is in the opposition; in the eastern countries it is supposed to be the contrary.
In fact, there is no real question of right and left, there is only the necessity
to let the government carry on its policy and in the same time to present
a bourgeois opposition to this policy. The economic decisions are dictated
to the bourgeoisie by the capital and the only solution left to the bourgeois
state is to use them in the war it conducts between
bourgeois fractions or mostly in the war it conducts against the proletariat. The same bourgeois fraction can once "defend the working class interests" and the next time "take its responsabilities towards the gravity of the situation".
(2) Here, the notion of "crisis" does not only mean depression but also the signs of the historical crisis of capital, the successive depressions, always stronger and closer to each other.
(3) The struggle of the 1967?1973 period, for example, meant in some parts of the world the rebirth of struggles and in other parts the highest point of a battle that had been lasting for more than twenty years.
(4) Areas where the most disgusting exploitation conditions are imposed on
the proletariat: reduction of real salary of more than 50 %, slaughter of
all communist avant?garde, etc. But this, of course,will not enable the bourgeoisie
to escape the crisis.
The present situation