Categoría: Artículos

El conflicto del MAS nunca fue un conflicto sólo interno. Es lo que arrastra el “movimientismo” como cultura política; y el MAS, siendo heredero de ella, nunca supo resolver esta aporía que retrata a la izquierda nacional[1].

Nacido como una expresión popular, pero inclinándose siempre a la reposición del Estado que se proponía trasformar, hace inevitable su distanciamiento del horizonte popular que le dio origen; entonces, cuando ya no hay modo de disimular aquello y su derechización se hace evidente, sucede inevitablemente su descomposición y la fractura.

Cuando el poder se convierte en la fe sustitutiva, entonces todo se reduce al puro cálculo político (ambos bandos ceden la poca fe que les queda a quienes acumulan poder, que es lo único que sirve en esa apuesta, pero así confirman su propia traición, reafirmando los credos y los dogmas de la política que, una vez, creyeron poder transformar).

De ese modo la izquierda testimonia, ante sí misma, una fatalidad que arrastra como una maldición histórica. Por ello asistimos a un ensañamiento hasta personalizado, que se expone de los modos más groseros y demuestra el maniqueísmo inmaduro de una apuesta política que manifiesta ya no tener puntos renovados de acercamiento con el horizonte político indígena-popular que le dio origen. Es decir, la improbabilidad de su permanencia como referencia política (más allá de su voto duro), despierta una lógica que, por pura sobrevivencia, opta por lo único que le queda: la amenaza del suicidio colectivo.

Todos los enfrascados en esta trifulca pierden de vista que los actores políticos no valen por sí mismos sino por los proyectos que representan. La exacerbación de los personalismos, sólo expresan apuestas corporativistas que, casi siempre, amparan sus propósitos en algún poder carismático. En ese sentido, ambos bandos son el continuismo de la subsunción del proyecto popular por una disputa de élites que necesitan del Estado tradicional, o sea, el liberal-oligárquico-colonial, para hacerse poder político continuo.

Cabe recordar que, los ahora en disputa, nunca cuestionaron el golpe suave que se produjo en las mesas de concertación del 2009, con la complicidad del gobierno del MAS, cuando el orden instituido (el Estado liberal-colonial que debía subordinarse, por lógica constitucional, al nuevo poder constituyente) neutralizó el carácter revolucionario del nuevo Estado plurinacional y, de ese modo, modeló a éste, a imagen y semejanza del Estado-nación oligárquico liberal.

El conflicto presente no retrata ni siquiera una polémica de legitimación del liderazgo (que la miopía del Evo cree), sino del enseñoramiento político. Por eso ningún bando, ni “evistas” ni “arcistas”, asumen algo distinto del otro, ninguno se propone nada nuevo, sólo cumplir obedientemente las reglas liberales del Estado señorial.

Quienes antes creían tener la potestad de la inclusión, ahora son los “incluidos” en el orden colonial que van reponiendo en todos los sentidos. Por eso, por un lado, en su inercia política, el gobierno se somete a la tecnocracia de las decisiones estatales que ya no perfilan ningún horizonte estratégico y, el otro bando, cree que el boicot y el desgaste que está desatando, puede catapultar mesiánicamente a su líder y recobrar el poder añorado.

Ambos bandos renuncian a la esencia de lo político, ya que su trifulca manifiesta un puro cálculo de intereses, donde el verdadero ausente es el pueblo como poder constituyente, es decir, como sujeto histórico-político. Sin esta referencia trascendental, la política se reduce a la mera disputa del poder por el poder.

Entonces, cuando sólo hay lucha de élites empoderadas, sólo aparece un nuevo ciclo estatal, del mismo Estado que se quería superar. El conflicto entonces se resume, ahora, a la disputa inconsciente de quién termina de disolver el Estado plurinacional remanente. ¿Qué nueva élite empoderada, asumirá la conducción de esta conclusión?

Antes del golpe del 2019 y, posteriormente, en el desgaste apresurado de la actual administración gubernamental, ya fuimos advirtiendo los riesgos de una inercia estatal que delataba no sólo su agotamiento sino la pérdida, en ambos bandos, de toda perspectiva estratégica[2].

Esto es lo que inevitablemente va conduciendo ya no sólo a la propia implosión del MAS sino, lo que es peor, a la fractura del bloque popular. El maniqueísmo actual, exacerbado por ciertos portavoces que expresan comedidamente la receta del “divide y vencerás”, sólo allana el camino fatídico de la autoinmolación política.

Pero esta autoinmolación del MAS, como algo premeditado, sigue sospechosamente un guion que opera la escenografía del Estado fallido, con la consecuente intervención imperial. En ese sentido, no se trataría de quién es más revolucionario sino de quién se atribuye la conclusión definitiva de algo que ya se había perdido, incluso antes del golpe de 2019.

Hay que decirlo, fue el propio aparato gubernamental masista que, en 14 años, socavó las bases de legitimación de las organizaciones populares. Lo que los “evistas” critican al gobierno es lo que ellos mismos hicieron, prebendalizando a las organizaciones matrices del campo popular.

Ahí se puede entender una suerte de penetración imperial consentida que hizo muy bien su tarea, corrompiendo los niveles decisivos de las organizaciones populares, para hacer lo que la derecha autóctona no sabe ni puede: descomponer al pueblo para desmantelar su propio proyecto político.

Antes de la intentona golpista de este año, propusimos, tanto a “arcistas” como “evistas”, un necesario y urgente abordaje de las consecuencias geopolíticas que está arrastrando la crisis del MAS. Pero todos andan más interesados en sus agendas que en nuestro propio país.

Ahora bien, si la nueva movilización “evista”, anunciada con una marcha hacia La Paz (que podría devenir en un paro de varios sectores estratégicos, además del bloqueo de caminos y, obviamente, el enfrentamiento con dirigencias y bases paralelas de las organizaciones matrices), entorpece y complica las posibilidades de ingreso de Bolivia al BRICS+ en octubre, entonces se sabrá qué guion se está desplegando.

Añadiendo a este escenario, la activación, desde el Perú, del relato del desastre social y económico de Bolivia, que produciría un éxodo masivo de bolivianos al país vecino, provocando inevitablemente conflictos fronterizos. Todo ello constituye la elaboración de un plan mayor, al cual se presta sospechosamente el “evismo”.

La improvisada gestión gubernamental apenas puede leer y discernir los escenarios y hasta sus propias apuestas; por ejemplo, en torno a la crisis económica que se viene inflamando (también por el acoso constante del “evismo”), sin tener el gobierno respuestas de carácter estructural y estratégico, no es más que la constatación de que el “modelo económico social-comunitario-productivo” distaba mucho de ser un auténtico modelo, además demasiado dependiente de una coyuntura económica, sobre todo regional, favorable. La confianza no es una buena táctica.

Eso sólo demuestra que el gobierno actual sólo se dedicó a dar una continuidad automática a lo que se había hecho anteriormente. Cuando las decisiones estatales, que debieran ser siempre políticas y geopolíticas (sobre todo cuando asistimos al fin de la globalización, del orden unipolar y la expansión de las potencias emergentes reunidas en el BRICS+), no son enfrentadas y sólo se confía en la administración burocrática de la inercia estatal, se subsume lo político del Estado en favor de un poder burocrático jurídico-administrativo que responde “técnicamente” a la ideología oligárquico-liberal hecha credo estatal. 

Por eso, la desidia de desmerecer el abordaje geopolítico de esta crisis (porque nos estamos jugando la permanencia del Estado plurinacional en el nuevo tablero geopolítico), será de completa responsabilidad de los implicados en una trifulca que, para deleite del morbo mediático, provocarán un asalto estatal, incluso “democráticamente”, mucho más contundente que el golpe de 2019.

En tal caso, el Estado boliviano habrá renunciado a ser el nuevo corazón geopolítico del arco sudamericano, dejando sola a una Venezuela amenazada hasta por la izquierda progre y woke de la región.

Una digresión: El 7 de marzo del presente año, se presentó en la vicepresidencia, el “Informe del Vivir Bien”. Se trataba de un acontecimiento inédito en nuestro país, porque es la primera vez que se presenta lo que constituye un “Informe a la Nación” de lo que pretendidamente se propone como una nueva doctrina estatal, que es aquello que se constituye después en una política de Estado.

Es la primera vez que sucede un Informe de esa naturaleza en toda la historia política de Bolivia. El “Informe del Vivir Bien” lo presentó el vicepresidente David Choquehuanca. Pero nos resultó llamativa la ausencia de la máxima autoridad del Estado, los ministros de gobierno y del cuerpo legislativo. Más aun teniendo en cuenta que el autodenominado “gobierno del cambio”, en su segunda versión, se presenta como la expresión gubernamental del Estado plurinacional, cuyo horizonte político de referencia es precisamente el “vivir bien”.

Eso muestra, entre otras cosas, la miopía coyunturalista de reducir toda la atención política a las disputas circunstanciales que, en última instancia, acaban definiendo la concentración de poder; pero precisamente, si de poder se trata, la generación del poder popular y el esclarecimiento de su horizonte político, es lo decisivo, tanto en el sostén de legitimidad como en la amplificación de hegemonía.

Pero en la trifulca actual, ambos componentes de lo político, se lo pretende concebir sólo desde el cálculo de intereses, es decir, desde la idiosincrasia demagógica de la política usual. Así podemos describir una pérdida de horizonte que ya era recurrente en la gestión de los 14 años del anterior “gobierno del cambio”.

Su versión actual muestra que, no sólo no comprendieron las razones y el modo cómo se produjo y tuvo éxito el golpe de Estado de 2019, sino que pareciera que el abandono de las banderas iniciales y legítimas del “proceso de cambio”, se van reduciendo a una mera administración de las apuestas que ya se habían generado en la gestión pasada, cuando se fueron abandonando paulatinamente el “vivir bien”, la “descolonización” y lo “plurinacional”.

Es decir, estamos presenciando, con el respaldo de los propios sectores protagonistas del cambio, el abandono del horizonte que el sujeto plurinacional había originado como revolución democrático-cultural.

Por eso también se va advirtiendo que, en la contienda entre Evo y Arce, aparece un tercero excluido que, curiosamente, es la única voz que insiste todavía, solitaria e infructuosamente, en las banderas originales del cambio. Ello nos lleva a considerar que es el indio y aquello en lo que cree el indio, lo realmente excluido en esta disputa. Ya lo decía la juventud “linerista” antes del golpe de 2019, aupada en el poder político y legislativo: “el sujeto del cambio ahora lo constituye la clase media”. Pues esa clase media, a la que quería empoderarse, fue la misma que se movilizó a favor y aplaudió el golpe de Estado. 

Todas las críticas que puedan hacerse ambos bandos (porque degeneraron en eso) del MAS, son en parte ciertas, hasta las exageradas por la belicosidad creciente, pero de nada sirven cuando ninguno de los polos de la confrontación manifiesta prudencia política, cuando lo que está en juego no es su jefatura sino la propia viabilidad del Estado plurinacional.

Eso sucede cuando se pierde el horizonte político y todo se reduce a la mantención del poder a toda costa. Ambos juegan, sin saberlo o sin ya importarles, no sólo a su mutua anulación política sino a la mutilación del horizonte indígena-popular.

Mientras el gobierno se pierde otra vez, en el obrismo ocasional, como en la anterior gestión, pecando de ingenuidad política, creyendo que las obras generan, por sí mismas, consciencia revolucionaria o fidelidad ideológica, no se da cuenta que cae en la ilusión progresista.

El gobierno anterior, fiel al credo socialista de cumplir las tareas pendientes de la burguesía, no reparó que eso puede significar la reposición de las condiciones subjetivas para restituir el sistema de creencias del capitalismo. Nunca aprendieron que, sin revolución cultural, el ascenso social sólo produce el aburguesamiento del pueblo. En eso fracasa también el gobierno actual: la sola objetividad, las obras (sobre todo las que promueven los mitos del desarrollo y el progreso), no producen el óptimo social de cambio, o sea, consciencia revolucionaria.

En ese sentido, si por lo menos los ministerios productivos y los encargados del financiamiento, se dieran cuenta del necesario factor descolonial en la lectura geopolítica del contexto actual –regional y global–, ello les brindaría una lucidez actualizada de las posibilidades nacionales y regionales que abre la inevitable transición civilizatoria.

De ese modo podríamos proponernos, en vez de la consigna de “industrialización con sustitución de importaciones” (que además respondía y enfrentaba a un diseño geopolítico que ha entrado en colapso), por el más sugerente de “industrialización con sustitución de paradigmas” (pues hasta China se plantea, en las siguientes décadas, la transición a un paradigma post-capitalista y la Federación Rusa señala un nuevo orden post-occidental).

Pero lo que impulsa el gobierno es, otra vez, el paradigma desarrollista que ya no es posible en la nueva realidad y las nuevas y más complejas condiciones y escenarios que están replanteando todo lo referente a patrones y bases energéticas, procesos de industrialización sostenibles en medio del paradigma postindustrial atravesado por la IA, nuevos modos y procesos de integración en correspondencia con los nuevos corredores geoestratégicos y la cadena de suministros globales, etc.

Nuevos modelos explicativos y cambio de paradigmas se hacen urgentes, pero esto sólo puede provenir de un nuevo horizonte político que proyecta un pueblo hecho poder popular; y que el Estado debe promover.

Pero, como en la gestión anterior, el pueblo es de nuevo recluido a mero obediente o llamado a acompañar, de modo instrumentalizado, las apuestas que se realizan en esferas divorciadas del campo popular. Y esto sucede en ambos bandos. Porque en ambos se nota que la idiosincrasia es la misma. Todos luchan sólo por su sobrevivencia política.

En este contexto es que la propia figura del Evo ya es anacrónica. Y quienes le rodean y miman sus aspiraciones son precisamente quienes no supieron leer lo que se les venía encima y lo que eso significaba para el pueblo. Ahora irresponsablemente están haciendo los mejores tramites para que la derecha se rearticule y haga del chenko (el embrollo) producido, el caldo de cultivo de la defenestración del proyecto plurinacional, que era los más genuino que se podía proponer como superación del concepto Estado-nación.   

La figura del Evo está tan desgastada que, la apuesta del conflicto continuo a un gobierno que, hay que decirlo, él mismo organizó, a su conveniencia (desde Buenos Aires), sólo genera la erosión creciente de sus posibilidades políticas. Su sola presencia electoral servirá únicamente para que la derecha se una en bloque. En tal caso, aun cuando hipotéticamente triunfara, será por un margen tan exiguo que le obligará a pactar y así repetir el oprobioso fin de aquellos que “cruzaron ríos de sangre”.

Si la maldición de la derecha es que no actúa ni siquiera para sí misma, ahora parece que la dirigencia del cambio ha asumido esa misma suerte. Los movilizados en el golpe del 2019, los ingenuos “pititas”, en sus marchas y paros, sirvieron el poder en bandeja de plata, a una insurrección oligárquica apadrinada por los intereses imperiales. Ahora los movilizados son procedentes del “evismo”, que no aprendieron nada del golpe. Pues en la preocupante disputa geopolítica que estamos enfrentando regionalmente, atizar una crisis desde adentro sólo le hace el favor a la injerencia gringa que, después de fracasar, otra vez, en Venezuela, puede acelerar el escenario (con la complicidad de los países vecinos) del Estado fallido.

La finalidad siempre ha sido la misma y es lo que pretendieron con el golpe hibrido-geopolítico de 2019: anular al sujeto para, de ese modo, anular el proyecto. Por eso sus agencias de inteligencia trabajan para penetrar incluso el campo popular y, desde adentro, minar toda posibilidad del sujeto hecho horizonte político.

Pero hoy asistimos a una paradoja mucho más trágica, que anunciamos el 2018[3]: para terminar por destruir una recomposición del campo popular, la entronización del indio sólo serviría para concluir en esta advertencia: “con un indio quisieron soñar en cambiar todo, con el mismo indio les enseñaremos que nada se puede cambiar”.

La Paz, Chuquiyapu Marka, 15 de septiembre de 2024

Rafael Bautista S., autor de: “El Ángel de la Historia, volumen II: La disputa del arco sudamericano y la geopolítica del reinicio global” yo soy si Tú eres ediciones, 2024. Dirige “el taller de la descolonización” rafaelcorso@yahoo.com

---

[1] Ver nuestro artículo: https://www.nodal.am/2023/03/bolivia-crisis-en-el-mas-cisma-o-reencauce-por-rafael-bautista-s/

[2] Ver nuestros libros: El Ángel de la Historia. Volumen I. Genealogía, ejecución y derrota del golpe de Estado. 2018-2020, yo soy si Tú eres ediciones, La Paz, 2021. El Ángel de la Historia. Volumen II. La disputa del arco sudamericano y la geopolítica del reseteo global. 2020-2024, yo soy si Tú eres ediciones, La Paz, 2024.

[3] Ver nuestro artículo: https://rebelion.org/como-se-produce-una-revolucion-de-colores/

Introduction

In many civilizations people have thought about the future of mankind. The European Enlightenment has produced two narratives about this subject. The Hegelian narrative proclaims liberalism as the end of history and the Marxist narrative proclaims communism as the end of history.

In the past four decades decolonial theory has risen as a new narrative of world history. Three Marxists, Vijay Prashad, Mikaela Nhondo Erskog and Kevin Ochieng Okoth – I will refer to them as Prashad c.s. when I speak about them as a collective – have taken issues with decolonial theory and offered a critique. I welcome their critique. We need to have a dialogue between different philosophies of liberation. Here is my response to their critique.

2. The Marxist critique of decolonial theory

On July 10, 2022, Vijay Prashad published an article on the website of People’s Democracy with the title «On Marxism and decolonisation». He says that «decolonial thinking remained trapped by European thought, returning again and again to European philosophy.» He continues: «The only real decolonisation is anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism. You cannot decolonise your mind unless you also decolonise the conditions of social production that reinforce the colonial mentality. Post-Marxism ignores the fact of social production, the need to build social wealth that must be socialised. Afro-pessimism suggests that such a task cannot be accomplished because of permanent racism.

Decolonial thought goes beyond Afro-pessimism but cannot go beyond post-Marxism, failing to see the necessity of decolonising the conditions of social production.»

Afro-pessimism is a theoretical framework that regards the current system of racism as not being very different from the system of slavery in the USA. Post Marxism offers a critique of some core doctrines of Marxism but remains committed to build some form of socialism.

In the same article Prashad continues: «Our tradition of National Liberation Marxism felt flattened, not able to answer the doubts sown by post-Marxism and post-colonial theory. And our traditions did not any longer have the kind of institutional support provided in an earlier period when revolutionary movements and governments assisted each other and when even the UN institutions would work to advance some of our ideas. It is telling that the slogan of the World Social Forum was another world is possible, not socialism is necessary, but just another world–even perhaps fascism.»

For him there is no alternative road to liberation then socialism. Socialism is the only way for humankind to emancipate.

In September 2022 Prashad published an article with ten theses on Marxism and Decolonisation. In October 2023 I responded to that article with a critique of per thesis. He never replied to that critique.

In the second thesis on the battle of ideas he criticizes Post Marxism and Postcolonialism.

Post Marxism is a reformist, not revolutionary, answer to the historical need for socialism. Postcolonialism favours revolutionary impossibility. He lumps postcolonialism and decolonial theory together. Prashad: «Decolonial thought or decolonialidad trapped itself by European thought, accepting the claim that many human concepts – such as democracy – are defined by the colonial ‘matrix of power’ or ‘matrix of modernity’.

The texts of decolonial thought returned again and again to European thought, unable to produce a tradition that was rooted in the anti-colonial struggles of our time. The necessity of change was suspended in these variants of post-colonialism.»

He regards decolonial theory as part of European thought. Decolonial thought fails to see the necessity of decolonising the conditions of social production. In Marxist terminology, the conditions of social productions are the social, economic, technological and natural circumstances under which the production of commodities takes place.

In a YouTube video published on June 13, 2024 with the title Decolonization via a Marxist Lens! Prashad blames decoloniality for looking only at culture, and neglecting «the political economy that structures everyday life and behavior.»[1]

On June 1, 2024, Vijay Prashad and Mikaela Nhondo Erskog, published an article in the socialist magazine Monthly Review, in which they review the work of Kevin Ochieng Okoth on Marxism and decoloniality. They write: «For Okoth, Decolonial Studies, like Afropessimism, diminishes the economic and political structures of the world and minimizes the fact of the class struggle—if not going so far as to dismiss it altogether.»

The result is that decolonial studies «evacuate any space in their theories for praxis. There is simply no room to maneuver, no agency afforded to people of African descent or +colonized peoples to struggle to change the world.»

Following Okoth, Prashad and Erskog list three features of Decolonial Studies.

«First, there is a dismissal of any serious attention to class relations and to the class struggle, which means—in essence—a rejection of Marxism. The entire Marxist tradition is pilloried for being Eurocentric, despite the long history of engagement by non-Europeans and the long history of elabouration of the Marxist tradition to be “slightly stretched” (as Fanon put it) or revised “to make it more precise and give it an even wider field of application” (as Cabral put it) in order to understand the relationship of the slave trade and colonialism to capitalism.»

«Second, there is a dismissal of praxis, with the emphasis being no longer on trying to change the world, and not even—in the case of Afropessimism—of trying to understand the world, but merely to recognize hierarchies as eternal, and hope as futile. This reprieve from the idea of change draws thought into an impasse, allowing intellectuals effectively to remain detached from the actualities of the struggles of humans to attain some kind of dignity in the world.»

«Third, because of the magnetism of the proponents of national liberation Marxism, even the most anti-Marxist thinkers are drawn to them. The challenge for the anti-Marxist theorist is to domesticate the national liberation leaders and treat them as assemblers of ideas and not people who were part of movements to transform the world.

Effectively, these anti-Marxist currents—such as Afropessimism and Decolonial Studies—surrender to reality, allowing themselves to believe that a critique of epistemology and ontology is sufficient as a form of radicalism.»

Prashad and Erskog take issue with the movement for reparations. Many decolonial activists support the demand for reparations. But Prashad and Erskog assert that «without a class demand here, the reparations will likely go to a national bourgeoisie who will not advance any agenda to benefit the people.» The demand for reparations is a social democratic demands that turn activists away from revolutionary politics.

On September 22, 2021, Kevin Ochieng Okoth published an article in Salvage, a bi-annual journal of revolutionary arts and letters, with the title «Decolonisation and its Discontents: Rethinking the Cycle of National Liberation». He notes that some decolonial theorist criticize Marxism as a Eurocentric theoretical framework. He responds: «This claim is, of course, both theoretically and historically false.»

According to Okoth Decolonial Studies (DS) has shifted «the terrain of decolonising from political economy to the more abstract question of decolonising knowledge».

Furthermore, he thinks that many proponents of DS «are based in the resource-hoarding universities of the global North ( especially the US)? Is there not a danger of reproducing precisely the kind of epistemic coloniality from which we are trying to de-link?»

Okoth concludes: «On closer inspection, then, DS turns out not to be an emancipatory discourse at all. In fact, if one is inclined to take any perspective that holds on to even the smallest commitment to the idea of revolution, it is openly reactionary.» He explains the reactionary character of DS:

«The relationship between thought and revolutionary action has long been a concern of Marxist thought… But the idealism of DS is … ‘a philosophy of order’, a reactionary theoretical discourse which affirms the academic hierarchy of intellects and positions while perpetuating the institution’s functioning….

How exactly DS is supposed to help us fight state violence, racial oppression, labor exploitation, military occupation, or imperialism more broadly, remains a mystery.»

Two years later, in 2023, Okoth published a book with the title «Red Africa. Reclaiming Revolutionary Black Politics» in which he further develops the argument.[2]

The purpose of the book is to challenge common misconceptions about national liberation by developing a distinctly anti-colonial and Black-revolutionary historiographic perspective which links «the contradictions of postcolonial sovereignty with universal questions about socialist strategy, and allows us to place anti-colonial Marxism within its proper historical and theoretical context.»[3]

He uses the phrase ‘Red Africa’ to distinguish a revolutionary anticolonial tradition from the reformist politics of African socialism. Some African socialists sought to distance themselves from Marxism and argued for a ‘third way’ socialism rooted in traditional African culture. Examples of this type of socialism was to be found in the ideas of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Sékou Touré in Guinea, Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia, Léopold Senghor in Senegal and Modibo Keïta in Mali.

Okoth: «Their anti-colonial politics were inspired by Nasserism – which had laid the foundations for non-alignment – and their socialism was based on the conviction that traditional communal elements of African culture were inherently socialist, and could serve as the basis for an egalitarian programme of national development.»[4]

He concludes that they «only served to mask class relations in independent nations. Though they appealed to socialism as a source of political legitimacy, their ideological commitments were weak. Often, the idea of a ‘pre-colonial’ socialism, emptied of its revolutionary content, was used to silence a leftist opposition which sought to challenge the one-party state by evoking a different, more radical kind of Marxian socialism.»[5]

I summarize their critique on decolonial theory as follows.

1. Decolonial theory neglects the conditions of social production and the political economy that structures everyday life and behavior.

2. Decolonial theory is embedded in European philosophy, despite its claim to be a critique of Eurocentrism.

3. Decolonial theory does not acknowledge the importance of class and class struggle.

4. Decolonial theory is not about changing the world. It is just a critique and not a practical philosophy.

5. Socialism should be the end goal of the struggle of humankind and Marxism is the best alternative for African experiments with socialism.

6. Decolonial theory regards Marxism as a Eurocentric theoretical framework, which is incorrect.

3. A DTM response to the Marxist critique

3.1 What are the sources of the Marxist critique?

If I offer a decolonial critique of Marxism, I take the writings of Marx and Engels as the sources of my critique. What are the decolonial sources that Marxists criticize? There is not one or just a few sources that represents the whole panorama of decolonial thought.

Okoth acknowledges the problem: «What do we mean when we speak about decolonisation? Despite an endless stream of op eds, essays, features, panels and books on the subject, there seems to be little agreement on what exactly we want to achieve by ‘decolonising’ something. Confusion about the term is constitutive of contemporary conversations.»[6]

Prashad c.s. take the writings of Walter Mignolo and Anibal Quijano, two leading scholar of decoloniality in Latin Abya Yala, as the source of their critique. But there are many thinkers outside Latin Abya Yala (Malaysia, New Zeeland, India, Africa) who made important contributions to decolonial theory. Nevertheless, it would not be fair to blame them for not taking all these contributions into account in their critique. They have every right to criticize only those thinkers that they have issues with. In my response to their critique I will not go into the authors they discuss. I will focus on the concepts from decolonial theory, that they criticize.

3.2 A DTM critique of decoloniality

Before I respond to the Marxist critique of decoloniality, I should make my position clear on decolonial theory. I come from a Marxist background. I was a member of the Trotskyite Fourth International. I evolved towards becoming a decolonial theorist and activist. I also have a critique of decoloniality as a theoretical framework. I published this critique here. Compared to Marxism, the school of decolonial theory is very young, only a few decades. The Marxist tradition is almost 200 years old. So it is understandable that there is not yet a fully developed decolonial theoretical framework.

I make a distinction between decoloniality and Decolonizing The Mind (DTM).

Decoloniality is a concept developed in Latin Abya Yala that states that there is another side of modernity. Modernity is seen by the European Enlightenment as something Good because it represents (European) progress and rationalism. The other side of modernity is the brutal colonial oppression and exploitation of the colonized world.

DTM is not a concept, but a comprehensive, coherent and integral theoretical framework with many interrelated concepts. A comprehensive, coherent and integral theoretical framework has the following characteristics:

1. It is comprehensive because it has produced concepts on how to look at the most important dimensions of a society: a view on world history, economics, politics, social relations including relations with nature (ecology), and culture. There are other important aspects of a society, but these dimensions are essential to make a framework comprehensive.

2. It is coherent because the concepts of the different dimensions don’t contradict each other. They are consistent and logical.

3. It is integral because the concepts of the different dimensions are not just lumped together but are related to each other from one or more basic concepts.

Marxism is a comprehensive, coherent and integral theoretical framework; decoloniality is not.

Decoloniality has made important contributions to decolonial theory: the acknowledgement that there is another side of modernity, the acknowledgement that colonialism has a cultural dimension besides the economic and political dimension, the focus on knowledge production as part of the cultural dimension, the attention for the importance of race and racism in social relations and the impact of colonialism on these relations including in the field of identity formation and the critique of the nation-state as the center for social analysis and the need to look at colonialism from a global perspective.

But decoloniality has its weaknesses:

*It is not comprehensive. There is no decolonial economic or political theory. Prashad c.s. are right when they point to this weakness.

*It is not coherent. The many different contributions can contradict each other. You will find reactionary element with some decolonial authors, as Okoth points out.

*Decoloniality is not integral. It is not clear what the foundational category for decolonial theory is from which to reconstruct a whole new (decolonial) knowledge system. In Liberalism it is individualism. In Marxism it is class. What is it in decoloniality? The critique of Prashad c.s. that the lack of class as a basis of análisis holds in so far that decoloniality does not offer an alternative basic concept of theoretical analysis.

*Decoloniality is mostly a critique, but in order to survive it needs to move to the stage in which it provides practical answers to practical problems. The lack of practical solutions for current world problems is a big defect of decoloniality. This point is rightly made by Prashad c.s..

*Decoloniality does not provide organizational concepts for social struggle. How do we organize for social struggle? Marxism proscribes building political parties to lead socialist revolutions. What does decoloniality suggest? This is a valid critique that is also voiced by Prashad c.s..

DTM is an effort to bring decolonial theory to the next level. There are three dimensions in DTM:

*The critique of Eurocentric knowledge production.

*The development of an alternative comprehensive, coherent and integral knowledge production.

*The translation of this new knowledge into viable and practical policies to build a new pluriversal world civilization.

As such it is an alternative philosophy of liberation, that is different from Marxism. The basis category in DTM is the concept of civilization. I define a civilization as a collection of societies with economic, political, social and cultural institutions that have a common cultural base. I define colonialism as a collection of global systems of economic, political, social and cultural institutions that the Global North has created in order to rule the world in a colonial world civilization since 1492. The common cultural base for the colonial world civilization is the European Enlightenment.

3.3 A DTM response to Prashad c.s.

With the DTM framework it is easy to answer the critique of Prashad c.s. The first critique is the neglect of the conditions of social production and the political economy that structures everyday life and behavior. In DTM we look at civilization as a collection o economic, political, social and cultural institutions. We analyze these institutions as an interconnected whole. It is not only about culture. In my book on Decolonizing The Mind I have a whole chapter on economic theory.

The second critique is that decolonial theory is embedded in European philosophy, despite its claim to be a critique of Eurocentrism. This is a curious critique from a school of thought that is embedded in the European Enlightenment. Anyway, DTM is a critique of the European Enlightenment, and questions its basic proposition from experiences of civilizations from the global south. Our critique of the European Enlightenment is based on knowledge that civilizations in the Global South have produced in various discipline, from philosophy and economic theory to mathematics and the natural sciences.

The third critique is that the importance of class and class struggle is not acknowledged.

In DTM we argue that the Marxist concept of class is insufficient to understand social relations. In Marxism class is defined as a social group related to the ownership. If you broaden the definition, then class can be a relevant concept in DTM. In Subaltern Studies, a school in Marxism, class is defined as a social group that is oppressed on the basis of class, caste, age, gender or in others ways. In DTM we can stretch this definition in a more general way.

A class is defined as a social group with common social-economic characteristics, such as income, property, or even social-economic lifestyle. There is no reason to stick with the Marxist definition of class. If you stick to this definition, social struggle must be defined as class struggle. If you accept other definitions, then social struggle is a struggle for social justice.

That struggle can be a national struggle, a struggle of ethnic communities for social justice, but it can also be a social-economic struggle (uplifting people from poverty), and thus not necessarily a class struggle. The demand that social theory should be based on class and class struggle only holds when you are a Marxist. It cannot be imposed on those theories of liberation that are not Marxist.

The fourth critique is that decolonial theory is not about changing the world. That does not hold for DTM. DTM formulates a vision for the future: the transition from the current colonial world civilization towards a new pluriversal world civilization. How this world civilization will look like will be determined not by theory but by the practice of decolonial struggle.

The fifth critique is that socialism should be the end goal of the struggle of humankind. If you are not a Marxist, then obviously this critique does not hold. In other philosophies of liberation other models of civilizations and societies are as valid as socialism.

The last critique is that it is incorrect to view Marxist as a Eurocentric theoretical framework. Marxism originated from the European Enlightenment, so obviously it has Eurocentric roots. The only way to claim that it is not Eurocentric is to assert that it is universal. Well, that is exactly an important characteristic of Eurocentrism: the claim of universality of knowledge that originated in Europe.

From a DTM perspective the Marxist critique of decolonial theory of Prashad c.s. is invalid. I will offer a DTM critique of Marxist theory and practice.

3.4 A DTM evaluation of Marxist theory

DTM is not just a critique of the European Enlightenment, Marxism included. It also an alternative philosophy of liberation. Prashad c.s. acknowledge only one valid philosophy of liberation: Marxism. The DTM evaluation of Marxist theory covers a broad spectrum of topics.

Philosophy

First, the subject of philosophy, and specifically epistemology. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge: what is knowledge and how is it produced? The Eurocentric view (both the Liberal and Marxist one) is that the purpose of knowledge production is the search for truth about the natural and social world. In DTM epistemology, it is not only about seeking the truth, but it is also about exposing lies. That is absent in Marxist philosophy.

In DTM, the notion of lies is inherent to Eurocentric epistemology. DTM epistemology has a specific method in detecting lies. The method is conceptual thinking. A concept is an idea that describes and explains certain aspects of the social and natural world.

Knowledge is contained in concepts. The concept is the basic unit of knowledge. A concept consists of five elements: terminology (a term is a linguistic expression of a concept), observation (a collection of facts about the object of knowledge production), analysis (a framing and a storyline with a certain logic that makes us understand reality), theory (a collection of interrelated concepts that provides a bigger picture of the natural and social reality) and ethics (knowledge is not only about true or false, but also about right and wrong).

DTM analyses the colonization of the mind on the level of epistemology by showing how these five elements are used to manipulate our view of reality.

There are six major differences between Eurocentric epistemology and DTM.

First, the purpose of knowledge. In Eurocentrism the purpose is seeking the truth. In DTM is about seeking the truth and dismantling lies, which are part of the colonization of the mind.

Second, the object of knowledge. In Eurocentrism the object of knowledge is limited to the observable world. In DTM the object of knowledge extends to the spiritual world, because the spiritual world is the basis for ethics in many civilizations.

Third, the sources of knowledge. In Eurocentrism there are only two sources of knowledge: observation and reasoning. In DTM we acknowledge the importance of these sources, but take other sources of knowledge into account: innate knowledge, common sense, social interaction, revelation, creativity, and imagination.

Fourth, the methodology of knowledge production. In Eurocentrism the same methods are used for natural and social sciences: mathematics, induction and deduction, separation of ethics from knowledge, employing two value logic (only true and false). In DTM there are different methods for natural and social sciences, because ethics ar intertwined with knowledge.

Fifth, the logical system. Eurocentrism uses two value logic (true and false). Marxism uses Hegelian dialectics which goes beyond two value logic. DTM uses seven value logics of Indian philosophy of Jainism that includes the factor of uncertainty that is missing in Hegelian dialectics.

Sixth, the role of ethics. In Eurocentrism knowledge is objective. Ethics is separated from knowledge. In DTM ethics is part of knowledge.

With this framework we reconstruct knowledge for a new world civilization using the insights of old civilizations and our creativity and imagination.

World history

The European Enlightenment has the concept of the end of history. It is an old concept that was put forward almost two centuries ago by German philosopher George Hegel (1770-1831) in his notion that Europe is the pinnacle of human history, the end of history, or as Hegel puts it: “the last stage in History, our world, our own time.”[7]

History has come to an end with the rise of European modernity. Hegel wrote this in 1830. For Marxism the end of history comes with communism.

If there is one single lesson that we can draw from history, it is the proposition that there is no end of history. We cannot know how the world will look like in 70,000 years. The last 7,000 years of the history of civilizations show that there is a wide variety of posible worlds.

The colonial world civilization is only five hundred years old and its dominant knowledge base – the European Enlightenment – is only 350 years old. Both Liberalism and Marxism have a unilinear view of the development world history.

World history has not developed in a unilinear way, but as a spider web. Each Civilization has contribute to the growth of humankind from its own specific background. With the colonial world civilization we have reached a stage in which humankind has become a global community with legacies of diverse civilizations.

The question «What are we fighting for?» has a very simple answer that can be found in the hearts and desires of human kind and has been articulated in many civilizations. We are fighting for a future based on social justice, prosperity, peace, harmony, dignity, love, and freedom.

Social justice is about eradicating exploitation and oppression. Prosperity is about providing a decent standard of living and eradicating poverty. Peace is about creating conditions for a life without violence. Harmony is about creating conditions to solve problems through dialogue instead of fights. Dignity is about showing respect to yourself and others. Love is about caring for yourself and others. Freedom is about finding a balance between rights and duties.

We live in a world, a civilization, without social justice, prosperity, peace, harmony, dignity, love, and freedom. We are fighting for a new world civilization that is based on these values. Market and public or private ownership of the means can play a positive role in this world.

Marxist economic theory

The core of Marxist economic theory is the theory of labour value. Labour produces value. The value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour that is necessary to produce the commodity. Because the capitalist owns the means of production and the commodities that the labourer produces, it has the power to appropriate the total value and to pay the labourer less than the total value. The difference is surplus value.

Marxism does not acknowledge a right of an entrepreneur to surplus value. Profit is surplus value that is appropriated by the capitalist, and this is the essence of capitalist exploitation. Marxism regards this as a scientific discovery. It is a fact and has nothing to do with ethics.

The practical implication of this theory is that we need to strive to abolish private ownership of the means of production and markets and replace them with public ownership of the means of production and central planning.

DTM regards the labour theory of value as an axiom and based on ethics, not on science.

Entrepreneurship can add value to the economy with innovation, vision and managerial talents. Private ownership of means of production is not by definition equal to exploitation. Whether there is exploitation depends on how in a particular society social justice is perceived. It depends on ethics.

DTM economic theory is concerned about how to build economic institutions and structures that can develop the infrastructure of a society and provide a decent standard of living for the people. It is also based on social justice. Each society will have its own ethics that defines social justice. It is not universal.

The practical implication of DTM economic theory is the rebuilding of the economy of different societies and reorganizing the global economy in order to serve the need of the people.

Marxist social theory

Marxist social theory is based on Marxist economic theory. The concept of class is based on the concept of surplus value. In capitalism surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class because of the ownership of the means of production and the necessity for the working class to sell its labour power to the capitalist. If you don’t subscribe to the labour theory of value, then you don’t have to accept the notion of class as the cornerstone of society.

DTM social theory is based on the concept of community. A community is a social group that is defined by an identity. The basis of this identity can be historical (a common history), ideological (a common belief system), cultural (a common language and other cultural traits) or other characteristics that define the identity of a community.

A big difference between DTM social theory and Eurocentrism is that in Eurocentrism humans are regarded as social objects. Natural sciences study natural objects like the moon, a rock or an atom. It studies the characteristics of the object: its shape, matter, functioning etc. In a similar way, Eurocentric social sciences study human beings as objects.

The concept of patriarchy studies gender as part of a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women. In this concept there is no room for love between men and women. Humans are studied as social object with characteristics as domination, oppression and exploitation.

Yet, the same human beings can be seen in loving relationships as husband and wife, father and daughter, brother and sister. In order to understand both elements (oppression and love), we need another concept of human beings, not as social objects, but as ethical beings with the capacity to shape their lives (individually and socially) by interacting with the natural and technological environment and based on an ethical system that provides guidelines for norms and values.

Once we take this approach, social theory cannot be universal nor objective. Some communities, like the Yoruba in Africa, don’t even have words for gender (father, mother, man and woman). Therefore, how would their social theory look like?

In DTM social theory we acknowledge the role that colonialism has played in instituting racism in social relations. Racism is the articulation of superiority and inferiority among human beings based on theology, biology or culture. It plays an important part in the study of social relations. In Marxism racism is an instrument of dividing the working class. It does not see the concept of superiority/inferiority as an tool of organizing social relations.

The practical implication of DTM social theory is to develop policies to empower communities that fight injustice and to develop anti-racist policies that confronts the foundations of the institutions that drive racism. It constructs the unity of relation between humans and nature and between communities with divergent ethics.

Marxist political theory

Marxist political theory is based on Marxist economic and social theory. Social is based on the concept of class. The political struggle is a class struggle. The state is an instrument of the ruling class. A revolution is needed to bring down the capitalist state and build a new state based on the dictatorship of the proletariat. The socialist state is a secular state. The institutions of the capitalist state are fundamentally different from the institutions of a socialist state.

In DTM every state has an ethical foundation, be it implicit or explicit. Ethics determines how a community should run its society through the state. A Buddhist, Confucian, Muslim or Hindu society is based on the ethics of that particular civilization.

Marxist cultural theory

I define culture as a system of production and dissemination of knowledge about nature and society and the material and immaterial expression of this knowledge. The production of knowledge is not only about producing insights into nature and society. It is also about values, belief systems, communication, feelings and emotions of individuals and social groups about their identity and rules and rituals that express their identity.

Furthermore, it is about the relationship between humans and nature. Culture is institutionalized in educational institutions that produce knowledge, in institutions for the dissemination of knowledge and expressed in material culture (clothing, food, housing, architecture etc) and immaterial culture (language, art, customs, rituals etc).

Cultural theories are theories that describe and explain the phenomenon of culture. In Marxism culture is part of the superstructure of a class society and as such is influenced heavily by its base (economic and technological foundation). Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) developed a Marxist cultural theory with the concept of hegemony.

The capitalist class maintains its rule not only by force and coercion, but also through cultural domination. Gramsci saw Europe as basis for his theory. He did not study colonialism, which dominated much of the world. His narrow-mindedness prevented him from seeing how colonialism colonized the mind.

His contemporary from Jamaica, Marcus Garvey (1887-1940), had a much wider vision of culture and power. He developed the concept of mental slavery and the mechanism of how Western political domination was based on racism and the colonization of the mind.

The practical implication of DTM cultural theory is a wide range of policies to decolonize the mind.

3.5 A DTM evaluation of Marxist practice

The Marxism of Prashad c.s. has to answer a simple question. The logical consequence of the labour theory of value is that social justice can only be achieved by building a socialist economy in which the means of production are owned by the state and the production, distribution and financing of goods and services are organized on the basis of central planning. You might temporarily use private entrepreneurs and the market to overcome a period in which the socialist economy is not fully developed, but this temporary situation is accepted out of political and economic necessity.

The simple question is this: if the ultimate goals of socialism is public ownership of the means of production and central planning, what are the lessons these Marxist draw from the demise of the Soviet Union and the introduction of private ownership of the means of production and markets in China? From a DTM framework the answer is simple: the history of Russia and China show that there is no universal concept of justice, and thus of one universal just economic system.

There are different economic system that provide a valid answer to the question of social justice. In Islam there is even a religious concept of a just economic system. It is possible to have a just economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production and markets. According to the labor theory of value that is impossible.

Prashad says that we should look at the introduction of private ownership of the means of production and markets in China through the lens of a dialectical process.[8]

Then the question arises: where is the process going ultimately: public ownership of the means of production and central planning?

Prashad c.s. argue that African activists should study the working of the revolutionary leaders of the African liberation movements, especially the Marxists in those movements.

Take South Africa. Apartheid was abolished in 1994. The ANC, supported by the South African Communist Party, has not been able to achieve a substantial improvement of the living standards of ordinary South Africans. Capitalism has not worked. What is the alternative economic program for South Africa from a Marxist perspective? From a DTM perspective it is about bringing ethics back in economic processes.

The state should take a leading role in uplifting people from poverty and developing the economy. They can use an array of instruments: public ownership of specific industries, taxation, rules and regulations, stimuli for private entrepreneurs and use their talents to build an strong economic base for the country.

My problem with the emphasis on going back to the Marxist classical thinkers, in Europe and the African liberation movement, is that ultimately their strategy for public ownership of the means of production and central is an impractical strategy.

What kind of political system to Prashad c.s. propose? In DTM I argue that there is no universal political system, that we should strive for, but base a strategy on the historica traditions of a country and their communities. For Iran, with a tradition of 1,400 years of Islamic civilization, it is natural to look at political systems that Islamic scholars have thought about and that fits in that civilization. In Venezuela the socialist have opted for a parliamentary democracy. The could work very well for Venezuela given their history and traditions. Is there a universal socialist political system that Marxists should fight for?

3.6 The relationship between DTM and Marxism

In many parts of the world and in many social movement decolonial thought is very much on the agenda. That as an impetus for the critique of Prashad c.s. on decoloniality.

The purpose of my DTM evaluation of Marxism is to start a dialogue with activists and theoreticians from different backgrounds, but with the same drive for social justice, on how to build a new and better world. Many Marxists have played and are still playing a crucial role in the fight for a better world.

Prashad has done wonderful work in the critique of imperialism and in the defence of the major enemies of imperialism, notable China. He refrains from defending Iran in the imperialist assault on the Islamic Republic. Iran together with China and Russia are playing an important role in shaping a multipolar world.

Many socialists and progressive people are taking an interest in how the multipolar world is developing. That includes an interest in the political and social systems of the countries who are in the lead: China, Russia and Iran.

YouTube has many videos of Mohammad Marandi, professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran, who engages with progressive activists in the global north. Marandi paves the way for a dialogue between socialists, progressive anti-imperialist and the Iranian revolution. I hope that Prashad c.s. can be convinced to join this dialogue on building a new world civilization and the role that Marxists can play in this regard.

---

[1] Timeslot 18.15-18.27.

[2] Okoth, K.O. (2023): Red Africa. Reclaiming Revolutionary Black Politics. Verso. London.

[3] Okoth, K.O. (2023), p. 13-14.

[4] Okoth, K.O. (2023), p. 78-79.

[5] Idem.

[6] Okoth, K.O. (2021): Decolonisation and its Discontents: Rethinking the Cycle of National Liberation. https://salvage.zone/decolonisation-and-its-discontents-rethinking- the-cycle-of-national-liberation/.

[7] Quoted in Hira, S. (2023): Decolonizing The Mind A Guide to Decolonial Theory and Practice. Amrit Publishers. The Hague, p. 476.

[8] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz40oRYmnfU and

Lesser evilism in the current elections has no political utility. The concept and the associated political practice, which I never found very useful, rests on the notion that the differences between one candidate and the other are differences of degree. But that isn’t the case in this election.

The differences between Kamala Harris and Trump are differences of kind. Or said differently, what separates them are qualitative differences, not quantitative ones. None more so than their attitude toward democratic governance, democracy, and constitutionalism.

Harris would defend, deepen, and extend in its many forms. Trump, on the other hand, would not waste a New York minute before running roughshod over them. You may not believe me, but you should believe Trump who said he would be dictator on Day 1. And much more in this vein.

There is no reason to think he is engaging in hyperbole. Or making promises that he won’t keep. Or only speaking in such extremist language to mobilize his retrograde base for the elections. He means and believes what he says. To think otherwise is not only mistaken and naive, but exceedingly dangerous to your future and the future of the country and world.

El 28 de agosto de 1524 se iniciaba la rebelión Kaqchiquel contra la dominación española recién instaurada en el territorio denominado Coactemalan en el idioma hablado por los pueblos Nahuatl o Iximuleo como era conocido por los mayas.
Esta fecha se toma como punto de partida para este artículo, sin embargo,
tiene como marco los 500 años de la invasión hispana a este territorio y al
que se conocía como Cuscatan, el actual El Salvador.
Se dice Coactemalan que era como conocido este territorio porque en
el momento de la conquista, el Nahuatl era el idioma franco gracias a la influencia política y económica que tenía el Imperio Azteca o Mexica y era
la lengua del grupo dominante de ese Estado, sin embargo tal idioma era hablado en lo que hoy es el centro de México, eso en el escenario cultural de lo que ahora se denomina Mesoamericana.
De hecho, los aztecas en un primer momento tribus nómadas que se
movían en el norte de México, entran al área cultural mesoamericana y se
civilizan en términos antropológicos, adoptando las prácticas agrícolas y
calendáricas por ejemplo ya existentes, pero convirtiéndose en un periodo de
un poco más de un siglo en un imperio centralizado y con una extensión considerada.
El contexto geopolítico
La situación del territorio de Ixumuleo o Coactemalan, estaba dominando por la Confederación Kiche, el cual estaba en un proceso de expansión sobre otros pueblos mayas tales como Ixiles, Kaqchiqueles, Mam, Tz’ikinajay o también conocidos como Tzutujiles, por territorio y tributos sobre todo para extender prácticas agrícolas y comerciales.
Por otro lado la forma de organización de estos era por medio de una confederación, donde había uno o más linajes dominantes, por ejemplo
con los Kiches estaban los K’oyoi, Nijab, Nima, pero el dominante era el Kaweq.
Con los Kakchiqueles quienes tan solo un poco más de un siglo habían roto con
la Confederación Kiche, el dominante era Xajil, pero también estaba el Sotz’il
y el Tukuche, ademas existían el de Chajoma que era una formación estatal autónoma. En el caso de Tzi’iknajay estaba conformado por el linaje de los Malaj.
Linaje es un grupo familiar basado en la propiedad y posesión de la tierra y el territorio como organización básica del modo despótico tributario, cuyas
cabezas se hacen el grupo dominante de una forma estatal y social, en lo
que Gordon Childe denominó Unidad Dirigente.
Por su parte en el caso de los Castellanos aunque en sus fuentes ya se denominaban españoles, como Estado España estaba en formación
y que por los acuerdos entre las coronas de Castilla y Aragón que fue
el embrión de lo que se conoció como la monarquía hispana, Aragón le tocaba
administrar territorios conquistados en el mar Mediterráneo, mientras
Castilla le tocaba hacerlo allende del Océano Atlántico, gracias al Tratado
de Tordesillas con que se repartieron con Portugal los territorios colonizados.
Estos reinos a su vez estaban en un periodo de transición de un modo de producción feudal a uno que se encaminaba al capitalismo en su fase mercantil y recién desalojaban de la península ibérica, la presencia musulmana
con el último reducto en Granada.
Las características de la conquista
La llegada hispana a estos lares no fue más que un choque entre civilizaciones
muy distintas, donde los primeros aprovechando la fragmentaciones
entre Estados y sociedades del área de Mesoamerica logrando el respaldo
de diferentes pueblos que estaban sojuzgados por el Imperio Azteca y
que acompañaron en la conquista de los señoríos mayas, xincas, nahua-pipiles y lencas.
De hecho acompañando a los hermando Alvarado, donde sobresalía
Pedro, quien tuvo el cargo de Adelantando y que eran lugartenientes
de Hernán Cortés que había ocupado la capital azteca y fundando sobre la
ruinas de ese imperio el Virreinato de la Nueva España, el grueso de las
tropas invasoras fue un contingente de pueblos tlaxcaltecas, choluleños y demás pueblos de habla nahuatl como queda marcado en el Lienzo de Tlaxcala,
por lo menos en la conquista de lo que hoy es Guatemala y El Salvador.
Con respecto a la destrucción de la Confederación Kiche, se conoce por los
estudios de las fuentes que los Kiches fueron informados de la presencia y
destrucción de Tenochtitlan (la capital mexica) por los invasores, eso debido
a la presencia de emisarios aztecas llamados Pochtecas que actuaban tanto
como comerciantes y espías; además ya había presencia de enfermedades
contagiosas que trajeron los españoles y empezaban a generar altísimas tazas
de mortandad en la población indígena.
Ya en territorio de Coactemalan el ejército invasor, al cruzar rio Suchiate tuvo el primer enfrentamiento como las tropas del señorío Kiche en San Francisco
Zapotitan dirigido por Tecum Uman, el 08 de febrero de 1524, esta
es una zona ubicada en tierras bajas de cara al Océano Pacifico, donde está el
camino hasta la fecha hacia las tierras altas, especialmente a la ciudad Xelaju Noj,hoy Quetzaltenango.
Sobre Tecun Uman es importante destacar que mucho se ha discutido sobre la
veracidad de este y más por el uso desde el nacionalismo reaccionario que
se le ha dado. Pero algunas fuentes indígenas como el Titulo K’oyoi entre
otras se le menciona y lo que se sabe es que Tecun era el nombre del capitán
de los ejércitos, emparentando con los linajes gobernantes de la Confederación
Kiche y Uman era un título de guerra.
Xelaju Noj a su vez, unas décadas antes había sido conquistada por los
Kiches a costa de los Mayas- Mam en un proceso de expansión de los
primeros ante la necesidad de suelos ricos para la agricultura ubicados en
las tierras bajas, pues los kiches habían establecido inicialmente su señorío en
las tierras altas del altiplano centro-occidental guatemalteco y cuando
la llegada de los castellanos, estos estaban en expansión en guerra con
otros pueblos ya mencionados.
En marzo de 1524 las tropas españolas con el auxilio de los otros
pueblos indígenas asolaban y destruían la capital Kiche, Q’umarkaj en el
altiplano occidental asesinando a los Ajpop (señores) de la confederación
Oxib-Keh y al señor electo Beleheb-Tzy al engañarlo con un supuesto tratado
de paz. La población sobreviviente fue trasladada a lo que hoy es Santa
Cruz del Quiche, hoy una cabecera departamental. En las acciones contra
los Kiches este contó con el respaldo de la Confederación Kaqchiquel cuyas
tierras estaban ubicadas más al centro en el departamento de Chimaltenango
y los Tzi’ikinajay ubicados al sur del departamento de Atitlán y en parte de
la boca costa por el lago del mismo nombre.
Sin embargo estos rápidamente se rebelan ante las practicas injustas
de exigencia de tributos y el despojo total de las tierras al linaje principal y a
los linajes secundarios donde confluía el grueso de la población, generando
protesta y levantamiento. Alvarado derrota a estos en la batalla de
Técpan Atitlán el 18 de abril de 1524, destruyendo además la capital Chiya
en inmediaciones del volcán Choyjuyub hoy San Pedro, trasladando la capital hacia lo que hoy es Santiago Atitlán, todo a orillas de este lago de origen
volcánico.
Posteriormente las huestes invasoras bajaran nuevamente a tierras
bajas al territorio de Ixcuintepeq un señorío de origen Nahua-Pipil el cual es
derrotado en dos importantes batallas y al territorio Xinca, el cual era el
único grupo de origen no mayense. En 1525 iniciara la invasión al señorío de
Cuscatan con la batalla de Acajatla y el inicio de la conquista a los señoríos
pipiles, Pokomanes orientales, Chortis y lencas.
Rebeliones indígenas
Sin embargo, las rebeliones no se hicieron esperar, al igual que los Tzutijiles, los
Kaqchiqueles se levantan contra la exigencia de tributos inhumanos, el despojo sobre todo de los linajes superiores y los malos tratos a la población en general. Estos abandonan su capital Iximche y empiezan a hostigar a los españoles que
habían fundado cerca de ella Tecpam lo cual los obliga a trasladarse ya con el nombre de Santiago de los Caballeros a lo que hoy es Ciudad Vieja. Sin
embargo, el cansancio de los kaqchiqueles, la evangelización cristiana a otros grupos, así como los ataques contantes españoles obligaron a los señores Kaqchiqueles a rendirse y la población es dispersada en varias ciudades del altiplano central.
Otras rebeliones se dieron en la región como las de los Ixiles o la de los pipiles,
pero fueron totalmente sofocadas.
Dos elementos que actuaron como atenuantes de la rebeldía fue, la
adopción del cristianismo de parte del cabeza de linaje y el reconocimiento de
tierras a algunos de ellos, aunque muchas veces tuvieron que defenderla ante las
cortes hispanas y las institucionales coloniales; además del aparecimiento
de una fracción aristócrata minoritaria de origen indígena, aunque menor que
en Nueva España o en el Virreinato del Perú.

Las fiestas patronales de El Salvador son celebraciones populares que se realizan año con año en los municipios, ciudades o pueblos del país con el objetivo de llevar alegría al mismo, aunque también cada una de estas festividades tiene un fondo religioso.

Por lo general, las fiestas patronales empiezan nueve días antes del día principal y comienzan con un recorrido conocido como desfile del correo, en el cual se recorren las principales calles de la localidad, acompañados de los viejos o enmascarados, bandas de música, y otras personas como el alcalde, autoridades municipales, religiosas de seguridad y la reina de las fiestas, así como también los habitantes.

Durante los siguientes días se celebran misas y novenarios junto con otras actividades recreativas. El día antes de la fiesta suele conocerse como víspera y se concentran la mayoría de actividades en él. Cabe destacar que cada una de las fiestas siempre tiene un personaje o santo al cual se le conmemora.

En estas fiestas también hay otras actividades o cosas que no pueden faltar, las cuales puedes conocer en este artículo. Es por ello que queremos presentarte un listado de fiestas patronales de El Salvador, ordenadas por mes.

Fecha Ciudad En Honor a:

ENERO

08-15 Juayúa, Sonsonate Cristo de Esquipulas

15-21 Cojutepeque, Cuscatlán San Sebastián

13-14 San Alejo, La Unión Señor de los Milagros

13-15 Colón, La Libertad Cristo de Esquipulas

18-20 Conchagua, La Unión San Sebastián Mártir

18-20 Guatajiagua, Morazán San Sebastián Mártir

21-22 Perquín, Morazán San Sebastián Mártir

22-28 San Julián, Sonsonate San Julián

23-28 San Sebastián, San Vicente San Sebastián Mártir

25-1 Feb. Ayutuxtepeque, San Salvador San Sebastián Mártir

FEBRERO

25 Ene.-2 Feb. Nueva Concepción, Chalatenango Virgen de Candelaria 31 Ene.-2 Feb. Candelaria de la Frontera, Santa Ana Virgen de Candelaria 30 Ene.-4 Feb. Moncagua, San Miguel Virgen de Candelaria 05-14 Ahuachapán, Ahuachapán Dulce Nombre de Jesús 25 Ene.-2 Feb. Sonsonate, Sonsonate Virgen de Candelaria 10-18 La Palma, Chalatenango Dulce Nombre de Maria 18-27 San Luis la Herradura La Paz San Luis Gonzaga

MARZO 15-20 Berlín, Usulután San José 16-20 El Paisnal, San Salvador San José Patriarca 17-19 Verapaz, San Vicente San José 17-19 Turín, Ahuachapán San José 17-19 Meanguera del Golfo, La Unión San José 19-21 San José las Flores, Chalatenango San José 23-25 El Triunfo, Usulután Divino Rostro

ABRIL 22-23 San Jorge, San Miguel San Jorge 24-25 San Marcos, San Salvador San Marcos Evangelista 24-25 Chiltiupán, La Libertad San Marcos Evangelista

MAYO

10-23 Puerto El Triunfo, Usulután Nuestra Señora de Fátima

12-25 San Isidro, Cabañas San Isidro Labrador

22-23 Acajutla, Sonsonate Santísima Trinidad

JUNIO

19-25 Nahuizalco, Sonsonate San Juan Bautista

23-29 Caluco, Sonsonate San Pedro Apóstol

23-24 San Juan Nonualco, La Paz San Juan Bautista

25-29 Metapán, Santa Ana San Pedro Apóstol

27-30 Corinto, Morazán San Pedro Apóstol

JULIO

01-26 Santa Ana, Santa Ana Nuestra Señora Santa Ana                               17-22 Tacuba, Ahuachapán Santa Maria Magdalena                                      19-25 Santiago de Maria, Usulután Santiago Apóstol                                  20-25 Tenancingo, Cuscatlán Santiago Apóstol                                            20-25 Santiago Nonualco, La Paz Santiago Apóstol                                   23-31 San Ignacio, Chalatenango San Ignacio de Loyola                           25-26 Ciudad Delgado, San Salvador Santiago Apóstol                              25-26 Chapeltique, San Miguel Nuestra Señora Santa Ana

AGOSTO 01-04 Sto. Domingo de Guzmán, Sonsonate Santo Domingo 01-06 San Salvador, San Salvador Divino Salvador del Mundo 07-15 Izalco, Sonsonate Virgen de la Asunción 08-15 Chinameca, San Miguel Divino Salvador del Mundo 12-16 Mejicanos, San Salvador Virgen del Transito 22-26 Santa Rosa de Lima, La Unión Santa Rosa 25-26 San Antonio del Monte, Sonsonate San Antonio

SEPTIEMBRE

12-14 Panchimalco, San Salvador Santa Cruz de Roma 15-21 Comasagua, La Libertad San Mateo 20-24 Mercedes Umaña, Usulután Virgen de la Merced 26-29 Alegría, Usulután San Miguel Arcángel 26-29 Ilobasco, Cabañas San Miguel Arcángel 26-29 Guazapa, San Salvador San Miguel Arcángel 27-29 Huizucar, La Libertad San Miguel Arcángel

OCTUBRE 1-4 San Francisco Gotera, Morazán San Francisco de Asís 2-4 San Francisco Morazán, Chalatenango San Francisco de Asís 11-12 Zaragoza, La Libertad Nuestra Señora del Pilar 11-12 Soyapango, San Salvador Nuestra Señora del Rosario 20-25 Tejutepeque, Cabañas San Rafael Arcángel

NOVIEMBRE 01-11 San Martín, San Salvador San Martín Obispo 07-14 Salcoatitán, Sonsonate San Miguel Arcángel 13-16 Ilopango, San Salvador San Cristóbal 14-30 San Miguel, San Miguel Virgen de la Paz 20-25 Armenia, Sonsonate Santa Teresa 25-30 Chalchuapa, Santa Ana Santiago Apóstol 29-30 Apaneca, Ahuachapán San Andrés

DICIEMBRE 01-08 Ciudad Arce, La Libertad Virgen de Concepción 01-09 Citalá, Chalatenango Inmaculada Concepción 03-13 La Unión, La Unión Inmaculada Concepción 04-15 Cinquera, Cabañas San Nicolás Obispo 04-08 Delicias de Concepción, Morazán Inmaculada Concepción 24 Nov.-2 Dic. Sensuntepeque Cabañas Santa Bárbara 06-08 Intipucá, La Unión Inmaculada Concepción 06-08 Quezaltepeque, Chalatenango Inmaculada Concepción 06-13 Suchitoto, Cuscatlán Santa Lucia 07-08 La Libertad, La Libertad Inmaculada Concepción 27 Nov.-08 Dic. Atiquizaya, Ahuachapán Inmaculada Concepción 10-13 Zacatecoluca, La Paz Santa Lucia 11-15 Concepción de Ataco, Ahuachapán Inmaculada Concepción 12-14 San Pablo Tacachico, La Libertad San Pablo Apóstol 15-31 San Vicente, San Vicente San Vicente Abad 16-25 Nueva San Salvador, La Libertad Niño Jesús 18-25 Chalatenango, Chalatenango Niño Jesús 20-29 Antiguo Cuscatlán, La Libertad Santos Niños Inocentes 20-26 San Juan Opico, La Libertad San Juan Opico 25-27 Texistepeque, Santa Ana San Esteban

Cada uno de nosotros somos únicos y diferentes, pero si nos paramos a observar quizás encontremos algunos rasgos convergentes entre varios tipos de personas. Es justamente en esta premisa en la que se centra la teoría de la personalidad de Lewis Goldberg también es conocida como el “Modelo de los cinco grandes”.  ¿Alguna vez habías oído hablar de ella? Hoy en nuestro blog te contamos cuáles son los 5 grandes rasgos de la personalidad según Goldberg. ¡No te lo pierdas!

La teoría que conforma el “Modelo de los cinco grandes” nace a raíz de diversos estudios que trataban de averiguar cuáles son los factores y desencadenantes para explicar la personalidad de las personas. Este modelo nace en el año 1933 pero no se consolidará como teoría hasta el año 1993, de hecho, es esta teoría la que ha desembocado en distintos tests que sirven para evaluar y medir los rasgos y características de la personalidad.

Según Goldberg, los cinco grandes rasgos de personalidad, también llamados factores principales, reciben los siguientes nombres: factor O (apertura a las nuevas experiencias), factor C (responsabilidad), factor E (extroversión), factor A (amabilidad) y factor N (neuroticismo o inestabilidad emocional), formando así el acrónimo “OCEAN”.

O: Apertura a la experiencia

El primer rasgo que identificamos en este modelo es la apertura a la experiencia, acuñado como el Factor O. Este rasgo está totalmente relacionado con la capacidad humana de buscar nuevas experiencias en nuestra vida, así mismo también tiene que ver con la habilidad de visualizar un futuro de forma creativa.

Las personas con un nivel elevado de apertura a la experiencia son perfiles imaginativos, que aprecian la cultura y que consiguen establecer relaciones de equipo con los demás. Este tipo de personas persiguen el cambio continuo ya que están seguras de que si se aferran a ideas fijas significa aferrarse al inmovilismo y a la quietud. (Ojo: Resistencia al cambio)

C: La responsabilidad

El rasgo de la responsabilidad tiene que ver con la habilidad del autocontrol y la capacidad de diseñar métodos de acción eficaces. Las personas que tiene un alto grado de responsabilidad son grandes planificadores y organizadores además de tener un fuerte compromiso con los objetivos y metas.

A su vez, este tipo de perfiles son vistos por los demás como personas confiables y escrupulosas. En el caso de encontrar individuos con un puntuación extrema en este rasgo de personalidad podemos observar comportamientos demasiados perfeccionistas e incluso obsesivos, por ese motivo las personas de factor C requieren un cierto equilibrio para no caer en el extremo. (Ojo: responsable)

E: Extraversión

La extraversión tiene que ver con el grado en el que el sujeto esta abierto con los demás, es decir, el factor E analiza cuánto le agrada a un sujeto estar rodeado de los demás.

Lógicamente el perfil opuesto es el individuo introvertido, estas personas de caracterizan por tener una personalidad reservada, lo que los lleva a que en muchas ocasiones puedan ser juzgados como antipáticos. Los perfiles introvertidos son más reflexivos que los extrovertidos y les gusta menos formar parte de grupos elevados de personas, prefieren establecerse en una rutina y pasar tiempo con la familia.  (Ojo: introvertido)

A: Amabilidad

La amabilidad es el rasgo que muestra el grado de tolerancia y respeto de una persona. Una persona amable será aquella que confía en la honestidad de la palabra, su vocación es prestar la ayuda a aquellos que lo necesiten. La humildad, la sencillez y la empatía son los atributos básicos de las personas amables.  (Ojo: soberbio)

N: Estabilidad emocional

La estabilidad emocional es la resiliencia con la que una persona afronta las situaciones problemáticas en la vida, los individuos tranquilos no suelen sentir rabia y huyen del enfado, su estado es animado y saben gestionar correctamente las crisis personales. En el polo opuesto nos encontramos a las personas que se caracterizan por tener un comportamiento impredecible, ya que sus reacciones varían sin que sea muy claro por qué. (Ojo:estable)

Índice de contenido

    O: Apertura a la experiencia

    C: La responsabilidad

    E: Extraversión

    A: Amabilidad

    N: Estabilidad emocional

En psicología, el modelo de los cinco grandes, conocido a veces como «el modelo de personalidad de cinco factores» o «modelo Ocean» (por sus siglas en inglés), es una taxonomía o agrupación de cinco características únicas sugerida para estudiar los rasgos de la personalidad,[1]​ desarrollada a partir de la década de 1980 en la teoría psicológica de los rasgos.

Los rasgos de personalidad incluyen patrones relativamente estables de cogniciones, creencias y comportamientos. Además, debido en parte a que los rasgos de personalidad están influidos por factores genéticos[2]​ y experiencias vitales tempranas,[3]​ son relativamente estables a lo largo del tiempo.[4]​

Cuando se aplica análisis factorial a los datos de pruebas de personalidad, este revela asociaciones semánticas: algunas palabras utilizadas para describir aspectos de la personalidad se aplican a menudo a la misma persona. Por ejemplo, alguien descrito como concienzudo tiene más probabilidades de ser descrito como «siempre preparado» que como «desordenado». Estas asociaciones han sugerido cinco grandes dimensiones utilizadas en el lenguaje común para describir la personalidad, el temperamento y la psique humanas.[5]​[6]El modelo de los Cinco Grandes ha funcionado como un potente marco teórico para sintetizar la mayor parte de la variación de tales patrones.[7]​

A partir de la década de 1990, la teoría identificó cinco factores entre la población estadounidense, cada uno de los cuales puede subdividirse en dos valores distintos. Existen traducciones ligeramente diferentes de los nombres de estos factores y valores al español,[8][9]​[10]​que se listan a continuación:[11]​

    Apertura a la experiencia (en inglés, Openness to Experience): un grado de curiosidad intelectual, ingenio, creatividad y preferencia por la novedad y la variedad, y una disposición a considerar ideas no convencionales. Incluye los valores: inventivo/curioso versus constante/cauteloso

    Escrupulosidad, Consciencia, Organización o Responsabilidad (en inglés, Conscientiousness): una tendencia a mostrar autodisciplina, planificación y organización, reflejando orden, cumplimiento, afán de logro, autodisciplina y deliberación. Incluye los valores: eficiente/organizado versus extravagante/despreocupado

    Extraversión (en inglés, Extraversion): refleja emociones positivas, calidez, actividad, sociabilidad, gregarismo, asertividad y una tendencia a buscar estímulo en la compañía de otros. Incluye los valores: extrovertido/enérgico versus solitario/reservado

    Amabilidad, Agradabilidad o Afabilidad (en inglés, Agreeableness): una tendencia a ser prosocial y cooperativo con los demás en lugar de antagonista, reflejando la confianza, el altruismo, el cumplimiento y la modestia. Incluye los valores: amistoso/compasivo versus crítico/moralista

    Neuroticismo (en inglés, Neuroticism): una vulnerabilidad a emociones desagradables como la ansiedad, la ira, la hostilidad o la depresión. Incluye los valores: sensible/nervioso versus resistente/seguro de sí mismo

Los cinco rasgos o factores principales se suelen denominar tradicionalmente como: factor O (Openness o apertura a la experiencia), factor C (Conscientiousness o escrupulosidad), factor E (Extraversion o extraversión), factor A (Agreeableness o amabilidad) y factor N (Neuroticism o neuroticismo), los cinco forman en inglés el acrónimo mnemotécnico «OCEAN» o «CANOE».

Debajo de cada factor global propuesto, hay una serie de factores primarios correlacionados y más específicos. Por ejemplo, la extraversión suele asociarse a cualidades como el gregarismo, la asertividad, la búsqueda de entusiasmo, la calidez, la actividad y las emociones positivas.[12]​ Estos rasgos no son blancos o negros, sino que se sitúan en continuos.[13]​

Si bien existen otros esquemas de categorización, el Modelo de los Cinco Grandes se ha erigido como el marco dominante en el estudio de la personalidad.[14] La conceptualización de los cinco factores de la personalidad se ha generalizado a través de diferentes medidas, culturas y fuentes de evaluación.[15]​

Desarrollo

El modelo de los cinco grandes se creó para comprender la relación entre la personalidad y el logro académico.[16]​ Fue definido por varios grupos independientes de investigadores que analizaron palabras que describían el comportamiento de las personas. Estos investigadores estudiaron primero las relaciones entre un gran número de palabras relacionadas con los rasgos de personalidad. Acortaron entre 5 y 10 veces las listas de estas palabras y, a continuación, utilizaron el análisis factorial para agrupar los rasgos restantes (con datos basados principalmente en las estimaciones de las personas, en cuestionarios de autoinforme y valoraciones de compañeros) con el fin de encontrar los factores básicos de la personalidad.[17]​[18]

El modelo inicial fue avanzado por Ernest Tupes y Raymond Christal en 1958, pero no llegó a los estudiosos y científicos hasta la década de 1980. En 1990, J.M. Digman avanzó su modelo de cinco factores de la personalidad, que Lewis Goldberg situó en el nivel más alto de organización.[19]​ Se ha descubierto que estos cinco dominios globales contienen la mayoría de los rasgos de personalidad conocidos y se supone que representan la estructura básica que subyace a todos ellos.[20]​

Al menos cuatro grupos de investigadores han trabajado de forma independiente durante décadas para reflejar los rasgos de personalidad en el lenguaje y han identificado principalmente los mismos cinco factores: Tupes y Christal fueron los primeros, seguidos de Goldberg en el Instituto de Investigación de Oregón,[21]​[22]​ Cattell en la Universidad de Illinois[23]​[24]​ y, por último, Costa y McCrae.[25]​[26]​

Estos cuatro grupos de investigadores utilizaron métodos algo diferentes para encontrar los cinco rasgos, lo que hace que los grupos de cinco factores tengan nombres y significados diversos.

Sin embargo, se ha descubierto que todos ellos están fuertemente correlacionados con sus factores correspondientes. Los estudios indican que los cinco grandes rasgos no son tan poderosos para predecir y explicar el comportamiento real como las facetas o rasgos primarios, que son más numerosos.[27]​[28]

Cada uno de los cinco grandes rasgos de la personalidad contiene dos aspectos separados, pero correlacionados, que reflejan un nivel de personalidad inferior a los dominios amplios pero superior a las numerosas escalas de facetas que también forman parte de los cinco grandes.[29]​

Los aspectos se etiquetan de la siguiente manera: volatilidad y retraimiento para neuroticismo; entusiasmo y asertividad para extraversión; intelecto y apertura para apertura a la experiencia; laboriosidad y orden para conciencia; y compasión y amabilidad para agradabilidad. Las personas que no encajan claramente en un solo factor de cada dimensión anterior se consideran adaptables, moderadas y razonables, pero sin principios, inescrutables y calculadoras.[30]​

Descripciones de los rasgos particulares de la personalidad

Apertura a la experiencia

La apertura a la experiencia es un aprecio general por el arte, la emoción, la aventura, las ideas inusuales, la imaginación, la curiosidad y la variedad de experiencias. Las personas abiertas a la experiencia son intelectualmente curiosas, abiertas a las emociones, sensibles a la belleza y dispuestas a probar cosas nuevas.

Tienden a ser, en comparación con las personas cerradas, más creativas y más conscientes de sus sentimientos. También son más propensas a tener creencias poco convencionales. Las personas abiertas pueden ser percibidas como impredecibles o poco centradas, y más propensas a tener comportamientos de riesgo o a consumir drogas.[31]​ Además, se dice que las personas muy abiertas persiguen la autorrealización buscando experiencias intensas y eufóricas.

Por el contrario, los que tienen una apertura baja quieren realizarse perseverando y se caracterizan por ser pragmáticos y basarse en datos; a veces incluso se les percibe como dogmáticos y cerrados de mente. Sigue habiendo cierto desacuerdo sobre cómo interpretar y contextualizar el factor de la apertura, ya que este rasgo concreto carece de apoyo biológico. La apertura no ha mostrado una asociación significativa con ninguna región del cerebro, a diferencia de los otros cuatro rasgos, que sí la mostraron al utilizar imágenes cerebrales para detectar cambios en el volumen asociados a cada rasgo.[32]

Ejemplos de ítems:[33]​

    Tengo un vocabulario rico.

    Tengo una gran imaginación.

    Tengo ideas excelentes.

    Comprendo las cosas con rapidez.

    Utilizo palabras difíciles.

    Dedico tiempo a reflexionar.

    Tengo muchas ideas.

    Me cuesta entender las ideas abstractas. (al revés)

    No me interesan las ideas abstractas. (Invertido)

    No tengo buena imaginación. (Invertido)

Escrupulosidad, Consciencia, Organización o Responsabilidad

La escrupulosidad es una tendencia a la autodisciplina, a actuar con diligencia y a esforzarse por conseguir logros a pesar de las medidas o las expectativas externas. Está relacionada con el nivel de control, regulación y dirección de los impulsos de las personas. Un alto grado de concienciación suele percibirse como una persona obstinada y centrada. La baja concienciación se asocia con la flexibilidad y la espontaneidad, pero también puede aparecer como dejadez y falta de fiabilidad.30​ Un nivel alto de conciencia indica una preferencia por el comportamiento planificado en lugar del espontáneo. El nivel medio de conciencia aumenta entre los adultos jóvenes y disminuye entre los adultos mayores.[34]​

Ejemplos de ítems:33​

    Siempre estoy preparado.

    Presto atención a los detalles.

    Hago las tareas enseguida.

    Sigo un horario.

    Soy exigente en mi trabajo.

    No me gusta el orden. (Invertido)

    Dejo mis pertenencias por ahí. (Invertido)

    Desordeno las cosas. (Invertido)

    A menudo me olvido de poner las cosas en su sitio. (Invertido)

    No cumplo con mis obligaciones. (Invertido)

Extraversión

La extraversión se caracteriza por la amplitud de actividades (en contraposición a la profundidad), la urgencia de actividades/situaciones externas y la creación de energía a partir de medios externos.[35]​ Este rasgo se caracteriza por un fuerte compromiso con el mundo exterior. Los extravertidos disfrutan interactuando con la gente y a menudo se les percibe como personas enérgicas. Suelen ser entusiastas y estar orientados a la acción. Poseen una gran visibilidad de grupo, les gusta hablar y hacerse valer. Los extravertidos pueden parecer más dominantes en entornos sociales, a diferencia de los introvertidos en ese entorno.[36]​

Los introvertidos tienen un menor compromiso social y niveles de energía que los extravertidos. Tienden a parecer callados, discretos, deliberados y menos implicados en el mundo social. Su falta de implicación social no debe interpretarse como timidez o depresión, sino como una mayor independencia de su mundo social que los extravertidos. Los introvertidos necesitan menos estímulos y más tiempo a solas que los extravertidos. Esto no significa que sean antipáticos o asociales, sino que son distantes y reservados en situaciones sociales.​

En general, las personas son una combinación de extraversión e introversión, y el psicólogo de la personalidad Hans Eysenck sugirió un modelo según el cual las diferencias en sus cerebros producen estos rasgos.36​: 106 

Ejemplos de ítems:33​

    Soy el alma de la fiesta.

    Me siento cómodo con la gente.

    Inicio conversaciones.

    Hablo con mucha gente en las fiestas.

    No me importa ser el centro de atención.

    No hablo mucho (al revés).

    Me mantengo en un segundo plano. (Invertido)

    Tengo poco que decir. (Invertido)

    No me gusta llamar la atención. (Invertido)

    Soy callado con los extraños. (Invertido)

Amabilidad, Agradabilidad o Afabilidad

La amabilidad es la preocupación general por la armonía social. Las personas agradables valoran llevarse bien con los demás. Suelen ser considerados, amables, generosos, confiados y dignos de confianza, serviciales y dispuestos a comprometer sus intereses con los demás.1​ También tienen una visión optimista de la naturaleza humana.

Las personas desagradables anteponen el interés propio a llevarse bien con los demás. Por lo general, no se preocupan por el bienestar de los demás y son menos propensos a sacrificarse por los demás. A veces, su escepticismo sobre los motivos de los demás les lleva a ser desconfiados, antipáticos y poco colaboradores.[37]​ Las personas desagradables suelen ser competitivas o desafiantes, lo que puede interpretarse como que discuten o no son de fiar.30​

Dado que la amabilidad es un rasgo social, las investigaciones han demostrado que la amabilidad de una persona se correlaciona positivamente con la calidad de las relaciones con los miembros de su equipo. La amabilidad también predice positivamente las habilidades de liderazgo transformacional. En un estudio realizado entre 169 participantes que ocupaban puestos directivos en diversas profesiones, se les pidió que realizaran un test de personalidad y que fueran evaluados directamente por subordinados supervisados. Los líderes muy agradables tenían más probabilidades de ser considerados transformacionales que transaccionales. Aunque la relación no era fuerte (r=0,32, β=0,28, p<0,01), era el rasgo más fuerte de los Cinco Grandes. Sin embargo, el mismo estudio no pudo predecir la eficacia del liderazgo evaluada por el supervisor directo del líder.[38]​

Por el contrario, se ha descubierto que la amabilidad está negativamente relacionada con el liderazgo transaccional en el ejército. Un estudio de unidades militares asiáticas demostró que las personas agradables tienen más probabilidades de ser malos líderes transaccionales.[39]

Por lo tanto, si se sigue investigando, las organizaciones podrán determinar el potencial de rendimiento de un individuo en función de sus rasgos de personalidad. Por ejemplo,[40]​ en su artículo «¿Qué atributos de personalidad son más importantes en el lugar de trabajo?» Paul Sackett y Philip Walmsley afirman que la concienciación y la agradabilidad son «importantes para el éxito en muchos trabajos diferentes».

Ejemplos de ítems:33​

    Me interesan las personas.

    Simpatizo con los sentimientos de los demás.

    Tengo un corazón blando.

    Dedico tiempo a los demás.

    Siento las emociones de los demás.

    Hago que la gente se sienta a gusto.

    No me interesan los demás. (Invertido)

    Insulto a los demás. (Invertido)

    No me interesan los problemas de los demás. (Invertido)

    Me preocupo poco por los demás. (Invertido)

Neuroticismo

El neuroticismo es la tendencia a tener fuertes emociones negativas, como ira, ansiedad o depresión.[41]​ A veces se denomina inestabilidad emocional, o se invierte y se denomina estabilidad emocional. Según la teoría de la personalidad de Hans Eysenck (1967), el neuroticismo se asocia a una baja tolerancia al estrés o a cambios que desagradan fuertemente.[42] El neuroticismo es un rasgo clásico del temperamento que se ha estudiado en la investigación del temperamento durante décadas, antes de que fuera adaptado por el Modelo de los Cinco Factores. Las personas neuróticas son emocionalmente reactivas y vulnerables al estrés.

Son más propensas a interpretar situaciones ordinarias como amenazantes. Pueden percibir frustraciones menores como irremediablemente difíciles. También tienden a ser superficiales en la forma de expresar sus emociones. Sus reacciones emocionales negativas tienden a permanecer durante periodos de tiempo inusualmente largos, lo que significa que a menudo están de mal humor. Por ejemplo, el neuroticismo está relacionado con el pesimismo hacia el trabajo, con la certeza de que el trabajo entorpece las relaciones personales y con niveles más altos de ansiedad por las presiones en el trabajo. Además, las personas neuróticas pueden mostrar una mayor reactividad de la conductancia cutánea que las personas tranquilas y serenas.42​[43]​

Estos problemas en la regulación emocional pueden hacer que una persona neurótica piense con menos claridad, tome peores decisiones y afronte el estrés con menos eficacia. Sentirse decepcionado con los logros de la propia vida puede hacer que uno sea más neurótico y aumentar las probabilidades de caer en una depresión clínica. Además, las personas neuróticas tienden a experimentar más acontecimientos vitales negativos,41​[44]​ pero el neuroticismo también cambia en respuesta a las experiencias vitales positivas y negativas.41​44​ Asimismo, las personas neuróticas tienden a tener un peor bienestar psicológico.[45]​

En el otro extremo de la escala, los individuos menos neuróticos se alteran con menos facilidad y son menos reactivos emocionalmente. Suelen estar tranquilos, emocionalmente estables y libres de sentimientos negativos persistentes. La ausencia de sentimientos negativos no significa que las personas con puntuaciones bajas experimenten muchos sentimientos positivos; esto está relacionado con la extraversión.

El neuroticismo es similar pero no idéntico a ser neurótico en el sentido freudiano (es decir, neurosis).

Ejemplos de ítems:33​

    Me estreso con facilidad.

    Me preocupo por las cosas.

    Me altero con facilidad.

    Cambio mucho de humor.

    Tengo frecuentes cambios de humor.

    Me irrito con facilidad.

    A menudo me siento triste.

    Estoy relajado la mayor parte del tiempo. (Invertido)

    Rara vez me siento triste. (Invertido)

Véase también

    Teoría del rasgo

    Modelo de los Cinco Alternativos

    Tríada oscura

Referencias

Rothmann S, Coetzer EP (24 de octubre de 2003). «The big five personality dimensions and job performance». SA Journal of Industrial Psychology (en inglés) 29. doi:10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88.

Briley, Daniel A.; Tucker-Drob, Elliot M. (2014). «Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis.». Psychological Bulletin (en inglés) 140 (5): 1303-1331. ISSN 1939-1455. PMC 4152379. PMID 24956122. doi:10.1037/a0037091. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

Fraley, R. Chris; Roisman, Glenn I.; Booth-LaForce, Cathryn; Owen, Margaret Tresch; Holland, Ashley S. (2013). «Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood.». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 104 (5): 817-838. ISSN 1939-1315. PMC 3885143. PMID 23397970. doi:10.1037/a0031435. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

Roberts, Brent W.; DelVecchio, Wendy F. (2000-01). «The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.». Psychological Bulletin (en inglés) 126 (1): 3-25. ISSN 1939-1455. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

Goldberg LR (Enero de 1993). «The structure of phenotypic personality traits». American Psychologist (en inglés) 48 (1): 26-34. PMID 8427480. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26.

Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual (en inglés). Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Mammadov, Sakhavat (2022-04). «Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta‐analysis». Journal of Personality (en inglés) 90 (2): 222-255. ISSN 0022-3506. doi:10.1111/jopy.12663. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

Uribe Prado, Jesús Felipe, Contreras Morales, Fabiola, Sánchez Olguín, Olivia, & García Saisó, Alejandra. (2008). Los Cinco Grandes y maquiavelismo en trabajadores mexicanos: un estudio de personalidad y manipulación. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 24(1), 61-79. Recuperado en 12 de marzo de 2024, de http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1576-59622008000100004&lng=es&tlng=pt.

Ter Laak, Jan J. F. (1996). «Las cinco grandes dimensiones de la personalidad». Revista de Psicología 14 (2): 129-181. ISSN 0254-9247. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

Puerta-Cortés, Diana Ximena; Carbonell, Xavier (1 de marzo de 2014). «El modelo de los cinco grandes factores de personalidad y el uso problemático de Internet en jóvenes colombianos». Adicciones 26 (1): 54-61. ISSN 0214-4840. doi:10.20882/adicciones.131. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

Roccas, Sonia; Sagiv, Lilach; Schwartz, Shalom H.; Knafo, Ariel (2002). «The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values». Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (en inglés) 28 (6): 789-801. S2CID 144611052. doi:10.1177/0146167202289008.

Matthews, Gerald; Deary, Ian J.; Whiteman, Martha C. (2003). Personality Traits (en inglés) (2da edición). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83107-9. Archivado desde el original el 5 de diciembre de 2014.

«General personality and psychopathology in referred and nonreferred children and adolescents: an investigation of continuity, pathoplasty, and complication models». Journal of Abnormal Psychology (en inglés) 121 (4): 958-970. Noviembre de 2012. PMID 22448741. doi:10.1037/a0027742.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). The Guilford Press.

McCrae, Robert R.; John, Oliver P. (1992-06). «An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications». Journal of Personality (en inglés) 60 (2): 175-215. ISSN 0022-3506. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

«A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance». Psychological Bulletin (en inglés) 135 (2): 322-38. Marzo de 2009. PMID 19254083. doi:10.1037/a0014996. hdl:10072/30324.

Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936). «Trait names: A psycholexical study». Psychological Monographs (en inglés) 47: 211. doi:10.1037/h0093360.

Norman WT (Junio de 1963). «Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings». Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (en inglés) 66 (6): 574-83. PMID 13938947. doi:10.1037/h0040291.

Goldberg LR (Enero de 1993). «The structure of phenotypic personality traits». The American Psychologist (en inglés) 48 (1): 26-34. PMID 8427480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26.

O’Connor BP (Junio de 2002). «A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories». Assessment (en inglés) 9 (2): 188-203. PMID 12066834. S2CID 145580837. doi:10.1177/1073191102092010.

Norman WT, Goldberg LR (1966). «Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 4 (6): 681-91. doi:10.1037/h0024002.

Peabody D, Goldberg LR (Septiembre de 1989). «Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 57 (3): 552-67. PMID 2778639. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552.

Krug SE, Johns EF (1986). «A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF». Psychological Reports (en inglés) 59 (2): 683-93. S2CID 145610003. doi:10.2466/pr0.1986.59.2.683.

Karson S, O’Dell JW (1976), A guide to the clinical use of the 16PF (en inglés), Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.

Costa PT, McCrae RR (Septiembre de 1976). «Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach». Journal of Gerontology (en inglés) 31 (5): 564-70. PMID 950450. doi:10.1093/geronj/31.5.564.

McCrae RR, Costa PT (Enero de 1987). «Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 52 (1): 81-90. PMID 3820081. S2CID 7893185. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81.

Mershon B, Gorsuch RL (1988). «Number of factors in the personality sphere: does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria?». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 55 (4): 675-80. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675.

Paunonen SV, Ashton MS (2001). «Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior». Journal of Personality & Social Psychology (en inglés) 81 (3): 524-39. PMID 11554651. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524.

Deyoung, C. G.; Quilty, L. C.; Peterson, J. B. (2007). «Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 93 (5): 880-896. PMID 17983306. S2CID 8261816. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.

Toegel G, Barsoux JL (2012). «How to become a better leader». MIT Sloan Management Review (en inglés) 53 (3): 51-60.

Ambridge, Ben (2014). Psy-Q: You know your IQ – now test your psychological intelligence (en inglés). Profile. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-78283-023-8 – via Google Books.

DeYoung, Colin G.; Hirsh, Jacob B.; Shane, Matthew S.; Papademetris, Xenophon; Rajeevan, Nallakkandi; Gray, Jeremy R. (2010). «Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five». Psychological Science (en inglés) 21 (6): 820-828. ISSN 0956-7976. JSTOR 41062296. PMC 3049165. PMID 20435951. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159.

«Big-Five Factor Markers». ipip.ori.org (en inglés). Consultado el 3 de julio de 2023.

«Research Reports on Science from Michigan State University Provide New Insights». Science Letter (en inglés). Gale Student Resource in Context.

Laney, Marti Olsen (2002). The Introvert Advantage (en inglés). Canada: Thomas Allen & Son Limited. pp. 28, 35. ISBN 978-0-7611-2369-9. (requiere registro).

Friedman, Howard; Schustack, Miriam (2016). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (en inglés) (6ta edición). Pearson Education Inc. ISBN 978-0-205-99793-0.

Bartneck C, Van der Hoek M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (Marzo de 2007). «»Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!» switching off a robot» (en inglés). Eindhoven, Netherlands: Dept. of Ind. Design, Eindhoven Univ. of Technol. pp. 217-22.

Judge TA, Bono JE (Octubre de 2000). «Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership». The Journal of Applied Psychology (en inglés) 85 (5): 751-65. PMID 11055147. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751.

Lim BC, Ployhart RE (Agosto de 2004). «Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts». The Journal of Applied Psychology (en inglés) 89 (4): 610-21. PMID 15327348. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610.

Sackett PR, Walmsley PT (2014). «Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace?». Perspectives on Psychological Science (en inglés) 9 (5): 538-51. PMID 26186756. S2CID 21245818. doi:10.1177/1745691614543972.

Jeronimus BF, Riese H, Sanderman R, Ormel J (Octubre de 2014). «Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 107 (4): 751-64. PMID 25111305. doi:10.1037/a0037009.

Norris CJ, Larsen JT, Cacioppo JT (Septiembre de 2007). «Neuroticism is associated with larger and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures». Psychophysiology (en inglés) 44 (5): 823-26. PMID 17596178. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00551.x.

Reynaud E, El Khoury-Malhame M, Rossier J, Blin O, Khalfa S (2012). «Neuroticism modifies psycho physiological responses to fearful films». PLOS ONE (en inglés) 7 (3): e32413. Bibcode:2012PLoSO…732413R. PMC 3316522. PMID 22479326. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032413.

Jeronimus BF, Ormel J, Aleman A, Penninx BW, Riese H (Noviembre de 2013). «Negative and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism». Psychological Medicine (en inglés) 43 (11): 2403-15. PMID 23410535. S2CID 43717734. doi:10.1017/s0033291713000159. Dwan T, Ownsworth T (2019). «The Big Five personality factors and psychological well-being following stroke: a systematic review». Disability and Rehabilitation (en inglés) 41 (10): 1119-30. PMID 29272953. S2CID 7300458. doi:10.1080/0963828

---

[1] Rothmann S, Coetzer EP (24 de octubre de 2003). «The big five personality dimensions and job performance». SA Journal of Industrial Psychology (en inglés) 29. doi:10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88.

[2] Briley, Daniel A.; Tucker-Drob, Elliot M. (2014). «Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis.». Psychological Bulletin (en inglés) 140 (5): 1303-1331. ISSN 1939-1455. PMC 4152379. PMID 24956122. doi:10.1037/a0037091. Consultado el 12 de marzo de 2024.

[3] Fraley, R. Chris; Roisman, Glenn I.; Booth-LaForce, Cathryn; Owen, Margaret Tresch; Holland, Ashley S. (2013). «Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood.». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 104 (5): 817-838. ISSN 1939-1315. PMC 3885143. PMID 23397970. doi:10.1037/a0031435

[4] Roberts, Brent W.; DelVecchio, Wendy F. (2000-01). «The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.». Psychological Bulletin (en inglés) 126 (1): 3-25.

[5] Goldberg LR (Enero de 1993). «The structure of phenotypic personality traits». American Psychologist (en inglés) 48 (1): 26-34. PMID 8427480.

[6] Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual (en inglés). Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

[7] Mammadov, Sakhavat (2022-04). «Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta‐analysis». Journal of Personality (en inglés) 90 (2): 222-255. ISSN 0022-3506. doi:10.1111/jopy.

[8] Uribe Prado, Jesús Felipe, Contreras Morales, Fabiola, Sánchez Olguín, Olivia, & García Saisó, Alejandra. (2008). Los Cinco Grandes y maquiavelismo en trabajadores mexicanos: un estudio de personalidad y manipulación. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 24(1), 61-79. Recuperado en 12 de marzo de 2024, de http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1576-59622008000100004&lng=es&tlng=pt.

[9] Ter Laak, Jan J. F. (1996). «Las cinco grandes dimensiones de la personalidad». Revista de Psicología 14 (2): 129-181.

[10] Puerta-Cortés, Diana Ximena; Carbonell, Xavier (1 de marzo de 2014). «El modelo de los cinco grandes factores de personalidad y el uso problemático de Internet en jóvenes colombianos». Adicciones 26

[11] Roccas, Sonia; Sagiv, Lilach; Schwartz, Shalom H.; Knafo, Ariel (2002). «The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values». Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (en inglés) 28 (6): 789-801.

[12] Matthews, Gerald; Deary, Ian J.; Whiteman, Martha C. (2003). Personality Traits (en inglés) (2da edición). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83107-9.

[13] «General personality and psychopathology in referred and nonreferred children and adolescents: an investigation of continuity, pathoplasty, and complication models». Journal of Abnormal Psychology (en inglés) 121 (4): 958-970. Noviembre de 2012.

[14] John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). The Guilford Press.

[15] McCrae, Robert R.; John, Oliver P. (1992-06). «An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications». Journal of Personality (en inglés) 60 (2): 175-215. ISSN 0022-3506. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.

[16] «A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance». Psychological Bulletin (en inglés) 135 (2): 322-38. Marzo de 2009.

[17] Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936). «Trait names: A psycholexical study». Psychological Monographs (en inglés) 47: 211

[18] Norman WT (Junio de 1963). «Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings». Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (en inglés) 66 (6): 574-83.

[19] Goldberg LR (Enero de 1993). «The structure of phenotypic personality traits». The American Psychologist (en inglés) 48 (1): 26-34.

[20] O’Connor BP (Junio de 2002). «A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories». Assessment (en inglés) 9 (2): 188-203.

[21] Norman WT, Goldberg LR (1966). «Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 4 (6): 681-91.

[22] Peabody D, Goldberg LR (Septiembre de 1989). «Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 57 (3): 552-67.

[23] Krug SE, Johns EF (1986). «A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF». Psychological Reports (en inglés) 59 (2): 683-93.

[24] Karson S, O’Dell JW (1976), A guide to the clinical use of the 16PF (en inglés), Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.

[25] Costa PT, McCrae RR (Septiembre de 1976). «Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach». Journal of Gerontology (en inglés) 31 (5): 564-70.

[26] McCrae RR, Costa PT (Enero de 1987). «Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 52 (1): 81-90.

[27] Mershon B, Gorsuch RL (1988). «Number of factors in the personality sphere: does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria?». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 55 (4): 675-80.

[28] Paunonen SV, Ashton MS (2001). «Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior». Journal of Personality & Social Psychology (en inglés) 81 (3): 524-39.

[29] Deyoung, C. G.; Quilty, L. C.; Peterson, J. B. (2007). «Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés) 93 (5): 880-896.

[30] Toegel G, Barsoux JL (2012). «How to become a better leader». MIT Sloan Management Review (en inglés) 53 (3): 51-60.

[31] Ambridge, Ben (2014). Psy-Q: You know your IQ – now test your psychological intelligence (en inglés). Profile. p. 11.

[32] DeYoung, Colin G.; Hirsh, Jacob B.; Shane, Matthew S.; Papademetris, Xenophon; Rajeevan, Nallakkandi; Gray, Jeremy R. (2010). «Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five». Psychological Science (en inglés) 21 (6): 820-828.

[33] «Big-Five Factor Markers». ipip.ori.org (en inglés)

[34] «Research Reports on Science from Michigan State University Provide New Insights». Science Letter (en inglés). Gale Student Resource in Context.

[35] Laney, Marti Olsen (2002). The Introvert Advantage (en inglés). Canada: Thomas Allen & Son Limited. pp. 28, 35.

[36] Friedman, Howard; Schustack, Miriam (2016). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (en inglés) (6ta edición). Pearson Education Inc

[37] Bartneck C, Van der Hoek M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (Marzo de 2007). «»Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!» switching off a robot» (en inglés). Eindhoven, Netherlands: Dept. of Ind. Design, Eindhoven Univ. of Technol. pp. 217-22.

[38] Judge TA, Bono JE (Octubre de 2000). «Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership». The Journal of Applied Psychology (en inglés) 85 (5): 751-65.

[39] Lim BC, Ployhart RE (Agosto de 2004). «Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts». The Journal of Applied Psychology (en inglés) 89 (4): 610-21. PMID

[40] Sackett PR, Walmsley PT (2014). «Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the Workplace?». Perspectives on Psychological Science (en inglés) 9 (5): 538-51.

[41] Jeronimus BF, Riese H, Sanderman R, Ormel J (Octubre de 2014). «Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation». Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (en inglés)

[42] Norris CJ, Larsen JT, Cacioppo JT (Septiembre de 2007). «Neuroticism is associated with larger and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures»

[43] Reynaud E, El Khoury-Malhame M, Rossier J, Blin O, Khalfa S (2012). «Neuroticism modifies psycho physiological responses to fearful films». PLOS ONE (en inglés) 7 (3): e32413.

[44] Jeronimus BF, Ormel J, Aleman A, Penninx BW, Riese H (Noviembre de 2013). «Negative and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism». Psychological Medicine (en inglés) 43 (11): 2403-15.

[45] Dwan T, Ownsworth T (2019). «The Big Five personality factors and psychological well-being following stroke: a systematic review». Disability and Rehabilitation (en inglés) 41 (10): 1119-30.

[Este texto corresponde a la intervención del autor en la Universidad de verano del NPA en el debate: «1954-2024: 70 años después, ¿qué equilibrios de poder mundiales? Resistencia popular y solidaridad internacional frente al imperialismo, el colonialismo y la guerra».]

Mi interpretación de la situación actual se basa en la hipótesis de que el mundo está cambiando bajo la doble presión de la dinámica económica y las rivalidades geopolíticas, cuyas interacciones varían según las circunstancias históricas.

Aunar estas dos dimensiones y tenerlas presentes en el análisis resulta difícil por dos razones. Por un lado, la hiperespecialización disciplinar de la investigación académica conduce a la compartimentación del pensamiento y al desconocimiento de otros trabajos sobre temas similares. En segundo lugar, existe lo que podría denominarse una cierta tendencia marxista que ha privilegiado las dimensiones económicas alegando que constituyen la infraestructura de toda sociedad.

Sin embargo, Marx estaba tan interesado en la superestructura y en el rol de los seres humanos en el curso de la historia como en la infraestructura. El 18 Brumario de Luis Napoleón Bonaparte es un buen ejemplo de su interés por estas cuestiones. Y les recuerdo que El Capital no es una obra económica, sino una crítica de la economía política.

Sin embargo, existe un marco analítico que nos permite analizar estas interacciones entre dinámicas económicas y rivalidades geopolíticas y militares: es el que propusieron hace más de un siglo los análisis marxistas del imperialismo.

Para comprender la situación actual, y en particular la multipolaridad capitalista jerárquica, disponemos al menos de dos puntos de apoyo teóricos.

En primer lugar, la definición dada por Lenin en El imperialismo, fase suprema del capitalismo: “Si fuera necesario dar un definición lo más breve posible del imperialismo, debería decirse que el imperialismo es la fase monopolista del capitalismo”. Esta definición abarcaría todo lo esencial, ya que, por una parte, el capital financiero es el resultado de la fusión del capital de algunos grandes bancos monopolistas con el capital de grupos monopolistas industriales y, por otra parte, el reparto del mundo es el paso de la política colonial, que se extiende sin trabas a regiones aún no apropiadas por ninguna potencia capitalista, a la política colonial de posesión monopolizada de los territorios de un planeta totalmente compartido.

El capital monopolista financiero y el reparto del mundo están estrechamente ligados, y ésta es la singularidad del imperialismo. Es cierto que, a menudo, los análisis marxistas han tenido dificultades para vincular ambas cosas. Sin embargo, el capitalismo camina sobre dos pies: es un régimen de acumulación con un componente predominantemente financiera, como ya detectó François Chesnais en los años noventa, pero, sobre todo, es un régimen de dominación social, cuya defensa –y a veces su supervivencia– esta garantizada por las fuerzas del orden en el plano interno y el Ejército en el exterior. Estos son los mensajes de La mondialisation armée, libro que publiqué unos meses antes del 11 de septiembre de 2001, y también de Un monde en guerres, publicado en marzo de este año.

Otra herramienta analítica para analizar el imperialismo contemporáneo es la hipótesis del desarrollo desigual y combinado de Trotsky. Para mí, esta hipótesis forma parte integral del análisis del imperialismo, aunque para muchos marxólogos su nombre sea a menudo ignorado como teórico del imperialismo junto a Bujarin, Hilferding, Luxemburg y algunos otros.

Trotsky basó su análisis en la existencia de un espacio mundial que constriñe a las naciones y les impide pasar por las mismas etapas de desarrollo que los países avanzados. Esto era lo contrario del enfoque etapista de Stalin. Este concepto de etapas sucesivas también se encuentra en las recomendaciones del Banco Mundial, que considera que los países del Sur deben seguir las etapas de desarrollo seguidas por los países del Centro. Para el Banco Mundial, deben aplicarse las normas de buen gobierno y el programa económico de los países desarrollados.

En la Historia de la Revolución Rusa Trotsky nos recuerda que

    Azotado por el látigo de las necesidades materiales, los países atrasados se ven obligados a avanzar a saltos. De esta ley universal del desarrollo desigual se deriva otra que, a falta de un nombre más adecuado, calificaremos la ley del desarrollo combinado, aludiendo a la aproximación de las distintas etapas del camino y a la combinación de distintas fases, a la amalgama de formas arcaicas y modernas.

Y continúa diciendo de la Rusia zarista que “no repite la evolución de los países avanzados, sino que se incorpora a estos, adaptando a su atraso propias las conquistas más modernas”. En mi opinión, esta característica de la Rusia zarista de hace un siglo es plenamente aplicable a la China contemporánea, aunque en un contexto diferente.

La hipótesis del desarrollo desigual y combinado es una hipótesis que examina los cambios y las mutaciones, es decir, examina la transformación del capitalismo. Nos invita a no adoptar una visión estática de los criterios utilizados por Lenin para definir el imperialismo –ninguno de los cuales está obsoleto–, sino a tener en cuenta el rostro cambiante del imperialismo. Hoy en día, el imperialismo sigue siendo una estructura de dominación mundial y sigue definiendo el comportamiento específico y diferenciado de algunas grandes potencias.

Es un hecho innegable que desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial se han producido muchos cambios en la fisonomía del imperialismo, en particular la construcción de la hegemonía estadounidense. Estos cambios llevaron a algunos marxistas a anunciar la obsolescencia del imperialismo, basándose en particular en el fin de las guerras intercapitalistas. En las últimas décadas, los procesos de globalización también han dado lugar a afirmaciones de que el imperialismo ha sido superado por la aparición de una clase capitalista transnacional, o incluso de un Estado transnacional.

La coyuntura histórica actual contradice estos análisis y subraya el hecho de que, en el marco del imperialismo contemporáneo, las relaciones sociales capitalistas siguen estando políticamente construidas y territorialmente circunscritas.

La concordancia de temporalidades: el momento 2008

Cabe destacar tres puntos:

a) Desde finales de la década de 2000, el mundo se caracteriza por una convergencia de crisis. Utilizo el término crisis a falta de otro mejor, porque cada una de ellas tiene su propia temporalidad, determinada por su especificidad económica, geopolítica, social y medioambiental. Sin embargo, el hecho de que confluyeran a finales de la década de 2000 confirma que el capitalismo se enfrenta a un trastorno existencial, a una crisis multidimensional. Entre ellas

    la crisis financiera de 2008, que se convirtió en una “larga depresión” (Michael Roberts) .

    la emergencia de China como rival sistémico de Estados Unidos (en el lenguaje de los documentos estratégicos estadounidenses). Esta es otra forma de ver el declive de la hegemonía estadounidense;

    la espiral de destrucción medioambiental producida por el modo de producción y consumo capitalista;

    la resistencia social que se ha extendido por todo el planeta desde la revolución tunecina de 2011, clamando por “Trabajo, pan, libertad y dignidad”.

Los esfuerzos de las clases dominantes para superar estas crisis sólo pueden acelerar la marcha hacia la catástrofe y la barbarie.

b) Una característica importante de este momento de 2008 es que restablece una estrecha proximidad entre la competencia económica y las rivalidades político-militares. Como he mencionado anteriormente, esta proximidad ya era una característica de la situación anterior a 1914.

c) El momento de 2008 abre un espacio de rivalidad mundial más amplio que la confrontación Este-Oeste de la época de la Guerra Fría, y no el de un mundo Occidental enfrentado al Sur Global. Mi marco de análisis es el de una multipolaridad capitalista jerárquica y, por tanto, de rivalidades interimperialistas. Estas rivalidades parecen nuevas tras el periodo transitorio de abrumadora dominación estadounidense que siguió a la Segunda Guerra Mundial, pero fueron una característica importante de la era anterior a 1914.

Sin embargo, en el espacio de un siglo, el mundo se ha vuelto mucho más denso. Como consecuencia, las rivalidades son más abiertas, con un mayor número de países que aspiran a desempeñar un papel en una economía global marcada por la formación de bloques regionales. Las rivalidades también adoptan formas más diversas que antes de 1914. Establecen un continuo entre la competencia económica y la confrontación militar, incluyendo lo que algunos expertos denominan guerras híbridas (ciberguerra, desinformación y vigilancia, etc.).

Sin embargo, quiero señalar que aunque la jerarquía y el estatus de los imperialismos eran más limitados, estos temas ya se discutían antes de 1914. Es interesante recordar la caracterización que hizo Trotsky de la Rusia zarista en su Historia de la Revolución Rusa. Escribió:

    La beligerancia de Rusia venía a ocupar un lugar intermedio entre la de Francia y la de China. Rusia pagaba en esta moneda el derecho a estar aliada con los países progresivos, importar sus capitales y abonar intereses por los mismos; es decir, pagaba, en el fondo, el derecho a ser una colonia privilegiada de sus aliados, al propio tiempo que a ejercer su presión sobre Turquía, Persia, Galitzia, países más débiles y atrasados que ella, y a saquearlos. En el fondo, el imperialismo de la burguesía rusa, con su doble faz, no era más que un agente mediador de otras potencias mundiales más poderosas.

Evidentemente, este estatus ambiguo de Rusia no impidió a los marxistas situar a Rusia del lado de los países imperialistas. Esta flexibilidad de análisis y la toma en consideración de factores multidimensionales -económicos, políticos y militares- permiten dar cuenta de la diversidad y la jerarquía que caracterizan la multipolaridad capitalista.

Por ejemplo, siguiendo los trabajos del sociólogo brasileño Ruy Mauro Marini, algunos marxistas utilizan hoy el término subimperialismo para designar una lista más o menos larga de países (Sudáfrica, Brasil, India, Irán, Israel, Pakistán, Turquía, etc.) que se encuentran en una posición intermedia.

Desde cierto punto de vista, la multipolaridad capitalista es la norma histórica. Es jerárquica, y los imperialismos dominantes, en declive o emergentes, se disputan una porción del pastel mundial (la masa de valor creada por el trabajo), que no sólo ya no crece lo suficiente, sino que exige una gigantesca degradación del medio ambiente para poder producirse. La aspiración de los países emergentes a alcanzar el estatus de potencia regional o mundial está ampliando el ámbito de las rivalidades económicas y militares.

Estos países emergentes no son antiimperialistas; al contrario, intentan hacerse un lugar dentro del imperialismo contemporáneo. Los gobiernos de estos países desarrollan a menudo una retórica antioccidental que se equipara falsamente con el antiimperialismo.

Es evidente que el movimiento social debe aprovechar las rivalidades y contradicciones interimperialistas. Sin embargo, en nombre de la multipolaridad antioccidental, esto nunca debe llevar a apoyar a los gobiernos de países como Rusia, Irán o India, y dar así la impresión de que podrían abrir perspectivas emancipadoras para los pueblos víctimas de la explotación capitalista, cuando reprimen duramente a su propio pueblo.

China y Estados Unidos: un choque de imperialismos

En mi opinión, son estas transformaciones del espacio mundial las que justifican el término choque de imperialismos entre China y Estados Unidos.

Debemos examinar brevemente cómo ha evolucionado su relación, porque confirma que la interdependencia entre países rivales ha aumentado considerablemente. Antes de 1914, la interdependencia servía para justificar las tesis liberales que veían en el comercio internacional un factor de paz. La interdependencia también fue utilizada por Kautsky para anunciar la aparición de un ultraimperialismo que pondría fin a las guerras.

Está claro que es importante no cometer los mismos errores de apreciación y no limitarse a observar la creciente interdependencia de las naciones, sino considerar el entorno económico y geopolítico en la que se desarrolla.

En las décadas de 1990 y 2000 (hasta 2008), la interdependencia entre Estados Unidos y China era un juego en el que todos ganaban para las clases capitalistas. China proporcionaba nuevos territorios al capital occidental, que entonces sufría una sobreacumulación como consecuencia de la crisis de los años setenta y ochenta. Esta crisis de sobreacumulación, que reflejaba una caída de la rentabilidad del capital, no había sido superada en los países centrales. En cambio, había sacudido a los países emergentes, víctimas repetidas de crisis financieras: México en 1983, Asia, Rusia y Brasil en 1997-1998 y Argentina en 2000.

Sin embargo –confirmando la hipótesis del desarrollo desigual y combinado – China no sólo ha seguido siendo un territorio de acogida para la acumulación de capital occidental y asiático, sino que se ha convertido en una potencia económica y militar que desafía el dominio estadounidense.

La irrupción de China en el mercado mundial ha proporcionado así una solución temporal a los males estructurales que aquejan al capitalismo. Sin embargo, la intensificación de la competencia económica en un contexto de bajo crecimiento económico ha transformado rápidamente el mercado mundial en el “espacio de todas las contradicciones”, como decía Marx.

A la inversa, al convertirse en el taller del mundo, la economía china ha trasladado a su propio territorio las contradicciones de la economía mundial que surgen cuando el capitalismo alcanza sus límites. La industria china lleva años acumulando capital en exceso.

La crisis se desencadenó primero en la construcción inmobiliaria, pero según los análisis de los economistas, esta sobreacumulación afecta ahora a decenas de sectores tradicionales relacionados con la construcción (acero, cemento, etc.), e incluso a sectores industriales emergentes. Es el caso de los paneles solares, donde China ha conquistado un virtual monopolio mundial, y, más fundamental aún, del sector de las baterías para vehículos eléctricos.

Así que no es de extrañar que este sector sea uno de los que experimentan mayores tensiones comerciales entre China, Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea (es decir, principalmente la industria alemana).

La interdependencia económica tiene, pues, efectos contradictorios. “El crecimiento económico de China no debe ser incompatible con el liderazgo económico estadounidense”, declaró la Secretaria de Estado del Tesoro, y propuso deslocalizar las actividades de los grandes grupos estadounidenses presentes en China hacia “países amigos” (nearshoring).

Escuchemos la respuesta del Director General de RTX (antes Raytheon), diseñador del sistema de defensa antimisiles estadounidense e israelí y segundo grupo militar mundial: “Es imposible salir de China porque tenemos cientos de subcontratistas esenciales para nuestra producción”. Esto dice mucho del grado de interdependencia creado por las cadenas de producción mundiales de los grandes grupos, incluidos los del ámbito militar.

Otro ejemplo de interdependencia: el Gobierno chino participa ahora en la elaboración de normas reguladoras para los mercados financieros, introducidas a raíz de la crisis de 2008 y destinadas a prevenir la aparición de nuevas crisis financieras. El Secretario de Finanzas Internacionales de EE UU acogió con gran satisfacción la excelente relación entre el Tesoro estadounidense y “nuestros homólogos chinos del Banco Central de la República Popular China como copresidentes del grupo de trabajo del G20 sobre el desarrollo de las finanzas sostenibles”.

Este llamamiento de Estados Unidos a China significa que para las clases dominantes estadounidenses, preservar la estabilidad y, por tanto, la prosperidad del capital financiero no debe verse comprometido por las rivalidades comerciales. Se trata, sin embargo, de un equilibrio delicado.

China, un imperialismo emergente

China es, de hecho, un imperialismo emergente, porque, al igual que los países capitalistas anteriores a 1914, combina un fuerte desarrollo económico con capacidades militares de primer orden.

Por supuesto, sería absurdo comparar el papel del Ejército en la expansión económica mundial de China con el de Estados Unidos, y sólo pueden hacerlo quienes aplican el concepto de imperialismo únicamente al modelo estadounidense. Por el contrario, al emerger como país imperialista rival de Estados Unidos, China se ve obligada, casi automáticamente, a desarrollar una política exterior expansiva, como confirma su inserción diplomática en la guerra que libra Israel. China ya tiene una fuerte presencia en Oriente Próximo, donde está desarrollando relaciones tanto con Irán como con las monarquías petroleras (e Israel), aliadas de Estados Unidos.

La iniciativa de la Ruta de la Seda  (BRI, por sus siglas en inglés) que impulsa China es una construcción tentacular de infraestructuras físicas y digitales. Recuerda a la expansión de los ferrocarriles antes de 1914 –infraestructura esencial de la época– en los países dominados, cuyo papel tanto económico (rentabilizar el exceso de capital en los países europeos) como geopolítico (¡el papel del tren Berlín-Bagdad en la alianza entre Alemania y el Imperio Otomano!) fue largamente analizado por Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg y otros.

Israel, el pirómano defensor del bloque transatlántico

La guerra de Israel se ajusta plenamente al marco analítico del imperialismo: es un proyecto neocolonial. Veamos las cifras: 40.000 muertos en Gaza equivalen, en proporción a la población palestina, a más de la mitad de los muertos que causó en Francia la guerra de 1914-1918. Sin embargo, hay una diferencia esencial: la mayoría de las víctimas eran soldados, mientras que en Gaza el 60-70% de las personas muertas son mujeres y niños.

“Nuestros enemigos comunes en todo el mundo nos observan y saben que una victoria israelí es una victoria del mundo libre liderado por Estados Unidos”, declaró el ministro de Defensa de Israel al día siguiente del 7 de octubre de 2024. Confirmaba así que su país es un pilar importante del bloque transatlántico. Sin embargo, el modo en que el gobierno de Netanyahu se comporta frente a la administración Biden confirma también que la multipolaridad capitalista contemporánea está más diversificada que antes de 1914.

Desde el punto de vista del análisis de la estructura imperialista actual y de su jerarquía, es innegable que el gobierno israelí se vería obligado a detener la guerra en cuanto Estados Unidos pusiera fin a su entrega de armas. En este sentido, la imagen de Israel como vasallo de Estados Unidos sigue siendo sin duda acertada. Sin embargo, el deterioro de la posición de Estados Unidos en el orden mundial, el auge del militarismo israelí, en gran medida vinculado a las fracciones dominantes del establishment estadounidense y a su complejo militar-industrial, y, por último, el caos global que sustenta las relaciones internacionales contemporáneas, permiten al vasallo jugar su propio juego sin que éste se corresponda con los imperativos inmediatos de las clases dominantes estadounidenses.

La política de tierra quemada aplicada por los gobiernos israelíes ya no es sólo una imagen, como demuestra el deseo de Israel de arrasar Gaza (es decir, de arrasar el territorio) y de pulverizar físicamente al pueblo palestino. Se basa en procesos asesinos –genocidas– que ni Estados Unidos ni la Unión Europea, que es al menos tan culpable de apoyar la guerra de Israel como Estados Unidos, quieren detener, incluso cuando Israel prepara la siguiente fase de su ataque contra Irán. Para los dirigentes de Estados Unidos y de la UE, el apoyo incondicional a Israel es el precio que hay que pagar por defender los intereses materiales y los valores del mundo occidental.

Sin embargo, todos los dirigentes occidentales saben que esta guerra está llevando a la región –y posiblemente a otras regiones– al borde del colapso. También saben que está acelerando la desintegración del orden internacional basado en normas, por utilizar el eslogan que ha servido de sustento político e ideológico a la dominación del bloque transatlántico desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Este es el dilema al que se enfrenta Occidente. Tienen que apoyar la conducta del gobierno israelí en un momento en que la política de Netanyahu está precipitando el fin de este orden internacional liberal y anuncia nuevas áreas de conflicto entre el bloque transatlántico y muchos países.

El horizonte Indopacífico de Francia

Anunciado en 2013 bajo la presidencia de François Hollande, el horizonte Indopacífico ha ocupado un lugar ascendente en la estrategia militar-diplomática de Francia desde la elección de Emmanuel Macron en 2017. Sin duda, el interés de Macron por esta región se vio sin duda estimulado por el hecho de que, nada más ser elegido, había sido informado por el Estado Mayor del desastre que se avecinaba en las guerras libradas por el Ejército francés en el Sahel. La estrategia Indopacífica planteada por Macron es, por tanto, el resultado de la necesidad de ofrecer a los militares un nuevo horizonte, aunque el África subsahariana siga siendo indispensable en términos económicos y geopolíticos a pesar de la debacle en el Sahel.

Por tanto, la determinación de Macron para mantener Nueva Caledonia dentro del Estado francés se debe, principalmente, a este revés en el Sahel, pero también hay otras razones. La posesión de estos territorios otorga a Francia una zona económica exclusiva (ZEE) veinte veces mayor que la de Francia continental.

Esta ZEE ofrece la perspectiva de apropiarse de recursos submarinos. Sobre todo, permite al Ejército francés navegar en la zona con submarinos con sistema de misiles nucleares. Junto con la Fuerza Aérea francesa, estos buques son el otro componente de la disuasión nuclear. Esta presencia de fuerzas nucleares en el Pacífico protege el estatus de Francia como miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, a pesar del considerable declive de su posición económica en el mundo. Otra razón de la política de Macron es la importancia de los recursos de níquel del archipiélago.

La determinación de Macron de privar al pueblo canaco de sus derechos legítimos y mantener el estatus neocolonial de Nueva Caledonia es, por tanto, comprensible si tenemos en cuenta todas las ventajas que ofrece a la economía y la diplomacia francesas. Sin embargo, hay que medir sus efectos negativos, incluso más allá de la represión sufrida por el pueblo canaco, con más de una decena de personas muertas. De hecho, las decisiones de Macron han provocado una explosión social en Nueva Caledonia de una magnitud desconocida desde los años ochenta, lo que da fe de la magnitud de la resistencia popular. Además, la sangrienta represión de estas manifestaciones está dañando la imagen de la llamada patria de los derechos humanos entre las poblaciones de la región del Pacífico, y complica la actividad diplomática de Francia.

Al igual que las intervenciones en el Sahel en 2000 y 2010, el despliegue de 3.000 soldados se apoya en el aparato militar. Macron busca reforzar su poder vacilante y atraer, a través de este proyecto neocolonial, al electorado reaccionario metropolitano de derecha y extrema derecha. Desde cierto punto de vista, la determinación de Macron recuerda a lo que ocurrió en Argelia a finales de los años cincuenta. La posición de la facción fascista en el Ejército, apoyada por la mayoría de la población europea, era mantener Argelia dentro de Francia. En su opinión, era la única manera de mantener la grandeza de Francia. Por el contrario, De Gaulle, también militar, abogaba por poner fin a la guerra contra el pueblo argelino y concederle la independencia para mantener lo que él llamaba “la posición de Francia en el mundo”.

En su opinión, la salida de Argelia permitiría, por fin, a Francia volcarse en el mundo, gracias a las armas nucleares, a la construcción de una Europa en la que Francia podría proyectar su poder y a una reactivación industrial basada en grandes programas tecnológicos con fines militares y estratégicos. Por supuesto, fue esta visión gaullista de una Francia imperialista la que prevaleció sobre la retirada a Argelia. El hecho de que Macron envíe tres mil soldados para proteger a 73.000 europeos en Nueva Caledonia (de los 270.000 habitantes de la isla, según cifras del INSEE) muestra hasta qué punto ha girado la rueda de la historia para el lugar de Francia en el mundo. Las políticas de Macron solo pueden alentar los impulsos nacionalistas y chovinistas en la Francia continental, que son un caldo de cultivo para el racismo.

Para concluir, como sugerí a lo largo de la exposición, las transformaciones del capitalismo no pueden leerse únicamente a partir de sus determinantes estructurales. La observación de Marx en El 18 Brumario de Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte de que “los hombres hacen su propia historia, pero no la hacen arbitrariamente, bajo condiciones elegidas por ellos”, subraya la importancia de lo que en la literatura marxista se denominan factores subjetivos.

Estos incluyen el comportamiento y las acciones de las clases dominantes y los gobiernos, así como la resistencia y las ofensivas de cientos de millones de individuos que son víctimas de las decisiones tomadas por los de arriba. “La Historia no hace nada […] no libra batallas. Por el contrario, es el hombre, el hombre real y vivo, quien hace todo esto, posee todo esto y libra todas estas batallas” (Marx y Engels, La Sagrada Familia).

(The main report to the 32nd National Convention of the Communist Party USA, presented by Joe Sims, Co-Chair, was unanimously adopted.)

Good afternoon comrades and friends! A warm revolutionary welcome to our 32nd National Convention! And a special welcome to the delegates from our fraternal parties from around the world! We are very excited that you are participating in our proceedings.

We are so happy to be back home today in the great working-class town of Chicago. Chi-town! The city that gave us May Day. Chi-town! The city that gave us the birth of our Party and the Party’s press, the Daily Worker now People’s World. And this year we are celebrating People’s World’s 100th anniversary.

What a great tradition of struggle! Today, Chicago, you’re keeping that tradition alive: congratulations on winning community control of the police. Congratulations on the election of Mayor Brandon Johnson. Y’all keep doing it! Proving once again that the people united can fight back and win! And today we’ve come to Chicago ready to fight back and win!

The battlelines are clear. We are fighting a fascist danger at home and genocide against Gaza abroad. To defeat the danger at home, we’ve got to defeat the war abroad. Let’s make it plain: Biden’s Israel policy must be defeated today, so that Trump and MAGA can be defeated tomorrow! Military aid to Israel must be cut! The Netanyahu regime must be isolated! Palestine must be free and have an independent state! The support for Israel’s apartheid policies made in the corporate suites of this country must be defeated by mass movements in the streets!

Mass movements in the streets

And that is exactly what’s been happening. The student encampments, the mass demonstrations, the sit-ins, the petitions, the resolutions by labor unions, and the “vote uncommitted” campaign are having a huge impact. We say today, keep the pressure on. In fact, turn it up, turn it way up! Mass public pressure is the only thing this ruling class understands. It’s all about power and relationships of power. It’s only by building mass working-class led movements that real change can be achieved.

That’s how we’re going to restore abortion rights and win back affirmative action. That’s how we’re going to end racist police violence. We’re fighting for the right to organize. We’re fighting for the right to housing, health care, and a sustainable environment. And we are fighting this Pride Month for the right to love who we want to love.

Let us say it out loud from this platform, we are fighting for the right to live in a new society, a socialist society where workers rule and people can be and breathe free.

A Trump victory would threaten all of these rights. That’s what January 6th was all about. Never forget the Confederate flags, the nooses, the bear spray, the hidden ammo, the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, neo-Nazis and Ku Kluxers. But more than that, never forget the men in blue pin-striped suits and their attempt to stay in power no matter what. Never forget Trump standing in front of the White House, claiming the election was stolen. And by who? By Philadelphia, by Pittsburgh, Detroit, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tucson and Milwaukee. In other words, by Black folks and Latinos. In one breath, Trump criminalized two entire peoples, just like he criminalized the Central Park Five. This is the raw racism that’s at the very heart of MAGA.

Immigrants are a special target. First, they tried the wall. Then the Muslim ban. Now they’re planning concentration camps. That’s right, we said it, concentration camps. Think holding centers as large as Amazon warehouses; think thousands of red-state cops and the military kicking down doors, rounding up our children.

And if they come for immigrants in the morning, they’re damn sure coming for us at noon. Trump already said it. Think mass firings, think public lynchings, think public trials for the act of thinking. Think it can’t happen here? Think again. It already did. It was called McCarthyism.

In the first 180 days of a Trump administration, they plan to dismantle programs like food stamps and Section 8. They plan to get rid of the NLRB and the EPA. They’re going after marriage rights, civil rights, labor rights. And get this: they plan to bypass Congress, ignore the courts, and fire tens of thousands in order to make that happen. And when that occurs, these will be the first steps down the path toward a dictatorship. Hell yeah there’s a fascist danger! And it’s clear and present. Once you go down that path, there may be no turning back. That’s why everything has to be done now to prevent it.

Now, we’re not saying that the country would be fascist the day after Trump is elected. No, it will be the struggle over the implementation of their plans that will determine the shape of things to come. What will happen when Trump fires 50,000 civil servants or locks the door to the Department of Housing? What will happen when teachers refuse to stop teaching Black history or Latino history or feminist studies? How will students respond when debt cancellation is rescinded? What about the gay community when marriage equality is overturned? What will the broad working-class public and trade unions do when they go after Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare?

And what will Trump do when the people rise up and say no? Will he invoke the Insurrection Act, call out the National Guard and the militias, suspend the Constitution? Honestly, we don’t know. What we do know is that we don’t want to find out. Fascism in this country would mean a dictatorship. It would mean rule by the banks, Big Oil and the military corporations. Democracy as we know it, with all its limitations, would be eliminated. This would be a government of a new type. Not a difference in degree but a difference in kind. It would mean the substitution of one form of bourgeois rule for another.

Do we already live under fascism?

Some have argued in our preconvention discussion that we already live under fascism. They say, “What about the mass arrests of the students? What about the support for genocide? What about the police occupation of our cities and neighborhoods? Ain’t that fascist?” And they have a point.

At the same time, mass arrests, genocide, repression, even terror are not unique to fascism. Capitalism has employed them widely throughout its history. Remember Marx’s words: Capital comes into the world, “dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” The bourgeois democratic revolution was a bucket of blood. The price the world paid for its limited democracy in the West was colonialism, slavery, rape and mass murder in the South and East. And we know workers, people of color and women in the West paid dearly too.

That price, however, did not make these capitalist democracies fascist, even though they employed barbaric methods. What we call fascism today is a special product of the imperialist stage of capitalism. It is characterized by a unique form of class rule. When you have a dictatorship of particular sections of the ruling class over all other sections and over society, when there is no space for struggle, when the opposition is outlawed; when you have martial law and are forced to live in exile; then we can talk of fascism’s arrival on these shores.

For now, there is room within which to struggle. Let us use that space to fight for a ceasefire in Gaza and for an end to the war in Ukraine. Let us use it to stop the expansion of NATO, end the blockade of Cuba, and bring the Cold War against China to a close. Let us use that space to address the enormous problems we face here at home: the stagnant wages, the homelessness, the poisoned environment, the epidemic of police murder, the mass shootings, the opioid crisis, and the epidemic of domestic violence against women.

Struggle against fascism has begun

It’s clear this is going to be a long and difficult fight. The good news is that the struggle has begun: workers are starting to take the fight to bosses. Strikes are up and concessions are down. Unions are putting new muscle into organizing drives. The AFL-CIO has declared its independence from MAGA and pledged to defeat them up and down the ballot. Then just a few weeks later they declared their independence from Biden’s Israel policy and demanded a ceasefire. And they’re continuing in that independent vein. UAW President Shawn Fain said it best after the White House condemned the student encampments: “If you can’t take the outcry, stop supporting this war.” In other words, if you can’t take the heat, get the hell out of that inferno you’re financing in Gaza.

This new spirit of class struggle didn’t come from nowhere. A broad left has been present in labor for many decades now. It is anti-corporate, anti-war, anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-peace and pro-environment. It has a small but growing Marxist contingent. Listen: the resolution on Gaza, while fueled by rank-and-file activism, would not have happened without the presence of this left.

Party vision for labor

While celebrating these developments, we also recognize that the labor movement has many challenges. In spite of organizing efforts, less than 10% of the workforce is unionized. Labor is divided, with some internationals and independent formations outside of the AFL-CIO. Clearly the current level of unity does not correspond to the challenges labor faces from the bosses. Still, with smart tactics and militant struggle, important victories have been scored by the Teamsters, the healthcare workers, the actors and writers, and the UAW. We salute the Amazon Labor Union in their first victory against Amazon and wish them well in their affiliation with the Teamsters. And we applaud the Starbucks Workers United organizers who forced the company to the bargaining table. Congratulations!

In these circumstances, our Party needs to put forward a bold vision. William Z. Foster had such a vision. It called for industrial unionism and demanded unemployment compensation and Social Security. These concepts were powerful, they were timely and they laid the basis for building the CIO. Their battle cry was “Black and white, Unite and fight!”

What will be our vision today? What brand of unionism will unite workers across occupations? And what will be its demands?

Because we have a multi-racial, multi-national and multi-gender working class, this vision must address inherent inequalities within the class. Some people call this identity politics. We call it Marxism-Leninism. For example: undocumented workers comprise 4% of the workforce but have no voting rights; Prisoners compose 1% of the workforce – 55 percent of whom are people of color. Most cannot vote either. Women make up over 50% of the workforce, but their essential work in the home remains uncompensated. Shouldn’t our vision include voting rights for the undocumented and prisoners? Shouldn’t it include wages and healthcare for housework?

Then there’s the racist and sexist wage gap. We have long said it’s a source of super-profits. Do you know that today it’s wider than it was at the turn of the turn of the century? It’s true. And there’s no mystery as to why: Union density is lower. And the only way to address that is by passing the PROACT, which brings us back full square to the election. Our vision must demand eliminating the wage gap!

When applied to Party building, Foster’s concept of industrial unionism led us to adopt a policy we called industrial concentration. Industrial concentration meant focusing on building the party in key industries like steel, auto, electric and transport and in the communities where those workers lived. When some of those industries collapsed or were downsized in the ‘70s and ‘80s, that policy disappeared from our vocabulary and practice. However, the working class, while changing, has not disappeared. Shouldn’t our vision resurrect and reimagine this policy as applied to today’s circumstances? If so, to what industries and what communities should our attention be drawn?

The truth is, if we don’t have an approach to building the Party in specific industries and in specific working-class communities, we don’t have an approach to building a working-class Party. This convention should go on record to repledge itself to a policy of industrial or working-class concentration.

Rebuilding the Party in the working class

Comrades, what we’re trying to say is that the most important thing that we can do is to rebuild the Party in the working class and in the trade union movement. Everything hinges on that. A strong Communist Party among workers will shift the center of gravity in the class. It will mean greater unity in the trade union movement and in the broad working-class left. It will put the fight against racism and anti-immigrant hate on a whole new level. It will lay a firmer basis for combatting sexism. A stronger Party will act as a guard against fake populism and national chauvinism, an issue which we cannot ignore in our class.

And most importantly, a stronger Party will lay the basis for addressing the country’s deep systemic crisis. It’s been brewing for a long time: first with NAFTA, then with the TPP. As a result of these trade pacts 2.5 million jobs were lost. Add to that the Great Recession in 2008 when 4 million families lost their homes. Most were Black and Latino. These were tipping points. Working-class families all across the country, but particularly in the Midwest, never recovered.

Then we were hit by COVID. The economy went into a tailspin. Unemployment skyrocketed. And then things got really crazy. One day we were advised: “Wear a mask.” The next day “Don’t wear a mask.” The day after “Get a vaccine.” The day after that: “Don’t you dare get a vaccine. They’re filled with nanobots.” People didn’t know what to do!

Lessons of Covid

In order to address the Covid crisis, things that folks had been told could not be done were done. We got stimulus checks. Evictions were halted. Student debt payment was postponed. The child tax credit lifted millions of children out of poverty. Unemployment compensation was extended. Small-and-medium sized businesses got bailed out. It was almost like we had an anti-monopoly government.

While all this was happening, the MAGA right was blaming the victims for the crisis: the immigrants were the problem; crime was the problem; China’s the cause of all the misery.

But then the stimulus measures started to work. Unemployment eased. Supply chains started to deliver. A labor shortage developed and with it workers found themselves in a better bargaining position. Some left their jobs; some went on strike. Some demanded and won the right to work from home. Capital for a moment had to play defense. They did so in part by raising prices. Inflation skyrocketed. In response interest rates went up and once again the working class was forced to pay the price in more expensive loans – if you could get one – and increased unemployment.

Now we’re told the economy is booming. But booming for who? Rent is skyrocketing. Homelessness is increasing. Millions of children have been returned to poverty. Prices are still high and workers still have to work two and three jobs to make ends meet. Add to that the climate emergency, the worsening storms and the summer forest fires, while Trump promises Big Oil to undo the little progress achieved since he left office for the small fee of a $1 billion to his campaign fund.

What then is to be done? That’s the historic question posed by our movement since the time of Lenin, isn’t it? And the answer can be summed in one word: organize.

Now is the time for workers to organize and push as hard as possible for wages and benefits and for health and safety. Now is the time to push for housing and for canceling student debt. Now is the time to tax the rich.

Yes, now is the time for organizing – but not just any old kind of organizing but organizing as Communists – organizing with the plus. And here, we’ve got to draw the lessons from what was done during the pandemic: if it’s checks that are needed, write them; if it’s housing, build it; if it’s debt relief, grant it! Cancel the debt.

Building working class-led movements

The resources are there: the issue is – can we help make it happen? And that’s the role of the Party: to help make it happen by building working-class-led mass movements. That’s the path forward: to become deeply engaged in struggling around the day-to-day issues faced by the people. We respond to these issues as they occur. And that requires connections, on the streets, on the shop floor, in places of worship, in barbershops, nail salons, you name it: wherever people gather. And it requires responding quickly, taking initiative, helping formulate demands, finding points of unity, making connections, deciding what action fits and then taking that action – that’s what you call leadership.

While doing so, we point out over and again, the capitalist roots of these crises and the need for socialist solutions. That’s our plus. We are fighting for the right to a job, a quality education, control over our bodies, the right to vote, the right to live free of police murder. Capitalism constantly undermines and overturns these rights. That’s the nature of the system. The whole point is to reveal that true nature in the course of struggle. It’s that, and that alone, that builds socialist consciousness. That’s what’s going to lead to working-class power and socialism.

The role of the party is to struggle for working-class leadership in that fight. In fact, when we talk about concentration, that’s what we mean. We not only organize among workers – we’re not missionaries – but fight for their leading role.

Over the last several months, that has meant pushing for ceasefire resolutions in trade unions. It’s meant circulating the ceasefire letter among workers. It’s meant urging workers to support the students’ encampments. Today it means centering our coalition work in housing, environmental justice, political repression, and healthcare around involving the trade unions. We seek their endorsements, involve them in planning, solicit their advice and promote their leadership.

It is hard to overstate this. Do you know that the trade union movement is one of the few places in the country that provides the framework for real political independence from the two main political parties? It’s true. They have their own financing, mailing lists, phone banks, and get-out-the-vote efforts. They have their own endorsement process.

If you want to establish a new political party based on labor – and we do – doesn’t it make sense to begin with the unions’ electoral campaigns? It’s simply a matter of calling them up and volunteering. We’ve done it many times. After a while if you keep doing it, they’ll start calling you.

The upcoming election provides a unique opportunity. You want abortion rights, trans rights, voting rights? You want to cancel the student debt, protect Social Security? You want a Green New Deal? You want to pass the PROACT; you want to move the money? Well, you’ve got to participate in the election.

‘Lesser evilism’ or fighting for space?

Some people call this “lesser evilism.” And we hear that. But we call it fighting for space. We call it choosing the battlefield on which we fight. And we know it’s going to take a fight no matter what. The issue is what fights and with who? And where do you have the greatest chance of winning? This is about power and relationships of power. It’s about leverage, and choosing how and when to fight.

And you’ve got to be in it to win it. You’ve got to go door-to-door in the neighborhoods, you’ve got to canvass, listen, and organize. You’ve got to develop working-class electoral platforms and field working-class candidates. And you’ve got to run for office yourself. Yes, we’ve got to run communist candidates, some of whom are in this room today.

Voting as a conscious act of collective action

You organize before the election and you vote in the election. And you do it like workers and communists do it: you do it as a conscious act of collective action. It’s about how we act as a class. It’s about an expression of working-class and peoples’ power. That’s why the “vote uncommitted” campaign was so powerful: it was a collective act of peoples’ power.

And yes, we’ve got to do more than vote. Voting is just one step. When you vote you block and you affirm – that’s great. It’s a beginning. The balance has shifted. But nothing has changed yet. After blocking you have to build. You go back to organizing around the issues; you take that election platform and you fight like hell for it. And you use every tool in the tool box in that fight. You lobby, you demonstrate, you petition, you occupy, you strike. Over and over, that’s the iron law of class and democratic struggle. That’s how we fight for working-class leadership in the current moment.

And the fight for working-class leadership is changing. There are many new things: The working class has changed in many ways. It is more multiracial. The ruling class has also changed. It too is more diverse. What’s new is that important sections of the working class have moved left. But the opposite is also true: big sections of capital have moved far to the right.

New ideas and old ideas

These circumstances have produced new ideas and demands. Take the freedom movement’s call for a Third Reconstruction: Now that is one powerful idea! Think about it. The first Reconstruction resulted in state power to the former slaves which they helped bring about by means of a general strike. It expropriated property without compensation. It instituted what they called abolition democracy.

What then, on the heels of a mass movement, could a Third Reconstruction accomplish? What would it look like in terms of new forms of democracy? What would it look like in terms of a redistribution of resources and wealth? Will the banks be nationalized? What about the military corporations, the pharmaceuticals or Big Oil? The point here is that new circumstances have created new ideas – a Third Reconstruction – which raise new questions that our party should help answer.

At the same time, new circumstances can give rise to old ideas that are repackaged and served up as new. Take the idea of settler colonialism. It is important not only to acknowledge but to do something about the ongoing impacts of how the country was colonized: the genocide and the racial and national oppression. Like all forms of racism this is not a thing of the past but continues into the present.

These impacts must be addressed and they must be addressed frontally. At the same time, there are variations of this concept that have appeared in the preconvention discussion that hold that the main contradiction is no longer class but between the colonized and the colonizers. Behind it lies the concept of the labor aristocracy that argues that the working class or sections of it have been bought off. This new version says white workers have more in common with the bosses than workers of color. They divide the class by race and call these workers settlers.

Now we know how the country was settled, don’t we? We know that because some of us were unsettled and shipped over here by the tens of millions during the Middle Passage. We understand the history of colonialism and we are painfully aware of the genocide against the indigenous population. We know that because some of us are their descendants. And we know that a huge debt still has to be repaid to the victims of the genocide and slavery. And that repayment must include upholding Native peoples’ demand for Land Back, restoration of sovereignty and compensation for its violations, upholding treaty rights, harm reduction, and shared responsibility. I mean at a minimum. And that’s a beginning, not the end.

But we also know that in order for that to happen we have to be united. And we know that this unity is possible because as workers we face a common system of exploitation. And in that system of exploitation, there is more that unites us, than divides us.

Our working class lives and struggles in an evolving multinational, multiracial, multigender capitalist state. The national question, racism, gender oppression cut straight across and through it. And underlie it in myriad interlocking ways. Uniting the class by fighting against these oppressions is central to addressing the nation’s problems. Central. In fact, the reality is that you can’t solve the nation’s problems without addressing it.

On the one side, there’s the ruling class forces of white supremacy and MAGA pulling the country apart. On the other there are the working-class forces of democracy pulling the country together. Comrades, this is an objective process that emerges from the very heart of the process of production. Lenin argued that under imperialism there are two tendencies on the national question. One trends towards separation, the other towards unity. Of the two, he said, the trend towards unity is primary.

These are the foundation stones of our policy. We’ve got to remember that our task is to unite. But we remember this unity while objectively necessary is not automatic. And that this unity can only be brought about if there’s justice and that justice has to be fought for. And by justice we mean fighting to defeat racism and sexism now in the present. Not in some future.

Justice is being fought for

And that is exactly what is happening: justice is being fought for. The African American freedom movement, led by workers and women in their overwhelming majority, is in the thick of the fight not only against the MAGA right, but for peace and justice generally. Let’s recall that the African American ministry was among the first to challenge the White House on Gaza. Let’s recall the 60th anniversary March on Washington that brought together a wide coalition to recommit to civil rights and justice and defeat the MAGA right.

Let’s recall that the movements of the Latino peoples, now the single largest racially and nationally oppressed group in the country, remain an indispensable force for progress. As a growing presence in labor and in the nation’s politics, they are a key force for democracy and against Trump. Bilingual rights, immigrant rights, voting rights, the right to culture, and equal wages are among its chief demands. With the GOP threatening to invade Mexico, stopping the militarization of the border and peace are top priorities.

Comrades, let’s also recall that the women’s movements for equality, against misogyny, patriarchy, domestic violence and for abortion rights and equal wages is also a decisive force in U.S. politics – second to none. Women have been a mainstay against the Trump right and led the largest protests in U.S. history. Since the Dobbs decision, women have led the fight against the GOP right in election after election. They are a leading force in democratic, working class, and progressive movements generally.

Comrades, the task of this convention is to continue to fight to immerse the Party in these unfolding struggles. That’s how we’re going to rebuild our ranks. Party building, recruitment, and the consolidation of that recruitment is the order of the day.

And to do that successfully we have to change. We have to put aside individualism, put aside our egos and learn to work together. That requires listening to, trusting in, and accepting the leadership of everyone in the collective. Men have to listen to women, white comrades have to listen to Black, Latino and Asian comrades, straight comrades have to listen to our LGBTQ comrades-in-arms. And lest we forget, able-bodied comrades have to listen to our disabled counterparts. And not just any kind of listening but active listening and hearing what folks are trying to say.

But we must do more than listen. We have to train a whole new layer of Party activists from top to bottom. Cadre development has to be a priority and this convention should mandate the incoming National Committee to make that happen. We need skills, ideological and political skills, yes. But also, coalition building, civil disobedience, writing, speaking, photography and video-editing skills.

Collectivity – our superpower

Yes, we need to up our political and organizational game. Here we need to understand the politics of organization so that we are better able to organize our politics. And that means deepening our understanding of collectivity. The Party is based on collectives. Membership is realized in and through them. Collectives are the vehicles through which we organize our politics. It’s where our ideas and plans are tested in real life. It’s where theory becomes practice. And for that to happen our cadre must fully understand and practice democratic centralism. It is what allows the party to speak and act as one. Remember, collectivity is our superpower.

But in order for that superpower to work, people have to be convinced. Comrades have to understand the why of things. Therefore, cadre development must also provide a clear understanding of the ideas behind what we do. This demands a working knowledge of the Party program and the ideological basis for it. You can’t have confidence in the program, if you don’t know what went into it. And that means understanding the Marxist criteria that gives rise to it. Comrades have to be able to think on their feet. We’ve got to be able to defend our positions when necessary, but also be able to see the need to change them when that’s required.

At the same time, while we’re doing all of this, we must fight to strengthen the Party organizationally at all levels. And we are taking important steps to do just that. Clubs and districts are now reaching out to and vetting new members on a regular basis.

Ani, at the New York district convention, for example, said that the district’s membership collective regularly processes 30 to 60 members a month. The New York party has gone from three clubs at the last convention to 11 today. Congratulations! In Southern California, we’ve gone from two to nine clubs. Do you know that in Michigan, Laura tells us, in 2019 – around the time of our last convention – 10 people sat around a table and decided who would come. This time around, they had a day-and-a-half convention and now sport four new clubs. (and two more if you count the YCL). Again, congratulations!

We are also reaching out to and vetting new members in places where we don’t have anyone. The National Organizing Department has assigned two comrades, Esther and Carl. They say it’s tough work and honestly, the results are mixed. Building clubs in Montana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Idaho and Tennessee, where comrades are scattered over large distances, is a tough proposition. And while zoom may be the next best thing to being there, it’s still a real challenge to bring folks together and keep things functioning. Still a few clubs have been built, like in New Orleans and Tacoma, and comrades are continuing to work at it.

Today we’ve got over 100 clubs-and-counting that meet regularly. We say 100-and-counting because new clubs are in the process of being added. Saadia says one was added in northern Colorado a few weeks ago and Laura reports a new club was brought on board in Grand Rapids just last week. Welcome to the Party! All of us are stronger for it! The bigger the Party, the better the Party, the badder the Party, the more we’re able to do.

Strengthening organization

And of course, much more needs to be done. We are well aware of that. The Party is growing much more rapidly than we’ve been able to organize it. During the pre-convention period we received a number of ideas on how to move forward that we need to think through how to implement.

We know that communication has to be improved. We know that response times have to be sped up. Our infrastructure and websites need to be updated. We need better and more sophisticated technical and organizational tools.

We also need more bodies for the task. And over the last months we’ve added both to our volunteer and full-time paid staff. Our volunteers include Eric Brooks, Scott Hiley, Daniel Carson, along with our team at Good Morning Revolution: Taryn, Kei, Tim and Suz. Tina helps out as well in the New York office. Others work full time but do double time for the Party, like Ani, Dante, and Ben. Joelle and Roberta have been volunteering full-time for decades.

And even that hasn’t been enough. Recently the People Before Profits Education Fund, whose mission is Marxist education, added Erik to education work and Cameron Harrison to focus on labor education. Because of the Party’s growth, we have had to add to our full-time paid staff as well. And so, in social media, Fred and, last but not least in youth and student work, Aaron. Welcome to our full-time staff. And yes, this is going to put a big strain on us, particularly financially, but we felt we had to do it. And now we’ve got to produce and raise the money to make it sustainable.

And we know that even these additions will not be enough: our organizational work has to be expanded even further. Until now, the main emphasis has been on membership outreach. Going forward, it should also be expanded to oversee policy implementation, coordination of national campaigns and developing plans of work. In other words, it must assist the party in initiating and leading struggles. And electing a national organizational secretary as we proposed in the preconvention period is key to making that happen.

Our strength is in our clubs and districts

However, no matter how skilled, a single individual cannot get the job done alone. And even a stronger national collective is likely to prove inadequate to the task. The strength of the Party, as Joelle likes to remind us, is not in the national office, but in the clubs and districts. That’s where the rubber hits the road. At this stage in the rebuilding process, with some aging out and many new comrades coming in, the key issue is finding people who will convene and anchor the work. The question keeps coming up: Who will chair? Who will take responsibility for organization, finances, education? And the reality is that sometimes it’s tough to find comrades who are willing. In that situation, sometimes you’ve got to improvise.

Therefore, we’ve been forced to look for other solutions. And happy to say, we’ve found them. In Southern California, for example, they put in place an organizing collective of the district committee that met for a few years until two comrades, Janice and Richard stepped forward and were elected co-chairs of the district. The same thing happened in D.C. After a period in which the district exec coordinated the work without a chair, they too elected co-chairs, Carol and Dante. Until recently Michigan was in a similar situation without an elected chair. New York, Eastern Pennsylvania, and Missouri face similar challenges. The lesson here, at this stage of the rebuilding process, is that in order to move forward, you divide the leadership responsibilities in the executive bodies until comrades get a chance to learn the work and are ready to take on the tasks.

The communist press

Comrades, another essential part of the rebuilding process is building the communist press. It’s our voice; it’s our public presence, it’s our shaper of ideas. It should be our organizer of mass struggles. And when we speak of the communist press, we’re talking about People’s World, cpusa.org and our social platforms on Instagram, YouTube, X, Facebook, and we hope soon, TikTok.

Now, People’s World (PW) is our flagship. Everybody knows that. It’s a unique product of our movement. People’s World is a daily, 24/7 fighter on the front lines of the class struggle. This year, we celebrate its 100th birthday! Happy Birthday comrades!!

Our staff at People’s World is doing an amazing job. They’ve managed not only to reestablish but to maintain one of only two English language Marxist dailies on the planet. And they’ve done so with great skill.

Our movement faces a unique challenge with our press, unlike any other aspect of our work: they’re confronted with how to interpret, translate, and engage in struggle on a daily basis and to do so in a way that’s fresh and interesting and exciting. You’ve got to captivate, educate and motivate, and implement what we call the communist plus and all of this while the whole world is watching. As C.J. said in the preconvention discussion, most people hide their mistakes, we publish ours.

In order to accomplish this our leadership over many decades have honed a unique approach to our press. It presents People’s World as the voice of the Party and the voice labor movement and people’s movements. This is a partisan approach, a class approach, one that if applied correctly and in a balanced way maintains a principled position while opening doors making it possible for People’s World to reach over a million readers a year.

However, it’s not enough to say that our Party’s approach to People’s World is unique. It has to be fine-tuned and adjusted in the course of changing conditions and circumstances. This is particularly true with respect to its role as the voice of the Party. That is something that has to be consciously and creatively fought for.

And the truth is that lately that voice is not what it needs to be. And this has given some the impression that People’s World is somewhat removed from our ranks. It is not: make no mistake, People’s World is ours. But we must do more than declare it. The Party has to write for it; we have to be quoted in it. And its work across that country has to be featured. That is not only the job of the Party website as is sometimes argued, People’s World has to find a way as well. The Party matters. What we do is news. And if we don’t cover ourselves, you’ve got to ask: who will?

However, there’s an even deeper issue at stake here. And it has to do with our self-conception and how we see our role. As Gus Hall once said, our press supports the left, but it is not a publication of the broad left. It fights for a united front, but it is not the press of the united front. People’s World fights for militant trade unionism, but it is not a trade union publication. What’s missing from all of these concepts is the plus. What’s missing is our unique role and conscious intervention and advocacy for socialism. And that’s an adjustment that we need to be very conscious about making and maintaining.

But even more needs to be done. People’s World must be more than the printed word in digital form. It’s got to be a multi-media enterprise. It needs video, podcasts and other forms of reader engagement. It also needs greater involvement of our membership.

The good news here is that in a number of places around the country, comrades are finding ways to write for and circulate it. Writers groups are at work in Ohio and Michigan and one is starting in Southern California. Comrades in New York are writing as well. We hope you keep it coming. We need your articles, videos and photos, so please keep sending them in. And we need to acknowledge them and respond and edit in a timely way.

We also need to think about our audience and who we’re writing for, who is being attracted to our ideas. Do you know that most who come to our websites are young people between 18 and 30 and particularly those between 18 and 24? It’s true. At this stage most are young white men. We’ve got to think through how to build on and change that: how to deepen and diversify our content, to speak to people of color, women, and immigrants. Unless we do that, we’ll be unable to speak to our entire class. We have to ask ourselves, what are the issues that are shaping the thinking and fighting capacities of today’s young generation and how do we respond to them? That means that we have to understand that there’s a youth question which is in a state of constant flux and change. We saw that most dramatically, powerfully and beautifully with the student uprising around Gaza. And we’re proud to say that a number of comrades were involved in those encampments: at the University of Michigan, at Michigan State, at U Mass Amherst, at Cornell and Yale. Congratulations comrades.

Young Communist League

All of this brings us directly to the issue of the Party’s youth policy and the Young Communist League. Our last convention pledged to embark on a communist youth project and to work to re-found the YCL. We remain deeply committed to that goal. In some places around the country, districts and clubs are working with the YCL including in D.C. Philadelphia, New York, Connecticut, Michigan, Texas, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri and Kentucky. Needless to say, there need to be many more. We’ve established a national Party and YCL collective that’s met monthly over the last couple of years to encourage that process. We’ve also organized the Little Red Schoolhouse every summer that brings together dozens of young comrades for a 10-day introduction to Marxism. The fourth Little Red Schoolhouse will be held this year at the end of July.

We’ve learned a lot since starting this process. We’ve learned first that the building of the YCL is absolutely essential to the present and future growth of the party. Young people still come to socialism in their own way, according to their unique circumstances and conditions. This still requires its own organizational expression.

At the same time, we’ve also learned that this expression needs to be fleshed out. We’ve got to ask the question: what are we trying to build? How is that both similar and different from what the Party does? This is a political as well as organizational and ideological issue. Politically, does the YCL have a specific youth and student focus? We used to say that the role of the YCL was to campaign around a youth and student bill of rights. Is that still the case? What does that look like? If not, why not and what is it replaced with?

Organizationally, do we have the same structure, the same collectives and committees, the same conditions of membership as the Party? We used to say that organizationally the YCL was more of a movement and that its structure should reflect that and be less rigid and formal. Conceptually we saw the YCL in part as a school of socialism and therefore its membership standards were not as high as the party’s. Should that still be its approach? We think so, but let’s discuss it.

Then there are the ideological issues. We share the same worldview, Marxism-Leninism. Many members of the YCL are also members of the Party. We used to say two things in this regard. First, the YCL, while independent, operated under Party guidance and that the role of Party members in the YCL was to not only to help us develop and deepen our youth policy but to also carry out Party policy among the youth.

Comrades, we’ve also learned we need to do more to assist. We need to work for deeper Party-YCL relations. That means regularly meeting and discussing issues. It means fighting for youth leadership in the Party. Many of the problems that confronted YCL clubs over the last few years might have been avoided had there been greater consultation and closer working relations. Let’s work to correct that in the future.

Waystations on the road to greater structure

Presently there are calls in the YCL for greater structure. And some want a convention. Do we have the cadre to make that happen? What would demonstrate that? Shouldn’t we consider waystations on the road to greater structure? For example, organizing a national conference around a burning issue like the Gaza genocide. We attempted two national meetings over the last two years that didn’t come to pass, the last one a meeting of our students. If it had occurred we’d have been much better able to respond to and participate in the student uprising. But we didn’t have the strength to pull it off. Can we do it now? Let’s see. Or can we organize a national Party conference on youth to help deepen our understanding of what’s taking place in the youth movement and help build YCL collectives around the country? What about YCL regional schools in the fall and spring in addition to the Little Red Schoolhouse? Taking on a couple of these initiatives will give us a better idea of what we’re able to do.

For our part, we stand ready to assist. With that in mind we’ve hired a wonderful YCL organizer, comrade Aaron in DC, who we’re sure will make a big contribution to these efforts. Let’s help make their work a success!

Let’s get to it!

Comrades, I’ve thought a lot about how to end this report. And then I had a “lightbulb moment” – I decided I’m not going to end it – you are! If you think about it, that’s the role of the convention: to round out the main report, deepen it, amplify it, and if necessary change its propositions. We have had very rich experiences in the last period: fighting racist police murder in the George Floyd uprising, campaigning for abortion rights, and struggling for housing. We have been on the picket lines throughout, taking the side of striking workers all over the country to say nothing of our anti-imperialist work in solidarity with Cuba, Venezuela and for Palestine.

So let the debate begin! Let’s get to it!! Thank you!!

The greater evil is obviously Trump and the far-right GOP. He, not Harris, is threatening the deportation of 13 million human beings and the criminalization of queer people. Harris and the Democratic Party are lesser evils by comparison. But that does not exonerate them of being evil.

Bourgeois electoral politics in the U.S. has entered an epoch of unprecedented instability exemplified by three signal events. First, President Joe Biden’s catastrophic debate and consequent collapse in polls seemed to doom the Democrats to certain defeat. Then, Donald Trump’s near assassination and, by his account, divine salvation followed by his triumphant Republican National Convention appeared to consolidate his lock on the presidency and perhaps the GOP’s capture of both houses of Congress.

Finally, ina desperate move to save their electoral fortunes, the Democrats’ capitalist donors and party bureaucrats intervened to dethrone Biden and coronate Vice President Kamala Harris as their new nominee. Now the election seems to be a dead heat whose outcome is, right now, unpredictable.

It will be impacted by all sorts of surprises, domestic and international, between now and November. Whichever party wins, the U.S. will have a divided government, paralyzed and unable to implement the victor’s full program, and faced with intransigent political opposition that will accelerate what has already been a creeping constitutional crisis.

Global political instability

The electoral instability in the U.S. is, in fact, the norm throughout the world. There are few stable democratic or authoritarian regimes anywhere. Why? Because global capitalism’s multiple crises are undermining popular support for states almost without exception.

Just look at the heads of government that met at the most recent G7 summit. All of them, from Biden to Emmanuel Macron to the recently toppled Rishi Sunak, had record-low approval ratings. The same is true of capitalist autocracies, from Russia, where Vladimir Putin faced a coup last year, to China, whose population just a couple of years ago staged mass protests and strikes against Xi Jinping’s draconian Zero Covid policy of lockdowns of homes and workplaces.

Capitalism’s crises are thus undermining the capitalist establishment, driving political polarization to the right and the left, and intensifying external conflicts between states at every level of the imperialist hierarchy. Rivalries between established and rising powers, most obviously the U.S. and China, are growing, so are conflicts between them and regional powers, and these conflicts are often over control of oppressed nations like Palestine, Ukraine, and Taiwan.

Within nation-states, the establishment’s parties and regimes are unable to address the grievances of the classes beneath them. That has opened the door to their opponents, most commonly the far right and its parties. But if and when those forces come to power, they have been unable to impose stable regimes, because they can neither solve capitalism’s crises nor its growing inequality. Their policies, in fact, exacerbate them.

In the rare cases where leftist and reformist parties like Syriza in Greece have managed to win governmental power, they too find themselves constrained by the capitalist state and economy, unable to deliver and forced into compromises. Disappointment with their rule, in turn, has then re-opened the door to the capitalist establishment and far right to regain power.

The failure of governments to deliver any kind of solution has triggered revolts from below by both the working class and the oppressed as well as the deranged petty bourgeoisie. But the revolutionary Left is at this point too small and not implanted enough to galvanize mass struggles for reform and a challenge to the system, enabling the establishment and right to co-opt and channel movements into their electoral projects or simply repress them with the utmost brutality.

A socialist approach to electoral politics

In this epoch of political instability, socialists must develop a strategic approach to elections. We are not anarchists; we do not dismiss elections as irrelevant to the class struggle. Electoral politics are one of the battlefields of the class struggle.

We must contest our rulers on all fronts of the system from the economic to the social, ideological, and political. We cannot ignore or abstain from engaging in battle on any of those fronts. If we leave electoral politics to only the capitalist and far right forces that only empowers them to have more influence over the politics, ideology, and organizational priorities of workers and oppressed groups. We ignore elections at our peril.

If we leave electoral politics to only the capitalist and far right forces that only empowers them to have more influence over the politics, ideology, and organizational priorities of workers and oppressed groups. We ignore elections at our peril.

That’s why Engels argued that workers everywhere must form a political party of their own to lead the struggle on all fronts of the class war, including contesting our rulers’ parties in elections. Elections are a means to win the political, ideological, and organizational independence of our class from our rulers and a way, if used properly, to agitate for struggle from below for radical reforms on the road to the revolutionary transformation of society.

In the U.S., we have an exceptional political system. Unlike most countries, we have no social democratic or labor party, but instead have two parties of the capitalist class, the Democrats and Republicans. Both are funded and controlled by the capitalist class and used to advance their interests, not ours.

However, the parties are not the same, and since the 1930s, they have operated in different fashions. The Republicans have been the main party of capital–its A-Team. The Democrats have been the B-Team, which has come off the bench when the A-Team has failed, to promise liberal reforms to preserve the system and head off the formation of an independent party of workers and the oppressed. They exist to co-opt the Left and neutralize class and social struggle.

The transformation of Washington’s two-party system

Up until the Great Recession, the two parties have shared a commitment to neoliberalism at home and imperial hegemony abroad, and differences between them have been of degree not of kind. But in today’s epoch of crisis, this political setup has been radically altered.

Trump, a lumpen capitalist outsider to the two parties, has transformed the GOP into a far-right party similar to that of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France. It has found an electoral base among small business owners and disorganized, impoverished, alienated sections of the working class, especially but not exclusively white workers hammered by deindustrialization and neoliberalism.

Today’s Trumpite Republican Party advocates authoritarian nationalist solutions to the real crises of capitalism. Their program is embodied in Project 2025. While disavowed by Trump, his brain trust designed it and his Vice Presidential nominee, the execrable “shillbilly” J. D. Vance, wrote the forward to the new book by Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, which commissioned it. And most of the ideas from the Project ended up as bullet points in the GOP’s platform emphasized in classic Trumpite style with bold headers and capital letters.

Project 2025 advocates an American-first nationalist foreign policy opposed to Washington’s multilateral alliances like NATO; massive increases in protectionist tariffs, radical deregulation and tax cuts for the rich; the dismantling of the so-called administrative state; and the declaration of a culture war on oppressed groups, especially people of color, women, queer people, and migrants. It reflects the interests of a narrow band of middling venture capitalists in the tech sector, especially in Crypto and AI, nationally-oriented corporations, and the resentful bigotry of small business owners and downwardly mobile professionals.

Under Biden, the Democratic Party has replaced the GOP as the main party of capital. It has the bulk of capitalist backing and has forged an electoral base in upper sections of the professional middle class and much of the unionized working class.

Biden developed a strategy of imperialist Keynesianism to accomplish several interrelated goals. He has sought to refurbish U.S. alliances against China and Russia, implement an industrial policy to rebuild U.S. manufacturing (especially in high tech to compete with China) and offer a program of liberal reforms to restore capitalist hegemony over the popular classes, head off the challenge from the far right GOP, and co-opt and neutralize social democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez within the Democratic Party.

Biden’s program however has proved completely inadequate to address the growing grievances among the working classes and oppressed, who have been hammered by inflation. It has also failed to overcome the system’s metastasizing crises, especially climate change, which is causing catastrophe after catastrophe with insufferable heat waves, floods, wildfires, and storms wreaking havoc from California to Vermont.

Even worse, his project of reasserting U.S. imperial hegemony, in particular by supporting Israel in its genocidal war on Palestine, has driven Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Black people, and multiracial youth to oppose his administration. They all see him not as some liberal, or as Sanders persists in calling him “the most progressive president since FDR,” but as a war criminal rightly deserving the moniker, Genocide Joe.

Biden’s unrelenting support for Israel combined with the mass movement in solidarity with Palestine undermined his self-serving propaganda about Washington being a protector of a so-called international rules-based order. It also doomed his chances of reelection with hundreds of thousands in battleground states joining the “Uncommitted Movement” in the Democratic Party’s primaries, including the pivotal battleground state of Michigan.

His policies, his mental incapacity demonstrated in his catastrophic debate with Trump, and his war crimes drove down his approval ratings and depressed, alienated, and enraged the very electoral base he needed for reelection. That enabled Trump, the other widely-despised candidate, to stretch his lead over Biden and appear to be set to win the presidential election and even sweep the Republicans back into control of both houses of Congress.

Harris and the resurrection of the Democratic Party establishment

The Democratic coronation of Harris has transformed this election almost overnight. They replaced a faltering candidate with a competent one and are promoting her as a Black, South Asian Woman to re-galvanize capitalist donors, party activists, and what had been a demoralized electoral base.

There is real enthusiasm for her and a sense that she could now win. Her popularity is an echo of the appeal that Obama used to become the country’s first Black president. Capitalists and small donors have reopened their spigots of contributions, pouring $310 million into Harris’ campaign in July. She has hosted mass phone calls of party activists and staged rallies with large raucous crowds.

Harris has also benefited from the bumbling rollout of the Trump/Vance ticket after the GOP’s Convention. Trump clearly misses Biden as his former defenseless opponent and has been unable to come up with anything but racist and misogynist attacks against Harris, which may consolidate his right-wing base but will likely lose him support among suburban swing voters.

For his part, Vance has proved himself little better in stump speeches than the repugnant charisma vacuum Ron DeSantis. He’s been trapped trying to justify misogynist attacks against Democratic Party women as “childless cat ladies” and explain away his catalog of old denunciations of his boss, Donald Trump. No doubt, Trump regrets choosing this apprentice and could conceivably fire him in a fit of anger.

We should be clear, however, that Harris has only changed the atmospherics of the campaign, not the class nature of the Democratic party or its imperialist Keynesian program. As The New York Times notes, she has rejected the Left, embraced the establishment, and positioned herself as a competent defender of Biden’s record.

In a sign of just how far to the right she has moved, Harris now boasts about her career as a “tough on crime” prosecutor and, in an effort to fend off Republican attacks, promises to enact extreme border restrictions if elected. What crumbs she does offer workers and the oppressed are recycled from Biden’s Build Back Better that Congress torpedoed and would likely do so again in the future.

Even if enacted, however, those mild reforms will not address the deep grievances of the working class and oppressed. That includes her promise to fight for abortion rights. At best, the Democrats would restore the status quo ante, when Roe was the law of the land.

At worst, as they have done before, they will use their pro-choice position to galvanize electoral support, but when faced with intransigent Republican opposition, abandon their promise for national re-legalization. And of course, they will not fight to restore public funding of abortion.

Real change on that and every other demand must be fought for from below. Nowhere is this more clear than on Palestine. While she has voiced sympathy with Palestinians being massacred in Gaza and called for a ceasefire, she never opposed Biden’s unconditional support, funding, and arming of Israel to carry out the genocide.

In fact, she has supported it hook, line, and sinker. As Vice President, she has been an accomplice in the genocide. And, as the nominee in waiting, she has reiterated her support for Israel’s so-called right to self-defense (something an occupier does not have under international law) and condemned protests by solidarity activists.

The dead end of lesser-evilism

That said, we must be crystal clear: The two candidates and parties are not the same and it is an ultra-left mistake to characterize them that way. The greater evil is obviously Trump and the far right GOP. He, not Harris, is threatening the deportation of 13 million human beings and the criminalization of queer people.

Harris and the Democratic Party are lesser evils by comparison. But that does not exonerate them of being evil. Their support for Israel, record increases in fossil fuel production, and mass repression at the border prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Both candidates and parties are evil, but in different ways. Trump and the GOP are open enemies of unions and oppressed groups, despite their hosting turncoat Sean O’Brien, president of the Teamsters Union, and this-or-that speaker or influencer of color at their Convention.

Harris and the Democrats are a capitalist party that advances that class’s interests by co-opting and neutralizing the Left and class and social struggles. They channel those back into the confines of capitalist liberalism and tinkering with the system, a tinkering that is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the vast majority.

The so-called pragmatic Left contends that supporting the lesser evil is the only realistic way to stop the greater evil, gain breathing space for our side to build its forces, and over time build a political alternative. In fact, the last four years have decisively disproved each of these contentions.

Most obviously, supporting the lesser evil has not stopped the rise of the right in the US. Even after all the convictions for January 6, Trump and the GOP not only survived, but have expanded their forces and enlarged their base.

Because the Left, social movements, and unions abandoned opposition to Biden and the Democrats, and stopped, on the whole, fighting for our more radical demands, Trump and the GOP now pose as the only opposition. As a result, Trump at this point leads in national polls and in the electoral college’s battleground states.

The toll of the last four years on the Left, social movements, and unions has been extreme. Once our side threw support behind Biden and the Democrats in 2020, they, at best, implemented their program, not ours, and, at worst, adapted to the right.

As a result, four years later, the Left, social movements, and unions are in the main weaker, more disorganized, and less confident. The only exceptions to this norm are unions like the UAW that have organized and struck against their bosses and the Palestine solidarity movement, which galvanized popular opinion against Israel’s genocidal war, helped drive Biden to abandon his campaign, and secured important victories on campuses across the country.

The Left, social movements, and unions should draw the lessons from the last four years. Implacable agitation and struggle for our demands is what wins, not taking off our marching boots, putting away our picket signs, abandoning the battlefield, and supporting the lesser evil in the vain hope of stopping the greater one. That is the road to certain defeat in the short term and long term.

Socialists and the 2024 elections

Regardless of the outcome of this election, we are headed for political paralysis in D.C. and a looming constitutional crisis. Even with the sugar rush after Harris’s coronation as the Democrats’ nominee, the election is at best a dead heat with three months to go. The result will be determined, not by the popular vote, but by seven battleground states that will tip the undemocratic Electoral College to one of the two candidates.

It could go either way in the presidential contest, depending on twists and turns in the campaigns and unpredictable events in the country and world. In the congressional elections, the two parties will narrowly divide up the vote, ushering a weak one-party government or a divided one. Either way, the slim majorities and a weak mandate will most likely produce political paralysis.

If Trump wins, he will try to implement his program of authoritarian nationalism with the approval of the far-right majority in the Supreme Court. Democrats in Congress and in the states they control will oppose Trump’s most extreme measures like mass deportation or criminalization of queers, including refusing to obey his orders. That would open up a constitutional crisis.

If Harris wins, Trump will not accept the result, not only because he does not believe in democracy but also because he faces certain prosecution and likely conviction on several felony charges. Under threat of imprisonment, he will encourage his deranged, faithful base of far-right militants to stage protests including violent ones like we witnessed on January 6. Already neo-Nazis are marching in many cities like Nashville.

The GOP will follow him in opposing anything and everything Harris proposes both at the federal and state level, and the Supreme Court will support their efforts. Thus, even in the case of a Harris victory, we will be subject to political paralysis and a constitutional crisis.

Faced with this bleak scenario, what should the Left do? First of all, we should not argue with individuals about what they do at the ballot box. That is not the key question and debate to have. Instead, we must argue that activists, social movements, and unions should not spend our time, money, and energy campaigning for Harris as the lesser evil.

Those resources should be spent on building independent social and class struggles for our demands. Imagine what we could do with the $310 million Harris raised in July. Imagine what we could do with the thousands of volunteer hours spent on getting her elected. Imagine the organizations and unions that could be built, the strike funds bolstered, and the strikes and mass protests staged.

In making this strategic argument, we should not treat our siblings on the Left and in unions and movements who disagree with us as opponents to be denounced and dismissed. We should debate instead with them as our comrades in a common struggle. That is crucial because we will need to unite and fight together on the other side of this election against the right and the capitalist establishment.

And we should find points of agreement over the next three months, most importantly the demands that we support together. We should encourage them to join us in agitating for reforms like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, Legalization for All, a Permanent Ceasefire to Israel’s genocidal war, and the immediate end to all U.S. aid to Israel, among many others.

In making this strategic argument, we should not treat our siblings on the Left and in unions and movements who disagree with us as opponents to be denounced and dismissed.

In unions and movements, we should emphasize that we should not support Harris and the Democrats if they do not support our demands. This is especially true for the Palestine solidarity movement and our demand for an end to the war and all U.S. aid to Israel. As Noura Erakat, recently wrote about Harris, “Endorsing her without exacting this very basic concession is strategically short-sighted and self-defeating.”

Fundamentally, we have to argue for the political and organizational independence of our movements and unions from the Democratic Party. Our independent class and social struggles are the key to winning any immediate victories against the opposition of both parties, charting a way through their looming constitutional crisis, and building a new socialist party to lead the revolutionary transformation of the failing capitalist system.