"But the harder the governments and the bourgeoisie of all countries try to disunite the workers and pit them against one another, and the more savagely they enforce, for this lofty aim, martial law and the military censorship (…), the more pressingly is it the duty of the class-conscious proletariat to defend its class solidarity, its internationalism, and its socialist convictions against the unbridled chauvinism of the “patriotic” bourgeois cliques in all countries"
1. Introduction
The imperialist war that devastated Europe between 1914 and 1919 marked the total rupture within social-democracy, understood as such the Marxist revolutionary labor movement that developed between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.
The main consequence, in organizational terms, of this political-ideological rupture was the creation, in March 1919, of the Communist International, after the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, which demonstrated the success of the Bolsheviks' tactics, not only in their revolutionary approach, but precisely in the incorporation of the frontal fight against the imperialist war as an essential facet of it.
The shameful collapse of the social-democratic international required a change of name, as the documents of the First Congress of the Comintern clearly reflected, hence the use of the term communist to completely distinguish itself from the positions that had led the proletarians of the world to be cannon fodder for the benefit of capitalists and their governments.
However, as the years went by, the same opportunist positions that had corroded the Second International began to gain ground within many communist and workers' parties. Today it is not difficult to find self-proclaimed communist parties whose political practice differs only in rhetoric from that of the social-democratic parties that are part of the Socialist International (SI).
On the question of the imperialist war and the position towards imperialist alliances, it is easy to detect the distancing of the social-democratic parties from revolutionary positions. But this is not an isolated fact, but rather a consequence of the general acceptance of opportunist theses, among which the main highlights are the denial of class struggle and the consideration of capitalism as a one-way path, with no possible alternative.
The acceptance of the political-economic bases of capitalist society inevitably leads to the acceptance of the continuity of politics by other means, i.e. war. This happens even though many parties of the big social-democratic family in theory express their opposition to wars or certain results of wars, in a sad reissue of the laments uttered by the German or French social-democratic leaders shortly after of having supported war credits.
The stance of the contemporary social-democracy regarding wars is an objectively counter-revolutionary stance. While they proclaim pacifism as the guiding criterion of their stance on any war phenomenon, they consent the participation in predatory wars, help to strengthen imperialist political, economic and military alliances and justify wars in the eyes of the masses. At the same time, they strive to deny the validity of internationalist positions that, learning from the historical experience of our movement, assume that each war must be assessed based on historical materialism and that, in the age of imperialism, wars are generally about the distribution of markets, sources of raw materials, spheres of influence and routes of transportation of commodities.
2. The imperialist war and the attitude of the communists
The imperialist war is a product of the conditions of the imperialist stage of capitalist development and is waged for the political and economic exploitation of the world, for the control of export markets, for the sources of raw materials, the spheres of influence and investment of capital and for the control of freight transport routes.
This definition is essentially the same the Zimmerwald left gave in its proposed resolution in August 1915, or the one approved by the RSDLP Conference at the beginning of that same year. If it remains valid more than a century later, it is because humanity has not yet abandoned the imperialist stage of capitalism and because the relations between countries and alliances in our time essentially continue to happen on the same terms as then.
The fact that we can no longer really talk about the existence of colonies in the world or that the European imperialist powers have lost relevance over these hundred years does not diminish the validity of our statements. Today it is not possible to affirm that inter-imperialist contradictions or capitalist crises, which are at the origin of imperialist wars, have disappeared.
The existence of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp during a large part of the 20th century does not diminish the validity of the aforementioned and, above all, does not deny the fact that the two world wars of the 20th century had their origin in the exacerbation of inter-imperialist contradictions. [1]
The attitude of communists towards the imperialist war is clear and is essentially the same as in 1914. As Lenin noted in Socialism and War:
Socialists have always condemned wars between nations as barbarous and brutal. But our attitude towards war is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within a country; we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is created; we also differ in that we regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by an oppressed class against the oppressor class, by slaves against slave-owners, serfs against landowners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as fully legitimate, progressive, and necessary. We Marxists differ from both pacifists and anarchists in that we deem it necessary to historically (from the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism) study each war separately.
Such need to historically study each war in particular, added to the specific analysis of how the different countries and the world in general have evolved in economic and political terms, is a lesson that cannot be forgotten. But, above all, it cannot be left aside to characterize, as the traitor leaders of the Second International already did in 1914, as “defensive” wars or “just” wars what are nothing but clear examples of wars between slave-owners for a “more equitable” distribution of slaves.
In our time, as then, correctly identifying the true causes behind each war has a critical importance. Furthermore, it is important to carry out a determined struggle against the positions that, under bourgeois pacifist premises or under supposedly revolutionary premises, try to convince the working-class and popular majority of the need to support one or another power in conflict.
The evolution of social-democracy, from the bankruptcy of the Second International to the present day, has been a constant setback. The positions defended then by the Eberts, the Debreuilhs, the Südekums or the Guesdes are today essentially represented by the parties of the two great families of contemporary social-democracy — one of them, the social-democratic parties that are members of the Socialist International and direct heirs of those leaders; the other one, the former communist parties that have experienced throughout the 20th century a process of social-democratic mutation that has led them to merge with other counter-revolutionary currents and, from there, to joint participation in governments of capitalist management, like in Spain since 2020.
This is because opportunism is the element that characterizes all of them. As the Russian Bolsheviks noted in 1914, [2] the collapse of the Second International was the collapse of opportunism:
The collapse of the Second International is the collapse of opportunism, which developed from the features of a now bygone (and so-called “peaceful”) period of history, and in recent years has some practically to dominate the International. The opportunist have long been preparing the ground for this collapse by denying the socialist revolution and substituting bourgeois reformism in its stead; by rejecting the class struggle with its inevitable conversion at certain moments into civil war, and by preaching class collaboration; by preaching bourgeois chauvinism under the guise of patriotism and the defense of the fatherland, and ignoring or rejecting the fundamental truth of socialism, long ago set forth in the Communist Manifesto, that the workingmen have no country; by confining themselves, in the struggle against militarism, to a sentimental, philistine point of view, instead of recognizing the need for a revolutionary war by the proletarians of all countries, against the bourgeoisie of all countries; by making a fetish of the necessary utilization of bourgeois parliamentarianism and bourgeois legality, and forgetting that illegal forms of organization and propaganda are imperative at times of crises.
The main difference between our time and the beginning of the 20th century is that the contemporary social-democracy does not hide it takes sides in favor of one or another imperialist power or alliance, its tolerance or acceptance of the imperialist aggressions that take place year after year in the world. Social-democracy has naturalized imperialist wars because it has naturalized imperialism and is not capable of offering any alternative, neither on paper nor in practice. Its “socialist” proposal is nothing more than a proposal for capitalist management based on the denial of the trends of capitalism and aiming to convince the working class and the popular sections that there is no alternative other than within capitalism. But they forget that capitalism is a “full package”, whose trends and dynamics do not depend on the will of political managers. Therefore wars, impoverishment, and the growth of misery are inherent to it and cannot be eradicated as long as capitalism survives.
3. European social-democracy after World War I
World War I was the catalyst for the contradictions that were already present within social-democracy. The crisis it unleashed revealed the true goals of most of the social-democratic movement, which completely betrayed everything it had been saying until then, thereby managing to significantly distance important sections of the working class from revolutionary positions and placing them at the service of the ruling classes, not only as workforce, but also as cannon fodder.
The rejection of the socialist revolution, the commitment to bourgeois reformism and class conciliation would mark since then the main stance of the forces of social-democracy, which also renounced to taking advantage of the situation created in the final stage of the war in a revolutionary sense. Those who had violated all the agreements and principles by supporting war credits, accepting chauvinist speeches and decreeing the end of class struggle in their respective countries in 1914, were also not going at the end of 1918 to heed the guidelines approved eleven years earlier in the resolution against militarism of the Stuttgart Congress, which ordered all parties of the International to “take advantage of the economic and political crisis created by the war to agitate the deepest strata of the people and precipitate the fall of capitalist domination.”
Despite this betrayal, the revolutionary labor movement was able to continue advancing. The triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia demonstrated that the revolutionary stance on the imperialist war, inevitably connected to the fight against opportunism, was capable of “hastening the fall of capitalist domination.” At that time, the former leaders of the International and its parties were already advancing along the path of managing the interests of the bourgeoisie, participating in governments, and adopting an active role in the repression of the revolutionary uprisings that began to happen in Central and Eastern Europe.
After the triumph of the working class in Russia, the division in the international social-democracy was completely confirmed: the right wing, represented by the revisionists and now converted into a bourgeois party; the left wing, represented by the communists, with the Bolsheviks at the forefront; and the centrist wing, formally Marxist and which in practice adapted to opportunism, claiming to seek unity and peace in the party.
The bourgeoisie, frightened by the evolution of events in Russia, knew how to take advantage of the situation and, counting on the revisionists and the center, was able to abort various revolutionary uprisings. In this sense, the role of the German SPD stands out, as it was fundamental in containing the Kiel uprising in November 1918 or in the repression against the Spartacist uprising of January 1919. Its intervention in the assassination of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg evidenced that German social-democracy not only supported bourgeois forces but was an active agent in defense of bourgeois stability after the disaster of the war. With this action, social-democracy confirmed forever its counter-revolutionary role.
As noted in our article in No. 3 of the International Communist Review, [3] in the interwar period —being the Third International already created— the international social-democracy was dominated by the centrist sector, which continued in its line of approving formally revolutionary and Marxist resolutions but bowing in practice to the demands of the right wing, to the extent of forcing in numerous cases the participation of social-democracy in bourgeois cabinets, either alone or in coalition.
The German SPD participated several times in governments of the Weimar Republic in coalition with centrist and right-wing forces. The British Labor Party governed in 1924, supported by the Liberals, and later between 1929 and 1931. The Austrian SPÖ governed between 1918 and 1920 in the form of the grand coalition with the social-christians. Sweden's S/SAP alternated its presence in the government and in the parliamentary opposition in the 1920's and 1930's. The Danish Social-Democratic Party governed uninterruptedly from 1924 to the 1940's, even heading the government of cooperation with the Nazi occupation of the country. The Norwegian Labor Party also participated in several governments between 1928 and 1940.
Especially in the Nordic countries, the old social-democracy not only formally distanced itself from Marxism and opposed the very idea of revolution, but also actively participated in the definition and execution of the so-called “great compromises” (such as the Saltsjöbaden agreement , in Sweden, or the Kanslergade agreement, in Denmark) that laid the foundations for what would later be presented as the great achievement of European social-democracy: the so-called “Welfare State”, based on the policy of suppression of class struggle and the promotion of “transversal” economic and political projects, all surrounded by a firm anti-communism.
On the other hand, the assumption, by the British and French social-democrats, of Chamberlain's thesis of the “appeasement policy” of the Nazi-fascist powers during the second half of the 1930's, decisively contributed to the refusal of these powers to provide aid to the Republican camp during the 1936-1939 national revolutionary war in Spain. [4] This attitude expressed, once again and painfully, that social-democracy reissued the sacred union in all the spheres of politics and economy, thus relegating the internationalist tasks behind alleged national interests.
After the end of World War II, the bourgeoisie faced a scenario characterized by the following elements:
- the triumph over Nazi-fascism, in which the USSR and the Red Army had played an essential role.
- the successes in the construction of socialism in the USSR.
- the spread of the world socialist bloc to a whole series of countries.
- the development of contradictions in the capitalist countries of Western Europe, as a result of the destruction of productive forces carried out in the war.
- the reduction of the material base of capitalism.
- the enormous prestige of the International Communist Movement among the toiling masses of the West.
Under such circumstances, social-democracy once again played a counter-revolutionary role and took its last and definitive step in the process of mutation from merely opportunist force to bourgeois force in the strict sense, placing itself between liberals and communism. Not only it assumed a role in support of the stabilization of capitalism in Western Europe, but also a leading attitude in the entire process of reorganization of capitalist exploitation in the region. They did so by taking advantage of two factors: the experiences of class collaboration in the Nordic countries and the enormous amounts of money from the Marshall Plan.
4. The European social-democracy after 1945. The foundation of the imperialist alliances
This process was reflected in a “refounding” of social-democracy, which came along with a new international organization: the Socialist International, created in 1951 in Frankfurt.
The 1951 Frankfurt declaration [5] of the SI, drafted mainly by the SPD, already established several key elements that marked the course to be followed by social-democracy. On the one hand, the abandonment of Marxism, by equating it with “other methods of analyzing society, whether they are inspired by religious or humanitarian principles.” On the other hand, an open and honest anti-communism, saying that it “distorts the socialist tradition” and that it is a “new imperialism,” and a conception of peace and security based on the need for “a collective security system” that takes into consideration that “international communism is the instrument of a new imperialism.”
The Bad Godesberg program, approved in 1959 and considered the essential political-ideological document of social-democracy after World War II, actually followed the path marked in Frankfurt, but took an essential step regarding the systems of collective security, indicating the need to create “regional security systems within the United Nations”, adding that “the reunified Germany must be a member, with all rights and duties, of a European security system”.
A few years later, the 1962 Oslo declaration of the SI Council [6] went a step further and stated the following:
The United Nations has often helped to resolve disputes between nations. However, it is, in its present form, not in the position to grant protection to a country which is the victim of aggression and to guarantee the security of every country. In these circumstances, each nation must accept responsibility for its own security. Some consider that a non-alignment foreign policy serves the security and the political stability in their own area in the best way. The International respects the desire of nations to be free to pursue their destiny without commitment in power relations of the world. Most of the Western democracies have joined to form the NATO Alliance. The democratic Socialist parties in the countries of the Alliance consider this a powerful bulwark of peace and declare their firm determination to uphold it.
These words were actually nothing but a logical conclusion of the process that several of the European social-democratic parties had followed since 1948. It should not be forgotten, first of all, that before the birth of NATO in 1949, the Western Union was founded in 1948 “as a response to Soviet moves to impose control over Central European countries” [7] through the Treaty of Brussels, [8] signed between Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, with the social-democratic foreign ministers of the United Kingdom (Ernest Bevin) and Belgium (Paul-Henri Spaak) also signing it. On the other hand, it should neither be forgotten that NATO claims to derive its authority and legitimacy from the United Nations Charter and is originally considered a regional collective security treaty.
Social-democracy actively participated in the creation of NATO. Out of the 12 founding countries in 1949, four of them (Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom) had social-democratic or labor governments. Paul-Henri Spaak would become Secretary General of the Alliance between 1957 and 1961. After him, other social-democratic figures such as Willy Claes, Javier Solana, George Robertson or Jens Stoltenberg would also become Secretary Generals. This leaves no doubt about the support of social-democracy to all the imperialist aggressions unleashed by NATO, regardless of what the declarations or resolutions of the Socialist International and its members have been since its creation.
As for the European Union, the economic and political integration initiatives were not received with enthusiasm by all European social-democratic parties in the early stages, even though relevant social-democratic figures were committed to them. Such lack of enthusiasm was mainly due to the prioritization at that time of national economic and political interests, without this implying a clear opposition to the process. Specifically, the position of the Spanish and Portuguese parties made an important effort to link the participation of their countries in European structures to the strengthening of the bourgeois-democratic system that emerged after their respective fascist dictatorships, but above all to the “openness and economic liberalization” it would mean. [9]
Despite the different paths and rhythms of European social-democracy in relation to the process of European capitalist integration, the decisive moment came with the Treaty of Maastricht, in 1992, when the European Union was founded as we know it today. This was supported with enthusiasm by all the social-democratic parties. It should not be forgotten that, at that time, Blair's and Schröder's theses on the “new center” or the “third way” —which would blur the political-ideological differences between liberals and social-democrats in the subsequent period— were already being forged.
5. The evolution of Spanish social-democracy
In Spain, as it has already been mentioned, social-democracy enthusiastically embraced the idea of joining the construction of the European imperialist pole. However, regarding NATO, the process was longer due to the particular conditions of the country compared to other European countries in which the end of World War II resulted in the consolidation of bourgeois democracies.
The practical non-existence of the Socialist Party for decades in the struggle against Franco's dictatorship meant that, at the time it began to turn into a necessary party for the stage after the end of the Franco dictatorship —with the invaluable support of the Socialist International—, it temporarily and tactically adopted some of the referent stances on international matters defended by the communists, as was specifically the case of NATO. Hence, the PSOE maintained, in its congresses prior to entering the Government in 1982, and still for a time, a formal negative stance on the entry and permanence in NATO.
The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party proposed, in the documents of its congresses prior to its entry into the Government (1982), the rejection of both the US military bases (27th Congress) and Spain's entry into NATO (28th Congress), based on a position very similar to that maintained by the German social-democrats in the 1950's, i.e. a theoretical approach of non-alignment with either of the two main “blocs” in conflict, which led them to insist on distancing themselves from both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. This was undoubtedly at that time already far from the approaches of other European socialist parties.
The 1979 Extraordinary Congress of the PSOE has gone down in history for being the Congress in which the renunciation of Marxism took place, in the same terms that were formulated in Bad Godesberg. A change in the trend began to become explicit since then, derived among other factors from the important influence that mainly German and Swedish social-democrats exerted on the new Spanish socialist leaders. [10]
In its 30th Congress (1984), the PSOE agreed to subject the entry of Spain into NATO —which had happened in 1982— to a referendum, expressing its disagreement with how the accession to the alliance had been carried out by the previous government (“in a thoughtless, hasty and gratuitous manner, breaking the consensus of the representative political forces, not taking into account the national interests and without a sufficient explanation to the Spanish people"), but at the same time including two elements of utmost relevance in its position: the need to rebuilding the “national consensus” so that the result of the referendum had broad support, and taking into consideration “the existing balances” (at the international level) so that the international tension “is not negatively affected by the result of the referendum.” Two questions that, due to their formulation, already announced a favorable position towards remaining in NATO.
Finally, the PSOE, which in 1982 made famous the slogan “NATO, from the outset, NO”, raised the slogan “Vote Yes, in the interest of Spain” in 1986. The referendum ended with 56.85% for the continuity in NATO. An example of “national consensus”. Javier Solana, the Minister of Culture of the PSOE in 1986, would become Secretary General of NATO between 1995 and 1999 and was directly responsible for the bombings against Yugoslavia that year.
6. The role of the new social-democracy
The process of opportunistic mutation that occurred in the parties of the Second International was later reproduced in the International Communist Movement, in a way we already assessed in our article in the RCI No. 2. [11]
The Eurocommunist theses, very present in several Communist and Workers’ Parties in the second half of the 20th century, proclaimed once again the defense of class collaboration, the abandonment of the idea of socialist revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle, and the transformation of bourgeois legality into a fetish, assisted by the advance of opportunist positions in the CPSU, especially since its 20th Congress.
In Spain, Eurocommunism took an active and leading part in the “no” campaign in the NATO referendum in 1986. It was precisely in this process when United Left —a coalition that counted with the participation of social-democratic forces opposed to the PSOE— was founded. Over the following 35 years, in which social-democratic coalition governments were tried on several occasions at the local and regional level, the social-democratic language and attitudes became hegemonic within them, to the extent that, as they participated in national governments with the PSOE, they evolved to positions of acceptance of the presence in NATO. In this sense, the words of the General Secretary of the PCE, Enrique Santiago, when asked about his stance on the NATO summit in Madrid (July 2022) organized by the government he was then a part of —as the Secretary of State for the Agenda 2030—, are absolutely enlightening. [12]
In parallel, other organizations that later emerged in the sphere of social-democracy, mainly PODEMOS and, more recently, SUMAR, maintain rhetoric positions very much in line with the bourgeois pacifism that Lenin and the revolutionaries already denounced at the beginning of the 20th century. In their programmatic documents they clearly express themselves for the “strategic autonomy” of the European Union, proposing “a new collective security scheme for Europe that goes beyond the current NATO umbrella and is based on the interests of our region” [13] or “the progressive shift of NATO security guarantees towards comprehensive strategic autonomy at the service of European citizens and not of the arms industry, a European security area subject to democratic control.” [14] The “displacement” of NATO (not even its “dissolution”, as other opportunist parties in other countries propose) is not because of its imperialist nature, but because of the need to promote European strategic autonomy that enables the imperialist alliance the EU is to better defend its interests in the world, under the command of “democratic multilateralism”, “global climate justice”, and a “feminist foreign policy”.
The acceptance of every one of the essential elements of the policy of the European Union and the acceptance of the presence within NATO are an expression of the collapse of the new European social-democracy, exclusively concerned with maintaining its presence in governments of capitalist management.
7. Conclusion: the communist struggle against social-democracy and the imperialist war.
The communist struggle against social-democracy remains within parameters very similar to those of 1914, despite the years that have elapsed. The opportunistic nature of social-democracy is not hidden in substance or form, and the experiences of capitalist management of the forces of the new social-democracy have aggravated this situation.
The task of the communists remains, therefore, to denounce and reveal the nature of these parties, now especially in matters of foreign policy, considering the events that are taking place in Palestine and the Red Sea region. Social-democracy is proceeding not only to legitimize the positions of Israel, the EU, and NATO, but is in practice breaking the solidarity movement with Palestine with the aim of promoting the positions of the Spanish Government. The current refusal to participate in the “Prosperity Guardian” operation does not alter the fact that we are at a time when more Spanish troops are deployed abroad, and that Spain actively participates in all the maneuvers and operations of the imperialist alliances it is a member of.
It is evident that the European social-democracy is promoting the warmongering plans of the European Union, in the context of preparation of a great imperialist war. The rhetoric of bourgeois pacifism does not hide the political practice according to the interests of European monopolies and its total commitment with the defense and promotion of such interests.
The Second Congress of the PCTE established as one of its priorities to decisively intervene in the struggle against imperialist wars and against the membership of Spain in any imperialist alliance, prioritizing the following:
- the opposition to all imperialist aggression, emphasizing internationalism and the right of all peoples to choose their form of development;
- the explanation to the class and the people of the interests of the Spanish bourgeoisie in the different imperialist operations it directly or indirectly participates in and the different imperialist interests that are at stake in each conflict;
- the demand for the unilateral disengagement of Spain from all the imperialist alliances it is a part of, especially the EU and NATO, and the closure of foreign military bases in Spanish territory;
- the promotion of the Committees for the Solidarity between Peoples and for Peace (CoSPAZ).
All these priorities inevitably demand an organizational strengthening of the Communist Party, a greater capacity for intervention among the working class and the toiling people, converting all the workplaces, schools, and working-class neighborhoods into spaces of direct confrontation with social-democracy and opportunism.
[1] Vagenas, Elisseos. The Sharpening of the Imperialist Competition in the Region of the South-Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. The Position of the KKE Regarding the Possibility of Greece’s Involvement in an Imperialist War. International Communist Review No. 5, 2014.
[2] Lenin, V.I. The War and Russian Social-Democracy. Collected works. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, vol. 21, pp. 31-32.
[3] Martínez, Raúl and López, Ramón. Social-Democracy at the Service of the Ruling Classes. The Struggle of the Communist Party. International Communist Review No. 3, 2012.
[4] See our article in the International Communist Review No. 11: The International Brigades and Proletarian Internationalism, written by Raúl Martínez.
[5] Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism. Declaration of the Socialist International adopted at its First Congress held in Frankfort-on-Main on 30 June-3 July 1951. English version available in: https://www.socialistinternational.org/congresses/i-frankfurt/
[6] The World Today: The Socialist Perspective. Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June, 1962. English version available in: https://www.socialistinternational.org/councils/oslo-1962/
[7] History of the Western European Union. The English version can be found in: https://web.archive.org/web/20120811173845/http://www.weu.int/.
[8] See the article of the Workers’ Party of Ireland in the International Communist Review No. 6: NATO and the EU: Inter-State Imperialist Alliances, Inter-Imperialist Rivalry, Expansionism, the Threat to Peace and the Dangers of Aggression and War, written by Gerry Grainger.
[9] This process is explained in a synthetic way in the article “The Socialist Parties and the European Construction”, published by José Lamego, member of the Portuguese SP, in No. 57-58 (1994) of the magazine Leviatán, issued by the Pablo Iglesias Foundation, linked to the PSOE.
[10] It is a well-known fact that the PSOE received a political, logistic, and financial support from the SPD in the 1970's, both directly and through the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Willy Brandt, at a conference on international politics of the SPD in 1976, said: “As the most important social-democratic party in Europe we have the special task, through political and moral support of the democratic socialists in our part of Europe, to reject not only the reaction of the right, but above all to strengthen the alternative to communism.”
[11] Martínez, Raúl. From “Eurocommunism” to Present Opportunism”. International Communist Review, No. 2, 2011.
[12] Asked at a press conference on June 11th, 2022, he noted that “our position on NATO is known, we would prefer not to be in NATO (…) but if we are part of an international organization and we have obligations, it is obvious that, as long as we are part of it, we have to comply with them”.
[13] Political Document. 4th Citizen Assembly of PODEMOS (2021), page 56.
[14] SUMAR Electoral Program for the July 2023 General Elections, page 139.
* Ástor García is the General Secretary of the CC of the Communist Party of the Workers of Spain (PCTE)
International Communist Review, Issue 13, 2024
