how to fight the economic crisis??

8/14/2019 How To FiGHT THE ECONoMIC CRISIS??

1/10

CONSCIOUSNESS

AND

A SOCIALIST PROGRAMME

How can working-class people fight the effects of the worst economic crisis sincethe 1930s? Mass lay-offs are already a feature in the major capitalist countries

and around the world. The bosses and their governments are on the offensive tomake the working class, and large sections of the middle classes, pay for thecatastrophe they have created.

World capitalism is in a blind alley and its serious representatives see no quickexit. Take your pick; from the gloomy prognostications for the economy fromAlistair Darling, British Chancellor of the Exchequer 'the worst for 60 years' to Ed Balls, schools cabinet minister in the New Labour government, who says it isthe worst in 100 years! Most capitalist commentators now agree with our analysis,that at the very least, this is the worst economic crisis since the greatdepression of the 1930s and may yet exceed it.

In a sense, this crisis is potentially even worse than then. The extent of

capitalist globalisation, which led to this crash,, is much wider and deeper thanexisted in the so-called 'gilded age' before 1929. For this reason, it is alreadythe most internationalised, generalised economic crisis in history. The US,western Europe, Japan, eastern Europe, Russia, Asia, Australasia and LatinAmerica; all have been caught up in the downward economic whirlpool. It hascertainly developed at a speed and with a severity that exceeds even the initialphases of the 1930s depression.

The crisis then began in the stock exchanges, spreading to the financial sectorand inexorably into the so-called 'real economy'. Today's crisis was triggered bythe financial meltdown, fed into industry, and now has fed back into the financialsector. But 1929's full effects were only felt over time in the case of France,two or three years after whereas this crisis has struck with a speed and

severity that has terrified, if not demoralised, the representatives of worldcapitalism. What took three years in 1929 could now unfold in a year.

This crisis is marked by overproduction; a glut of goods, which the bosses aretrying to solve through mass unemployment of the working class. But it is alsoleading to 'overproduction' even amongst sections of the middle class, who arebeing ejected from workplaces alongside workers. In other words, theproletarianisation of the intermediate layers, a feature of capitalism even duringthe boom, is taking a qualitative step forward. This in turn undermines the socialreserves of capitalism.

Capitulation by workers' organisations

The capitalists are trembling at the social consequences of further economicimplosions to come. Their only consolation is that they face no organisedchallenge from the working class, because of the political beheading of the formerworkers' organisations, at the hands of leaders like Tony Blair in Britain andtheir social-democratic cousins in Europe and elsewhere. They went over lock,stock and barrel to the side of the bourgeoisie in the aftermath of the collapseof Stalinism and the ideological, pro-capitalist tsunami that ensued. The resultis that the mass of working-class people are politically disarmed in the teeth ofthe greatest challenge to their hard-won rights and conditions in living memory.

Without leadership and organisation when the capitalists have used the cover of


2/10

the crisis to put the boot in, mass anger has poured out spontaneously both in thefactories and onto the streets. This happened in Ireland as the government soughtto eliminate health benefits for the elderly. It was followed by angry protestsincluding occupations or threats to do so at Waterford Crystal and Dell, as brutalcapital shut down whole factories with as little difficulty as shutting amatchbox. The same outrageous scenes were seen in the ending of the weekend shiftat BMW's Mini plant in Cowley, Oxford, which provoked unprecedented protestsincluding fist fights between workers and supervisors. However, for this elemental

revolt of the working class to lead to a sustained movement, what is required is aclear programme, including fighting slogans, and organisation.

The capitulation, also shared by the trade union leaders, actually helped toreinforce the brutal imposition of neo-liberal policies on the working class andthe poor worldwide. The bourgeoisie, no longer forced to look over its shoulder atan organised working class or fearful of a labour movement revolt, was thereforeunrestrained in the mad dash towards unregulated capitalism. The former leaders ofthe workers' organisations proved to be a fifth wheel in the chariot of neo-liberalism. The complete pusillanimity of the union leaders is evident in thecapitulation to the bosses and their governments as the latter seek to unloadresponsibility for this crisis on to the shoulders of the working class and poor.

The masses are quite clear who are responsible. In Italy, the students, abarometer of what is developing from below, have chanted on demonstrations: 'Wewill not pay for your crisis'. What a contrast to the belly-crawling attitude ofthe trade union leaders as factories close down around the ears of the workingclass and all that we hear from the summits of the labour movement is the need for'shared sacrifices'. Leon Trotsky wrote in the 1930s that the crisis facing theworking class, indeed humanity, was summed up in the crisis of leadership of theworkers' organisations. The difference today, however, is that we face not just acrisis of leadership but also of organisation, or the lack of it, for the workingclass as well as a clear programme.

Never in history has the gap the 'scissors' between the objective situation ofcapitalism in crisis and the outlook of the working class, its absence of

organisation, particularly political mass parties, been so evident. Given therelentless propaganda barrage, the reality of neo-liberal policies over 30 yearsand the absence of a political and economic alternative, it is inevitable thatthere is still, despite the severity of the crash, a residual acquiescence to the'market', even amongst the working class. Many are stunned by the economiccollapse. There is even a lingering view amongst many workers that the presentcrisis is temporary, that it will all be over by the end of next year, at thelatest, and we can then return to the sunny, economic uplands.

Bleak economic outlook

These illusions are fostered by the 'popular' press and one wing of bourgeoiseconomists and commentators. However, another section has drawn the conclusion

that this time the party is really over. For instance, Sean O'Grady of TheIndependent declared bluntly in January: "High unemployment is here to stay". InAmerica's great depression, unemployment did not regain its level of 1929 until1943 when the US economy was being dragged out of the economic mire by thedevastating second world war. This puts in perspective the efforts of the Obamapresidency as it seeks to wrestle with the avalanche of job cuts and redundancieswhich are rising by 600,000 a month. Unemployment in the US and Britain couldtouch 10% of the workforce in the next year or so, the effects of which in themodern context are akin to a depression.

If anything, the position is even worse in other parts of the world, paradoxically


3/10


4/10

including the printing of a leaflet in Italian and a resolute demand for allworkers to receive the rate for the job.

Predictably, some far-left groups without a real presence or even an ear to thereal moods of the workers in this strike took a completely false position. TheSocialist Workers Party (SWP), for instance, concentrated on criticism andemphasised 'British jobs for British workers' as the main feature of the strike.Pushed aside was the fact that the BNP members who turned up on the picket line

were driven off by the workers. Moreover, the strike magnificently achieved anelement of workers' control and trade union involvement in the allocation of newjobs. Of course, one swallow does not make a summer but the workers in thisindustry and elsewhere now have a living example of how to fight in defence ofworkers' living standards and, at the same time, overcome national or racialdivisions in a complicated situation and actually secure a victory for the workingclass.

In the aftermath of the strike, the 'conciliation' service ACAS has concluded thatthe foreign-contracted workers did not receive lower rates than the Britishworkers. This is not true, but what is entirely forgotten is that agency workersformally may sometimes receive the same as 'domestic' or permanent workers intheir weekly or monthly wage rates. But they do not receive payments for breaks,

holidays or the overheads which the bosses worldwide are trying to wipe out as ameans of boosting their profitability. The same applies in this dispute. This hasbeen covered over by ACAS and acquiesced to by the full-time trade union officialswho did not exactly cover themselves in glory while the strike was on, beingconcerned to distance themselves from unofficial action which might fall foul ofBritain's draconian anti-union laws. This dispute primarily emphasised thepositive outcome and saw the secondary features of nationalism swept aside by acombination of the experience of the workers in struggle and the intervention ofsocialists and Marxists.

Most of the far-left groups have no perception of how a mass movement will evolve,particularly given the character of the last period. This will not be in aperfectly rounded-out fashion but, as Oliver Cromwell described himself, with

'warts and all'. If these ultra-lefts had been present at the beginning of the1905 Russian revolution, their starting point would have been, no doubt, tocondemn Father Gapon, the priest who initially led the masses in the firstdemonstration under the tsarist flag, with a petition to the 'Little Father', thetsar. In contradistinction to Vladimir Lenin who urged participation in themovement and even discussed and collaborated in the initial phases of therevolution with Gapon, they would have demanded that the priest be removed fromthe demonstration as a precondition for their participation! How would they havereacted to James Larkin organising mass demonstrations of Catholic and Protestantworkers in 1907 with Orange and Green bands in the common struggle against thebosses?

While making no concessions to racial or national prejudices, it is necessary,

above all because of the period we have just passed through, for socialists toapproach the existing political outlook of the working class in a skilful fashion.We do not have the luxury of the Russian sage who answered the question, 'How do Iget to Moscow?' by answering, 'I would not start from here if I was you'. Theworking class, particularly after a period of alleged social peace, never emergesinto struggle fully formed, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter.

Bitter class hatred

There is a gathering rage within the working class, signified by the semi-insurrectionary mood in Greece last year and the colossal anti-Sarkozy strikes


5/10

which convulsed France on 29 January. Not so long ago, Nicolas Sarkozy jeeredthat, despite his attacks on the French workers and the youth, 'where are thestrikes?' He was given his answer in the elemental revolt indicated by thesestrikes, which far exceeded in scope and turnout on demonstrations what wasanticipated even by the organisers in the trade union leadership. Over two millionworkers flooded the streets of the cities of France. Sarkozy, sensing theunderlying explosive mood before the strikes, immediately gave concessions to theschool students as a means of heading off the movement. This did not prevent the

strikes taking place, which indicated a whiff of 1968 itself.

There are, however, even in France, which is still politically in the vanguard ofthe workers' movement in Europe, important differences in the outlook of theFrench working class between 1968 and now. Paradoxically, the economic situationis far worse for capitalism today than it was in 1968 when the greatest generalstrike in history took place against the background of a continuing boom. Then,there was a broad socialist and even a revolutionary consciousness amongst workersand students. Given what has transpired in the last three decades combined, as wehave pointed out, with the capitulation of the leaders of the workers'organisations to capitalism, the mood is bound to lag behind that of 1968. Thereis a mixed outlook and a certain political confusion.

There is, undoubtedly, generalised bitter class hatred throughout the advancedcapitalist countries for those who are seen as the main authors of the presenteconomic catastrophe, namely the financiers and bankers. Semi-public trials haveunfolded in the British parliament and US Congress. The ire of the masses wasexpressed in France on the streets but, noticeably even here, was initiallydirected against the bankers and the figure of Sarkozy, despite his demagogicattempts to separate himself from the bankers. If even in France there is not yeta broad anti-capitalist consciousness, then it is perhaps even less the case inother European countries.

In Greece, the situation is somewhat different, with pronounced elements of a pre-revolutionary situation already present. This is reflected in the utter bankruptcyof the Greek bourgeoisie and its state, the desperation of the mass of the working

class and the youth at their poverty-stricken condition and their preparedness tostruggle, as shown in three general strikes to now. It is also reflected in thecomplete incapacity of the official parties of capitalism New Democracy and theex-socialist PASOK and the corresponding rise of a new workers' party, SYRIZA.This is combined with the bleak economic future facing Greece. So desperate is theeconomic situation that its economy has been downgraded by ratings agency Moody's,which could presage a refusal to buy government debt by capitalist investors. Thiscould lead to economic collapse and, in turn, could see Greece leave or be evictedfrom the eurozone.

It could also herald a series of partial or even outright national bankruptcies,as witnessed in the 1930s in Europe and neo-colonial regions such as LatinAmerica. Greece could be joined very easily by Spain, Portugal and even Ireland if

bond traders go on strike and refuse to buy government debt. Faced with thissituation, the ruling class would unhesitatingly resort to even more savagemeasures attacking the wages and conditions of the working class. The conditionsof the working class in this situation of decaying capitalism is like a man on adownward escalator frantically running just to maintain his position.

Discrediting capitalism

Quite calmly and 'soberly', the ideologues of capitalism debate the merits ofdeflation falling prices, cuts in production and mass unemployment versusinflation an increase in prices as the best means of preserving their


6/10

position. Deflation and inflation are heads and tails of the same capitalist coin,and the working class is called on to pay. This was shown by one writer in theFinancial Times who calmly declared that companies will benefit from inflationbecause a portion of the debt will disappear, benefitting those companies withfixed-interest debts. On the other hand: "Higher inflation allows more companiesand workers to agree to real wage cuts than would otherwise be the case. This isboth useful for those firms that are currently uncompetitive, and preferable for[capitalist] society, because wage cuts are more equitable than unemployment". In

other words, the working class must pay, profits must be maintained, if notincreased, at the expense of the working class.

Clearly, capitalism and with it the working class have entered a brutal new era.The burning question is how to close the gap between the underlying objectivesituation, of the drawn-out crisis of capitalism, indeed a series of crises, andhow to make concrete the slogan of the Italian youth: 'We will not pay for yourcrisis'. What is involved here as the recent strikes at the British refineriesand the outburst of anger at Cowley at the summary dismissal of 850 workers withan hour's notice show is the need for a fighting programme. Obviously, the casefor a general change from outmoded capitalism to a new socialist society has to bemade.

This crisis is proof, if any were needed, that boom and bust, the economic cycleof capitalism described by Karl Marx and so derided by the overwhelming majorityof 'intellectual' opinion in the past period, has reasserted its validity.Inequality can no more be overcome within the framework of capitalism than couldCanute turn back the waves. Inequality is the essence of capitalism, revealedclearly in the relationship between the workers and the capitalists. As Marxpointed out, the capitalists buy the labour power of the working class in order toexploit it. The working class only receives back a portion of the new value it hascreated, the rest being unpaid labour, the profit that is garnered by thecapitalists. The class struggle, as Trotsky pointed out, is nothing else but thestruggle over the division of the surplus product. The more that this surplusproduct is fought over particularly when profits stagnate or decline, as is thecase now the more intense the class struggle. The starting point of the working

class in this situation must be a determination to resist the onslaught ofcapital, to defend all past gains, before going on to make new conquests.

Contrary to what the bourgeois ideologists argue, capitalism, particularly in itsneo-liberal phase, is not the best nor the most efficient vehicle to maximiseproduction and distribute products efficiently to the peoples of the world. Theidea that capitalism was a seamless system, not subject to abrupt breakdowns,which was prevalent particularly following the collapse of the Berlin wall, is nowutterly discredited. Tucked away from the gaze of the working class in their'quality' journals, the defenders of capitalism admit this: "Conservativesactually believe in the capitalist system. Anyone who understands capitalism knowsthat it is programmed to fail from time to time. Conservative economic teachingshold that recessions are much like the weather. It may be possible to mitigate its

effects, but impossible to change its nature". (Peter Oborne, right-wing politicalcolumnist for the Daily Mail.)

A transitional approach

No mention of a rosy future: if capitalism breaks down we, the working class, mustpay. This is the essence of Oborne's stormy weather scenario, a world in which thestate is the umbrella for capitalism while the workers receive a soaking in theform of mass unemployment. We are not going to pay and we must demand an entirelymore humane system. Socialism must be the policy of the working class. EvenNewsweek declared: "We are all socialists now". Unfortunately, this is not yet the


7/10

case for the overwhelming majority of the victims of this system, the workingclass and the poor. Therefore, while demanding a democratic, socialist plannedeconomy, as a crowning idea in the programme of socialists and Marxists, it isnecessary to put forward fighting transitional demands in the current situation.

In pre-1914 social democracy, such an approach was considered unnecessary. Itsprogramme was divided between a maximum programme, the idea of socialism, and aminimum day-to-day programme. That decisively changed with the onset of the first

world war which led to the revolutionary explosions in Russia and the massstruggles and revolutionary waves which detonated in the aftermath of the 1917revolution throughout Europe and the world. In this changed situation, thestruggle for basic reforms and even the defence of past gains, came up directlyagainst the limits of the system of capitalism itself. The Bolsheviks thereforeformulated a transitional programme as a bridge taking into account the day-to-day demands of the working class from the existing level of consciousness to theidea of the socialist revolution. This was necessary even during the Russianrevolution because of the differing and changing outlooks of the differentsections of the working class. This was summed up in Lenin's wonderful pamphlet,The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Avoid It.

Following in Lenin's footsteps, Trotsky formulated for the revolutionary Fourth

International the Transitional Programme: The Death Agony of Capitalism and theTasks of the Fourth International. This was adopted in 1938 on the eve of whatTrotsky correctly anticipated would be a devastating world war. Out of thisconflagration would come a revolutionary wave and the transitional programme andits demands could play a key role in this process. A revolutionary wave did ensuebut social democracy and Stalinism stepped in to save capitalism in the post-warsituation. This in turn laid the political preconditions for the boom, thespectacular economic fireworks, which developed between 1950 and 1975.Consequently, Trotsky's ideas, which were fashioned for a revolutionary epoch,were never fully implemented in this period.

Some, like the SWP, therefore jettisoned both the transitional programme and thetransitional approach. We defended Trotsky's method but recognised that it was

necessary to modify some of the demands for different conditions, which the boomrepresented. The current situation facing the workers' movement in Britain, Europeand across the globe, however, means that this approach, if not all the demands of1938, is now vital in the present struggle. In fact, it is more relevant now thanwhen it was written in 1938 because the conditions which are developing are akinto the period anticipated. Trotsky demanded, for instance, 'work or fullmaintenance' in the teeth of endemic mass unemployment. We demand today, 'usefulwork, or a living income'. The working class refuses to shoulder the burden ofthis crisis. Let the bosses pay! If they cannot guarantee a maximum existence forthe working class, we can't afford their system!

Nationalisation

It is also necessary in this explosive period to take up the partial demands ofthe working class both at the level of wages and conditions but also involvinggovernmental action or inaction. A case in point is the burning anger directedagainst the banks, not just the crooks who have been caught, like Bernard Madoffand Allen Stanford, but the whole fraternity who have bankrupted their ownindustry and threaten to drag the whole of society, including the working class,into the abyss. They have allowed the state to step in to rescue them throughmassive bailouts. Yet the defeated, right-wing Republican presidential candidate,John McCain, is far from grateful. He has described the increase in state debt as"generational theft". But was it not his talisman, previous right-wing vice-president, Dick Cheney, who declared that "Reagan proved [US government] deficits


8/10

don't matter"? It has still not stopped McCain, along with other Republicans, fromconsidering full nationalisation of the banks.

Capitalist politicians can accept state rescue, so long as it is then runcompletely along capitalist lines and with the prospect of returning the'nationalised' industries in the future to the very same private interests whichruined them in the first place. Some commentators in Britain envisage that bankscould be nationalised and remain in the state sector for an estimated nine years.

The hypocrisy of McCain and his touching concern for future generations is beliedby the colossal expenditure on the Iraq war, probably $3 trillion in total, whichhe supported to the hilt. The corruption of Madoff is as nothing to the creamingoff of government cash by the 'privatised' construction industry to 'reconstructIraq'. Patrick Cockburn in the Independent commented: "The real looting of Iraqafter the invasion was by US officials and not by the slums of Baghdad". In onecase, auditors working for the government said "that $57.8 million was sent in'pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills' to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money".Although the extent of the robbery will probably never be known, up to $125billion (88bn) has simply disappeared. This is just one example of the way thatthe capitalists, not just in the US but world wide, use the state as a colossal

milch cow.

The demand, in Britain and in the US in particular, is not for bailouts for thebankers but for the working and middle classes. Even the demand fornationalisation because it is aimed at the bankers who are seen as responsiblefor the mess and which both Obama and the Brown government may be compelled tocarry through despite its unpalatability to them is not as popular as inprevious periods. This is because the experience of the partial nationalisation sofar in Britain and de facto in the US has alienated mass public opinion. Theboards of these partially nationalised companies remain unreconstructedlycapitalist in character. There were no celebrations similar to those which greetedthe taking over of the mines in 1948 by the Labour government of the time, withthe flying of red flags and big hopes for the future of the working class. This is

because, for instance, Northern Rock's state takeover was marked with increasedrepossessions of homes, the sacking of 4,000 workers and, latterly, lavish bonusesfor some of the capitalist crew who remain in charge of this bank. This is a formof state capitalism, not a step in the direction of socialism, as advocated byeven reformist socialists in the Labour Party in the past, when it was a workers'party at bottom.

The need for democratic planning

On the other hand, the 'market' offers no alternative. In Britain in 1999, forinstance, two thirds of jobs created were not in the much-vaunted'entrepreneurial' private sector but were in the state sector. This itself is aconfession of bankruptcy by capitalism. Moreover, the structures in private

industry are not at all an example of the 'meritocracy' beloved of the upholdersof the market. Indeed, so convulsive have been the effects of the crisis that moreand more capitalist writers have revealed the real character of the conditions andmanagement which are such an intrinsic part of neo-liberalism. For instance, SimonCaulkin in the Observer compares the structure of big business including BritishTelecom, which the government, it has been leaked, has contingency plans torenationalise in the event of its collapse as more of a mirror image ofStalinism than a prettified picture of an ideal capitalist firm. They are,according to him, "zombie-like in their structural and strategic similarity" withStalinism.


9/10

Rather rudely, he declares of management: "With their faces towards the [chiefexecutive officer] and their arses towards the customer" most managers are moreconcerned with earnings targets than producing a worthwhile product. The world'smost efficient, conventionally managed corporation, General Electric, "spends 40% that is, $60 billion of its revenues on administration and overheads Themanagers of large western corporations have much more in common with theapparatchiks of the command economies than is recognised". How much cheaper andefficient it would be to take over these firms, establish a system of workers'

control and management, and install a socialist planned economy!

Caulkin's article is both a concession to Marx's argument that the internalmanagement of even a capitalist factory Marx was speaking about the conditionsof the nineteenth century was an example of planning. The factory system, Marxsaid, applied to the economy and the world as a whole, would represent democraticsocialist planning through the elimination of the market. Now, ironically, giantcorporations monopolies have a top-heavy bureaucracy on the lines of theformer Soviet Union. The solution lies not with Stalinism or with the capitalist'market' but with democratic socialist planning. This requires the opening of thebooks for inspection by representatives of the unions and working-classorganisations, small businesspeople, etc, in order to inform working people ofwhat is the real situation as a preparatory step for realising such a plan.

Bridging the gap

The need for a transitional programme in this era arises from the mixedconsciousness of working-class people. This consciousness will be shaken andchanged by the march of events. But the development of a rounded-out socialistconsciousness, firstly of the most politically developed layers and then of themass of the working class, can also be enormously facilitated by a transitionalapproach and a transitional programme by adopting the method of Leon Trotskybrought up to date and filled out by the experience of the working class itself instruggle. This provides the bridge from the consciousness of working people todayto the idea of socialist change. Sectarians have no need for such a bridge becausethey have no intention of passing over from the study, armchair or sideline to

engage with the working class and, together with it, helping to changeconsciousness and increasing identification with socialism.

We have entered an entirely new period for the working class of Britain, Europeand the world. Even if Obama manages to put a partial cushion under US capitalismand thereby the world through stimulus programmes and this is not at all certain the situation that will arise from this crisis will be entirely different thanthe one before its onset. At best, the world economy will experience anaemicgrowth with the stubborn maintenance of mass unemployment. This, like fatty tissuein the body, is a symptom of a declining organism. Capitalism, however, will notdisappear from the scene of history automatically. It is necessary to forge apowerful mass weapon which will be assisted by raising the level of understandingof working-class people helped by a transitional programme which can provide

the helping hand for this failed system to make way for socialism.

Without such an approach, there is the danger that it will not be immediatelyevident to working people, even faced with the present economic catastrophe, whatis the viable alternative. In the car industry, for instance, where wages havebeen slashed due to mass layoffs, there is an instinctive understanding by workersthat there is 'no market' for their present products. But, given the hightechnique and skill that exists, it would take very little to convert the carindustry, with a market faced with massive overproduction and a glut, to theproduction of useful goods, including green, environmentally-friendly vehicles.These are urgently needed for the world's population, in the context of a


10/10

sustainable, environmentally-friendly transport system. Such a switch inproduction was achieved at the outbreak of the second world war but is franklyimpossible given the chaos of capitalism today. This does, however, pose thedemand for an alternative socialist society.

The gap between the increasingly worsening objective situation and theconsciousness of the working class will close in the next period. Events andexplosive events at that will help to ensure this. On the edge of an abyss, the

mass of workers will confront the capitalist system sometimes without a clearidea of what can be put in its place. The journey to a socialist and revolutionaryconsciousness will, however, be shortened considerably, the pain much less, if theworking class embraces the transitional method and a transitional programmelinking day-to-day struggles with the idea of socialism.

No to any burdens of the crisis of capitalism being placed on the backs ofworkers! No to mass unemployment, particularly the frightening prospect of a newgeneration being permanently on the dole. Nationalise the banks but withdemocratic, socialist forms of organisation, including the involvement ofrepresentatives of the working class, unions, small businesspeople, etc. Ademocratic socialist state sector will itself pose the issue of going furthertowards more nationalisation, encompassing the commanding heights of the economy.

On this road, hope is offered to working-class people against the dead-end ofstagnating, decaying world capitalism.

how to fight the economic crisis??

Documents