The 18th World Congress of the Fourth International took place in Belgium from 23 to 28th February. The wide-ranging discussion covered the international situation in all its aspects from the structural polycrisis in its environmental, economic, social and political aspects to the movements of resistance, and the need to build and strengthen our own International. One particular point of debate was how as internationalist revolutionary Marxists we express our opposition to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and our solidarity with the resistance of the Ukrainian people to this invasion, to the neoliberal policies of the Zelensky government and to neoliberal militarization.
We publish here the resolution presented by the majority of the outgoing IC, approved by the congress by 95 votes in favour, 23 against, 3 abstentions and 5 no votes, and the alternative resolution presented by a number of delegations rejected 31 for, 80 against, 9 abstentions.
Duncan Chapel has complied a table comparing both resolutions, indicating areas of agreement and disagreement.
1. In February 2022, Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in an attempt to turn the country into a Russian satellite. This attempt has caused hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded already. But the regime in Moscow has long been characterised by expansionist Greater Russian imperialist ideology, which sees superpowers as endowed with the right to extend their zone of influence by all means possible, challenging established norms of international law and legitimising a new era of imperialist redistribution. Thus, for the Kremlin, the daily increasing human cost of this aggression is no reason to cease it, and further intensification is instrumental to terrorise the Ukrainian people into submission.
2. What was supposed to be a “special military operation” to bring down the Kyiv government in a matter of days has turned into a three-year entanglement in full-scale war. This development was unexpected not only for Putin but also for the Western powers—Biden even offered to help Zelensky evacuate. It is precisely the determination and resilience of the Ukrainian resistance that has thwarted Putin’s plans to this day.
3. The invasion of Ukraine was not only an attempt to reassert the role of Russia in the capitalist competition but also a deliberate attempt to tighten control over Russian society and crush all dissent. Anti-war activists have been prosecuted and sentenced to long prison terms on trumped charges. Socialist organisations, such as that of our comrades in the Russian Socialist Movement, have been forced to disband, and their members have had to flee. While feminists continue to mobilise, they do it under constant pressure with threats of imprisonment for even uttering the word “war”.
4. As internationalists, we defend Ukraine’s right to self-determination and their right to resist the invasion. People’s movements are an integral part of this resistance, waging a struggle on two fronts: against the occupants and against the Zelensky government. In this unequal fight, we stand together with other progressive forces in the country. We urge all internationalist left to develop political and material solidarity with trade unionists, feminists, and social and democratic activists in Ukraine. Just as the Fourth International has been doing this since the beginning of the aggression within the framework of the “European Network of Solidarity with Ukraine” (ENSU/RESU) and together with the Ukrainian left-wing organisation, Sotsialnyi Rukh.
5. Once again, we underline that we have no illusions about the nature of Ukraine’s regime. Their government is right-wing and neo-liberal, not shying away from mobilising fear to stay in power. It is just as keen to satisfy domestic capitalists as to reassure the Western powers of its ability to adapt to their demands. Its anti-social and anti-democratic policies are counter-productive in terms of defending Ukraine. They oppose the needs of its working classes, provoke their resentment, undermine social trust, and, as a result, the government relies on increasingly authoritarian measures. This makes standing with the Ukrainian wage earners and their organisations all the more important. We cannot abandon them when they desperately need solidarity, especially if our vision of emancipation is that of a struggle from below, where the people rise to fight, independant from the government and the great powers.
Trump backs Putin against Ukraine. History turns darker
How bad can it get? When we strip away US president Donald Trump’s insults and temper fits, what can he actually do?
First, he can withdraw US military aid to Ukraine – which he has been talking about doing since long before the US presidential election. If the European states got their act together, which is possible, the effects of this would be constrained.
A friend has begun vital work – examination of the 2025 FFFGBG Programme for Government, which contains lots of measures these parties did not propose during the recent general election campaign.
Alarming things
The programme for government has a few alarming things in it – (and the government has a few alarming people in it) eg there’s lots of commitment to reduce carbon emissions alongside actions and plans that will directly increase carbon emissions. There’s a bunch of mangled science around the particular characteristics of methane and it’s basically a valentine card to those involved in data center construction.
Shutting people up over Israel’s genocide
It also has a commitment to recognise a particular and highly contested definition of anti- semitism which would help those who want us to shut up about Israel’s genocide and occupation – and which was as far as I can remember not part of any single party or politician’s election platform. It would be very interesting to find out how and from where and on whose request this made it into the programme.
This is a very stimulating interview with Catherine Samary on solidarity with Palestine and Ukraine – and also about the unstable political scene in France, where President Macron was electorally defeated by the New Popular Front (Nouveau Front Populaire) – and then made an unstable parliamentary deal with the far-right leader Marine Le Pen.
President Macron, Prime Minister Michel Barnier, Far-Right Extremist Marine Le Pen – Versus Left-Wing Resistance
— Before we turn to the discussion of the war in Ukraine and prospects for left internationalism, let’s talk about the recent developments in your home country. How do you analyse the current political situation in France and the role that left-wing politics might play in it?
— Michel Barnier’s new government combines two core elements: racism and attacks on social rights. The latter is evident in the ongoing parliamentary debates over the 2025 budget and social security funding. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National) has played a key role in these discussions, not least due to the fact that no single party has managed to achieve a stable majority in the French parliament. Even though the result of the New Popular Front (Nouveau Front Populaire) in the recent legislative election, which followed the dissolution of the Assembly last June, was unexpectedly high — and most welcome — it is still only a minor and relative victory.
This situation is unlikely to change unless the various forces within the New Popular Front come together, consolidate their victory, and start a large-scale mobilization. This could be achieved through the creation of local political alliances across the entire country that would be focused on concrete struggles. We should not forget that mass mobilizations against attacks on the social system are still possible — and so is the collapse of the government itself.
Frieda Afary has written an excellent analysis (see below). She shows that the Democratic party candidate Kamala Harris lost 10 million votes compared with Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. Trump’s vote totals in 2020 and 2024 were almost identical.
This article analyzes the vote breakdown, the pundits’ views, argues that Trump is a fascist and offers perspectives for the needed anti-fascist resistance.
Donald Trump’s election as president, and the Republican victories nationwide are a catastrophe for progressive forces in the U.S. and around the world. What the November 5, 2024 election showed was that while this country is still divided, there has been a rightward shift nationwide and across all demographic and geographic groups. (Levitt, 2024)
Vote Breakdown:
Let’s take a closer look at the demographic breakdown of the votes. Approximately 72 million voted for Harris and 75 million voted for Trump. Approximately 700,000 voted for Jill Stein and 700,000 voted for Robert Kennedy. This means that Democrats received 10 million fewer votes than in 2020 when Biden received 81 million. Trump received approximately the same number of votes he received in 2020. (U.S. Election Results, 2024)
It is hard to know if President Higgins has the power to force the Dáil to continue to meet against the wishes of taoiseach Simon Harris – but this request is certainly justified morally.
President Michael D Higgins
President Michael D Higgins has been asked not to dissolve the Dail later today, by campaigners who want the Occupied Territories Bill to be passed by the Oireachtas.
The bill would ban trade between Ireland and Israel’s illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is expected that Taoiseach Simon Harris will make the request for a dissolution this afternoon.
However, in a letter sent to Áras an Uachtaráin by the Mothers Against Genocide group, President Higgins has been asked to use his presidential powers to keep the Dáil in situ.
The lame duck President of the USA Joe Biden – a “proud Irish-American Zionist” – is a bigger danger to the people living in Gaza and Palestine because he does not have to bend to electoral pressures.
The US president’s behaviour towards Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has clearly retreated from the semi-critical approach he had begun to adopt after realizing how costly his total complicity in the Zionist aggression against the Palestinian people is electorally, especially among traditional Democratic Party voters, as it is even resented within the party itself.
This is a very persuasive analysis. Accordingly, we must hope that pressure mounts in the USA and elsewhere to drive Biden out of office as soon as possible. Some reports suggest that Biden only agreed to leave the election race in favour of Kamala Harris after Barack Obama threatened Biden with ejection from the White House, using the 25th Amendment mechanism.
This would mean that not only did they force Biden out of the race, but that the Democrats know full well that Biden isn’t fit to serve out the rest of his term, but are comfortable letting him continue as a figure head if it serves their efforts to retain power for the party.
At the same time we must dismiss wild conspiracy claims about these developments. There was no “coup” against Biden – since when did party bosses deciding to bully an unpopular leader to resign become a coup? A better argument is that Obama, Harris and company did not go far enough dumping candidate Biden, who clearly has major medical cognitive issues – War Criminal Biden should be booted out of the White House as soon as possible, by any means necessary – the 25th Amendment is a satisfactory instrument.
John Meehan August 7 2024
Joe Biden’s Crime Against Humanity
Joe Biden will alas not stand in the dock before the International Criminal Court – that much is sure. There is no doubt, however, that the court of history, which is the fairest of criminal courts, will include his name prominently on the list of perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
Since he announced his decision to stop running for a second presidential term, Joe Biden has become a “lame duck” – an expression that commonly refers in the United States to an elected official who has reached the final months of their term without any extension prospect. The expression means that the official’s influence has become limited, as everybody knows that they will not remain in office for long. However, a person in such a situation in a presidential political system in which the president is elected by popular vote (indirectly in the US case), is also, in contrast, more free-handed than a president campaigning for an additional term, who must therefore ensure that he (no she, yet) does not lose votes as a result of positions or measures he may take.
Ashley Smith analyzes the impact of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on the deepening political crisis in the U.S. and the ever growing weakness of the Joe Biden campaign.
The United States was already headed for one of the most acute political crises in recent memory. Then former president and convicted felon Donald Trump was nearly assassinated at a rally in Pennsylvania. Having survived, Trump has consolidated his base and cornered the Democrats by blaming them for the attack.
Trump will now position himself as a strong man and survivor over a debilitated Biden campaign. He has an inside track to victory in the election with a clear advantage despite being widely despised.
Even before the attempted assassination of Trump, President Joe Biden’s catastrophic debate performance had thrown his candidacy into doubt with the bourgeois press, the Democrat’s capitalist donors, and centrist politicians, all calling for him to pass the baton to another nominee.
GOP Capitalizes on Assassination Attempt
The attempt against Trump has drowned out all other issues. The image of him bloodied, defiant with fist raised, and chanting “fight, fight, fight” has been plastered across the media and will no doubt end up on t-shirts at this week’s GOP Convention in Milwaukee.
When you listen to this June 25 car-crash interview with former Leicester South Labour MP Jonathan Ashworth, you would be forgiven for thinking he was a member of the far-right racist party, Reform.
Jonathan Ashworth's car crash interview on returning asylum seekers to their country of origin
Jonathan Ashworth, "Rather than sending flights to Rwanda, we're going to be sending flights to the countries these people came from"
Shockat Adam was not alone. Five pro-Gaza independent candidates (including former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in Islington North) are members of the new Westminster parliament :
Provisional results of the 2024 European Elections, as at June 19. Source: results.elections.europa.eu
At first glance it looks as if the parties to the left of the social democracy held their ground against the surge of the far right and mainstream right that marked the June 9 European Union (EU) parliamentary elections (see here for results in detail).
Although the smallest of the European parliament’s seven groups, The Left managed to maintain its EU-wide vote at 5.4% and increase its seat tally from 37 to 39 in the 720-seat assembly.
In addition, left green Members of the European Parliaments (MEPs) and those representing stateless nations (part of the Greens group as the European Free Alliance) at least maintained their numbers in the chamber.
Yet the Greens group as a whole shrank from 71 seats to 53 while that of the liberals (known as Renew) fell from 102 to 79. This drop reflected that the environmental issues that in part drove the big advance of these parties in the 2019 election were less important for many voters this time.
The campaign was dominated by insecurity about the future, the cost of living (particularly housing), the fear of war, the “immigration threat” and intolerance of difference.
In this grim atmosphere the biggest growth went to the mainstream right European People’s Party and the two far-right groups (Identity and Democracy and Conservatives and Reformists): taken together the right and far right won an extra 30 seats, bring it to 324.
Because it would take only 37 ungrouped MEPs to join them to from a reactionary majority, the June 9 result poses with new urgency two old questions about politics in the European parliament. How much, if at all, does the real balance of political forces in the chamber differ from that among its formal groupings? And how much does membership of a group represent disciplined commitment to its positions?
Left divisions over Ukraine
The questions are sharply relevant in the case of the Left group, where differences over what stance to take towards the Russian invasion of Ukraine were already pointing towards a split before June 9.
On May 31, Li Andersson, chairperson of the Finnish Left Alliance told the Helsinki Times that these differences could not be tolerated in the group in the new legislature. Referring to Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, Irish left independent opponents of military aid to Ukraine, Andersson said: “The Nordic Green Left as a whole [covering Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands] is of the opinion that if they manage to win re-election, they can’t join our group.”
For Andersson, the same went for the new Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance: For Reason and Justice (BSW), a split in Germany from leading Left group member Die Linke (The Left). BSW opposes military aid to Ukraine and supports resuming the gas trade with Russia, in common with most of Europe’s far-right parties.
Tomás Ó Flatharta 