2014 is the 100th anniversary of the first great world war between the imperialist powers.

The first major crisis of the capitalist system, called the "Long Depression" rocked the world since 1873 and the imperialist powers were placed in a difficult situation. The development of productive forces, with the help of the Industrial Revolution, had reached unrivaled levels to what had happened before. It was the first major overproduction crisis of capitalism.

The Depression marks the end point of the free-market stage and announces the future capitalism, imperialism. The response of the imperialist powers was staged in the Berlin Conference (1884-1885). If so far, European imperialism had barely settled in Africa, thereafter it will be launched to the ruthless conquest of the continent: in a few years only Liberia (USA protectorate) and Ethiopia (after a war of liberation) remained exempt of the colonial division.

The end of British imperialist monopoly and the birth of different imperialist poles not only did not ensure peace, but ensured the conflict of interests between the different powers.

At that time, when historical social-democracy should have played a vanguard role of the labour movement, it consummated its treason instead, passing to the camp of the bourgeoisie. With the signing of the war budgets by the German and French social-democracy (August 4, 1914) not only the collapse of the Second International, by supporting its imperialist bourgeoisie, was staged; at the same time it was proved that the labour movement can only consolidate itself through a resolute struggle against opportunism.

A century later, the current crisis is much deeper than the one in 1873 and even in 1929. Today, as then, the development of capitalism in its imperialist phase places the central bourgeoisies in a position of “all or nothing”: the capitalist accumulation cycle is stopped and the bourgeoisies have two options: either to see how their power as the ruling class declines or initiate an imperialist war as a desperate way out. Under imperialism there is no peace, there is a state of permanent war.

A preliminary historical fact has played a key role in the current situation, the triumph of the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, restoring the capitalist dictatorship in most of what was the socialist camp.

The USSR, together with the other socialist and non-aligned countries, raised a real dam against the most aggressive plans of the imperialist powers, which were forced to present a common front against socialism, thereby temporarily decreasing the risk of an armed conflict between capitalists.

Today, after more than twenty years without the existence of that dam that was the socialist camp, we witness how the inter-imperialist contradictions are intensified at high speed, creating a situation that the working class and its vanguard organizations, the Communist and Workers' Parties, should analyze and study in depth if we want to articulate a revolutionary position which is consistent with the historical moment we live, in which the possibility of new imperialist wars is more real day after day.

With the historical development, inter-imperialist contradictions are sharpened. This intensification comes from the dispute for raw materials, especially the rare ones and the most necessary for the current productive model, for control of the necessary markets for the realization of surplus value and the tutelage of geopolitical areas that play a more important role in world power (eg. Eurasia).

When studying the inter-imperialist contradictions that are expressed today it is necessary to refer to the "traditional" imperialist powers such as the United States, European Union and Japan, but we also have to include that group of countries responding to the acronym BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), whose increasing role in the economic and military fields can not be ignored in analysis which conceal their position in the imperialist pyramid.

Nearly half of the 500 largest monopolies in the world have a USA origin. Even so, the USA economy moves back, going from 24% to 18.9% share in world's GDP between 2001 and 2012, according to the IMF.

At the same time its still unquestionable military superiority places the USA as the only country able to militarily intervene anywhere in the world. That disproportionate military power becomes their wild card against capitalist crisis, to be used in the most suitable moment for their interests.

The Obama Administration is based on the doctrine of Smart Power, (combination of drones, NSA-CIA and diplomacy), which is nothing more than the current strategy to consolidate American hegemony in the world imperialist system under conditions of that hegemony being disputed by other powers. USA have always resorted to war when they see their interests jeopardized in any country, using any excuse for it.

Obama's second term has been characterized by a particular schema in international politics, in which, while the Asia-Pacific region is growing in importance and interest, the major scenarios – which US imperialism can not control - are Afghanistan (with its links to Pakistan), Israel-Palestine and North Africa. At the same time, relations with China and Russia are understood by the USA in a scheme that combines cooperation and conflict [1], while Latin America, Europe and Africa, taken in general, come to be regarded as "backyards" in which the potential for conflict does not have the same damaging potential as in other regions of the planet.

Middle East remains the world's strategic pivot, where today most "hot spots" are found: Israel-Palestine, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc.

The main threat to the hegemonic position of the United States comes from the anticipation of the transformation of China in the first world economic power in a short period of time. To this we should add the Chinese partnership strategy developed in its geopolitical area, which includes countries such important as India and Russia.

The PCPE defines the European Union an inter-state imperialist alliance, which is, today, one of the fundamental powers. The documents from our 9th Congress state that “The role of the EU, in a similar situation to that of Japan, is strongly mediated by its connection to American imperialism, but the inter-imperialist struggle manifests itself cyclically and reveals the interests of the oligarchy of the EU in displacing the USA in the world's imperialist chain”. [2]

The inter-state nature of the EU is a generator of internal tensions which are quite sensitive under conditions of crisis. In some cases it is Germany that seeks to impose processes of centralization to which other EU countries are opposed, because they undermine their national interests; in other cases it is the other countries who want to advance in the process of centralization and meet with the refusal of the German government, who does not want to “bear the burden” of the economic hardships of the weakest imperialist countries. The struggles in relation to the banking union – the Euro-bonds - are an example of these conflicting tendencies. Although the nation-state tends to lose some elements of sovereignty it still remains the main framework of capitalist accumulation and, therefore, the main framework of the development of the class struggle.

The EU will always face the difficulty of the diverse social base – economic, historical, cultural, social, etc. - that integrates its project and this is a barrier impassable until now to advancing its supranational integration focus. The old building processes of nation-states in Europe (18th and 19th centuries) underwent homogenization processes of a broad social base, with an inclusive character, which the imperialist project of the EU has not been able to generate.

EU's imperialism, at least partially, shares interests with US imperialism, which could be soon realized with the signing of a EU-US Free Trade Agreement.

The European Global Strategy (EGS) defines the fundamental political line of European imperialism. When by 2050 it is estimated that no European country will be among the top 10 economies in the world, the EGS defines a geopolitical area under the name of “strategic neighbourhood”.

This strategic neighbourhood would be formed not only by the geographically nearby countries (Eastern Europe and the former USSR, Mediterranean countries) but also by others in “broader areas that are functionally linked to European interests, such as the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, the Arctic and the adjacent sea-lanes". [3]

This orientation explains the growing military presence of the EU and its members in operations such as Operation Atalanta in Somali waters, the military intervention in Mali, the Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel or the particular interest of France to overthrow Gaddafi.

Within the framework of these relations of “strategic neighbourhood”, the growing role of Turkey in the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean is an added element of concern for the European Union. Since 1923, Turkey has been a usual ally of the EU and USA in the area, confirmed by their prompt accession to the Council of Europe (1949), NATO (1952) or OECD (1963). At the same time, as an imperialist power itself – at its own level - Turkey has an important influence in the Near and Middle East. A reflection of this situation is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, destined to become one of the main routes of oil supplies to Europe, which is why the EU notes with concern both the possible Turkish strength and its increasingly close ties with the United States.

This fully introduces us in an essential chapter for the European imperialist strategy: the energy issue. The EU is obliged to purchase from foreign suppliers due to insufficient energy resources in its soil, which affects the security of the member states and their aggressive plans in the international arena. Moreover from the fact that USA is moving towards energy independence [4]. For the EU, energy sovereignty can come from the existing gas reserves in Eurasia, the largest known gas reserves [5], which forces once and again to rethink the relationship with Russia.

The southern European countries lack adequate connections with the rest of the EU and depend on North Africa and the Middle East, areas of great instability. In face of this situation, the EU strategy involves the “diversification of supply sources” which claims that each member country has at least two different sources of supply, projecting different infrastructures for that purpose.

This position, advocated by the European Commission, aims to improve the internal connections of the EU and reduce its dependence on Russian supplies. The “Third Energy Package” of the EU goes in that direction and goes against Russian interests, even though the Commission had to change its initial plans due to French, and especially German, pressure, both countries that were unwilling to let their state monopolies lose the ownership of their gas and electricity networks.

In order to maintain a strong position in defense of their interests, the EU is developing several projects to modernize its military capabilities and is demanding all its members a steady increase in the budgets of weapons. While steps have not been taken in the military field toward creating unified armies of the EU, different forms of coordination in all matters relating to espionage, police forces and tactics of state terrorism, Frontex, Europol, OSCE, etc., are advancing.

Japan's role in the imperialist pyramid is determined by its evolution since the end of World War II. The brutal aggression of US imperialism by launching bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the limitations on its military capacity and the division of spheres of influence - under American rule in the case of Japan - determined the strategies of accumulation of Japanese capitalism in the second half of the twentieth century.

With a limited territory and scarcity of energy resources, Japanese imperialism chose a development strategy supported by a specialization in resources of high scientific and technological capabilities - electronics, machinery, vehicles, etc. - and the achievement of energy independence using nuclear production.

Freed - against his will – of an important military budget, Japanese capitalism - in alliance with US imperialism - soon recovered its capacity of capitalist accumulation in imperialist stage, making its initial disadvantage at the end of WWII a support for its increasing development as an imperialist power, ranking as one of the three major centers in the post-war scenario.

Regardless of the success of the first period, this strategy ended plunging Japanese capitalism – as a product of its same internal logic - in a long cycle of economic stagnation which smashed their aspirations for unlimited growth, but did not made them lose any influence on the world stage.

Significant changes in the geopolitical area in recent decades have had a major impact on their ability as a world imperialist power.

On one hand the very important Chinese economic development – historical competitor for the hegemony in the area – and on the other hand the increasing development of Indian capitalism, together with other imperialist centers of smaller dimension. Both factors have increased the tensions in the area and diminished the outstanding role of Japan.

The recent catastrophic accident at Fukushima has questioned its energy supply model, placing it in a state of uncertainty for the future, from which it is very difficult to escape because the possibilities of restructuring the energy model are complex and a high economic cost that Japan is not in a position to assume.

The military alliances which are being specified in the area, with a determining role of China, who is already producing last generation weaponry, have recently forced Japan to increase its military spending and to assume the need for a competitive edge in the field of war. This creates new dependencies that were not foreseen in the Japanese economic model.

The growth of the younger imperialist powers will gradually relegate Japan to a backward position in the field of inter-imperialist global competition. Japan's alliance with the United States is a poisoned way out of this situation: while it may be Japan's lifeline, it can only lead Japan to the reissue of new war scenarios driven by the needs of US imperialism.

The heterogeneous group of powers which are included under this acronym represent dynamic developments of the new expressions adopted by the inter-imperialist contradictions, forcing the more traditional powers to develop new strategies.

The Russian foreign action until 2018 is reflected in the document “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation” or “Concept 2013”, which listed the following objectives:

“Ensuring the safety of the country, protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity, ensuring its privileged position in the international community as one of the influential and competitive poles of the modern world.”

The Russian Federation coins the concept of a new world order based on multiple poles of power, due to the progressive loss of the relative weight of USA and the European Union. Russia sees itself as one of these centers of power in what they call “polycentric system”.

In face of the whole EU, the Russian strategy involves the strengthening of bilateral relations with France and Germany. The addition in 2004 of ten new countries to the EU, most of them from the former socialist camp and currently faced with Moscow, has greatly hindered the relations with the EU, to the point that the “Partnership and Cooperation Agreement” that expired in 2007 has not been renewed to date. This, as we saw in the previous section, in the context of competition between Russia and the EU in reference to energy supply.

We highlight the fact that the Russians understand, in their “Concept 2013” as a serious risk “the incomplete recovery of the European economy after the crisis of the Euro-zone”, which would mean future risks as increasing competition for strategic resources, imposition of value hierarchy leading to xenophobia, intolerance and increased tension in international relations.

On the other hand, Russia continues to consider as a threat the American support to the so-called “Colour Revolutions” and the deployment of the NATO missile shield. The CIS remains the priority area of Russian action, opposing the expansion of NATO, while departing from the fact that the geopolitical axis is shifting to the Pacific, so Russia coordinates activities in Central Asia with China within the framework of active cooperation in all fields. At the same time Russia has a special reference to India, major customer of Russian monopolies. So we can consider with an increasing degree of stability a “Russia - China – India troika".

The Russian Federation remains a major global nuclear military power, with a high deterrent power against other imperialisms, but also with a strong offensive power in a war scenario.

With 200 million inhabitants, in 2012 the GDP reached 2,252,628 million dollars [6] and is the second largest economy in the Americas. It has agricultural, mining and manufacturing wealth and oil and gas reserves, and can boast of a thriving aerospace and automotive industry. The Stock Exchange of Sao Paulo is one of the largest in the world. This makes Brazil an emerging power with growing global weight.

Its economic model focuses on the export of agricultural (corn, soybeans, coffee, cocoa, sugar...), energy, forest and mineral (oil, gas, timber, gold...) commodities. This economic activity, despite generating great wealth, is still mortgaged by the country's history as a dependent power, which makes that the added value that returns to Brazil is still low, placing as the first challenge for this country to impulse technological development, in order to reverse this situation.

From 2009 to 2012 its GDP increased from 1,595,000 to 2,252,628 million dollars and is forecasted to end 2013 with 2,456,000 million dollars [7]. On the other hand, the increasing development of the productive forces, with the implementation of new factories of all kinds or the extent of the exploitation of the Amazon rainforest, is a huge attraction for foreign monopolies, which have increased their investments in the country from more than 50,700 million dollars in 2008 to over 76,000 million in 2012. At the same time, the strength of the Brazilian bourgeoisie (with the invaluable state support) allowed them to export capital in 2011 amounting to 110,000 million dollars [8] and become the main purchaser of equity assets in other companies in the area, being the main force of the important process of concentration and centralization of capital at a regional scale [9].

This dominant position is also enhanced with its participation in regional coordinating organizations such as ALBA, MERCOSUR, CELAC or the Southern Bank which is in the process of creation.

The progressive coordination of integration projects in Latin America would place the Brazilian bourgeoisie in a position of clear dominance in the continent, after the United States, and would make the regional bloc ALBA-MERCOSUR-CELAC a powerful international actor.

India, due to its demographic weight and its economic development, plays a prominent role at a regional level and a relevant role at an international level. India sees its GDP grow from 3,377 million dollars in 2008 to over 4,458 in 2011 and the forecasts for 2013 are near to 5,000 [10].

In terms of export of capital, the Indian oligarchy has lost ground relative to its closest competitor, China. India, following a period of rising (2007-2009) in the export of capital, began a period of decline, reaching 2010 in the amount of 14 billion US $.

According to the IMF forecasts for 2012 and 2013, South Africa is the great dominating force in the African continent. Its data throughout the 2008-2013 cycle confirm that, with a GDP growth from 273 billion USD in 2008 to 384 billion USD in 2012; followed by Nigeria (268 billion USD) and Egypt (256 billion USD) [11].

After a period of decline in the reception of capital, this had its ground in 2010, South Africa returns to be attractive to the international capitalist oligarchies, with the Foreign Direct Investment reaching a total of more than 5,800 million dollars in 2011.

The Chinese GDP experiences a continuous growth since 2008, from 4,500 million USD to 8,200 million USD in 2012 and a forecast of 9,000 million USD in 2013.

The aspirations of China, in the economic, political and diplomatic arena, have the frontal opposition of the United States. Indeed, China moves forward through the acquisition of companies, the exploitation of natural resources [12], infrastructure construction and lending loans to different countries. After the last Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, the Asian giant's economy is geared to give greater importance to strengthening its domestic market, which is believed to reduce its foreign dependency.

As we said when speaking about Russia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is for China an opportunity to counterbalance US influence in both Central Asia and the Pacific. To some extent it constitutes a counterweight to the military siege that the USA are articulating around China.

China is today a country which depends on imported energy, especially oil, a key part of the strategy for sustained growth of the Asian giant's GDP. But the country is also dependent of commodities with high technological value.

This energetic and technological dependence traces the strategic line of action of the country in foreign policy, aimed at a growing presence of Chinese companies abroad, especially in Africa, which diversifies its sources of oil production in particular, and of raw materials in general.

A steady and relatively safe stream of oil and raw materials coming from areas not strongly controlled by the other imperialist poles would result in a double benefit for China: first, reduce dependency, direct or indirect, of its main competitors at a global scale; second, the articulation of a national market that would allow domestic capital accumulation as an essential step to ensuring an economic and technological leap of China, and to be able to consolidate a hegemonic position in the international scene.

The other imperialist powers are seriously concerned by this line of action; they fear that a greater Chinese independence means a Chinese increased aggressiveness in foreign policy.

The United States are strengthening alliances against China with countries like Japan [13], South Korea and the Philippines, with whom it has agreements in the military field. Currently the US Navy spends 50% of its resources in the Pacific and the other 50% is divided between Europe and the Middle East.

If we look at the macro-economic data, the BRICS play an increasing role on the international stage. By 2012 the combined GDP of BRICS (14,854.11 billion USD) stood near the US (15,684.75 billion USD) and EU (16,584 billion USD) [14].

As for imports and exports of goods and services, BRICS outweigh both USA and the EU-27, as is apparent from the United Nations data [15].

This important economic development, which is based on updating the historical model of capitalist accumulation driven by the corresponding bourgeoisie under the banner of the national sovereignty, introduces new disputes and tensions with an imperialist tone in world's capitalism.

In this situation a forced equilibrium is produced, where each power seeks to preserve its position while performing demonstrations of strength to hinder the opposing manoeuvres that can undermine their own positions. The military deterrence factor - and ultimately the war - is a natural component of this struggle for control of the world economy in capitalism.

As a product of this situation, in the near future new frameworks of alliances and new different conflict scenarios will be configured. The existence of military arsenals capable of destroying the planet several times – arsenals which continue to grow – offers scenarios of permanent war in the most contested areas and is a constant threat for world peace in general.

Only the former existence of the USSR and the socialist bloc could allow serious disarmament negotiations in which imperialism had to accept the reduction of its war machine. Today it is not possible to reach agreements such as SALT I and SALT II, which were achieved in the last century thanks to the struggle for peace of socialist-communist forces.

The Spanish capitalist development in the recent years has been characterized by the undeniable reality of their weak structural features. The ambition of president Aznar to become a member of the G8 was nothing more than an illusion.

Under those circumstances, the Aznar administration was characterized by its full subordination to the US military strategies.

In this situation of increasing militarism of the Spanish government is where the Spanish social-democracy, in order to capitalize the massive demonstrations against the imperialist war in our country, launched its proposal to withdraw Spanish mercenary troops from Iraq if they won the elections.

The narrow electoral victory of social-democracy in March 14, 2004 was a turning point in the international positions of Spanish capitalism.

President Zapatero kept his promise of immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a more pro-European orientation began in the economic policy of the government, while seeking to profit from the imperialist positions of the Spanish monopolies in Latin America, changing the previous orientation which was more directed towards US imperialism.

Subsequently, the Zapatero administration became the Spanish government that has had more troops participating in invasions in more foreign countries. Social-democracy at that time joined all military missions planned from the imperialist centers without expressing any disagreement.

The outbreak of the crisis in the summer of 2007 began a period of decline in the deceptive advances of the Spanish capitalist formation, which reached 2013 in a situation of increasing weakness and total inability to implement the recovery strategy for the profit rate.

The successive government's economic failures lead it to a situation of increasing difficulties for the sustaining of the regular military spending, which is in clear conflict with its need to be incorporated into the imperialist policies of war, to try to get a share in the international plunder promoted by NATO and the EU.

Thus, Spanish capitalism meets the following conditions:

-An economic crisis that fiercely affects all major structures, without credible horizon of recovery.

-The need to make war policies a decisive element in the process of parasite accumulation.

-Failure to maintain the military resources necessary for competitive participation in the imperialist war.

That is why in these years the various governments develop a strategy focused in the participation (even small) in any military intervention of imperialism and the valuation of its positions in the military geopolitical strategy.

Since the Zapatero government withdrew from Iraq the Spanish mercenary troops, there has not been a single time that a Spanish government (Zapatero and Rajoy) has refused to participate in imperialist military actions in other countries.

From the point of view of the military geopolitics, the Spanish government offers its most advantageous locations to the imperialist war to try to compensate for their military weaknesses. Examples include the permanent installation of American troops at the base of Rota within Obama's missile defense strategy, or the presence of various foreign military installations on the Canary Islands.

The so-called theory of multipolarity reflects opportunistic positions today towards imperialism and the international relations typical from the current capitalist phase.

Throughout the various socioeconomic formations that have historically existed, the struggles between the ruling classes of the countries have configured blocks of temporary alliances in those moments when they could not themselves exercise international control. When that situation changes because one of these national ruling classes acquires a position of power in the world, immediately their counterparts in other countries try to build alliances to undermine the power of the first one.

Multipolarity simply responds to the alliances and blocs, always temporary, raised by different bourgeoisies in their internal struggles to acquire a dominant position in the imperialist chain or pyramid.

The bourgeoisie and the opportunistic forces want to impose on the working class the election of one side or another. Once again, the capitalist class interests are disguised as collective interests. Defending multipolarity as something positive means to ignore the class character of the state, the role of social classes in the same and in the international arena and going over, bag and baggage, to the camp of the bourgeoisie.

Multipolarity theory replaces today Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism. Our position remains the same as in the time of Lenin, who, in his immortal work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, said:

“The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits. And they divide it “in proportion to capital”, “in proportion to strength”, because there cannot be any other method of division under commodity production and capitalism” [16]

“Therefore, in the realities of the capitalist system, and not in the banal philistine fantasies of English parsons, or of the German “Marxist”, Kautsky, “inter-imperialist” or “ultra-imperialist” alliances, no matter what form they may assume, whether of one imperialist coalition against another, or of a general alliance embracing all the imperialist powers, are inevitably nothing more than a “truce” in periods between wars. Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other...” [17]

If yesterday Kautsky claimed that a union of all imperialist poles in only one pole was a road to peace, today multipolarity advocates claim that the existence of various imperialist poles is a path to peace. The reality is that both are wrong: imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, requires the use of war as a strategy of capitalist accumulation, and inter-imperialist competition is under no way a guarantee of peace.

An example of the opportunistic positions is the case of the Communist Party of Spain and United Left, forces that are part of the core of the European opportunistic pole represented by the ELP. José Luis Centella, Secretary General of the PCE, in his book entitled Building Socialism in the 21st Century, embraces without further ado the theory of multipolarity:

“This is why this commitment to defending peace is linked to the proposal to build a social and political participatory democracy and international relations based on multipolarity, equal treatment between states and solidarity among peoples” [18]

Nothing about the end of capitalism!

Unfortunately, the views expressed by Mr. Centella are not exclusive from the Spanish opportunists and are being promoted by other parties and organizations, with the invaluable cooperation of the means of bourgeois propaganda, directly linked to the monopoly groups.

Faced with these opportunistic positions, the revolutionary organizations have to jointly develop our own and coordinated tactics

In face of this situation, the Communist and Workers' Parties should put in the top of our agenda the issue of the struggle against imperialist war, we must intensify our fight against preparations for war, the arms race and the militarization of the economy.

It is particularly important at this time to develop the work of the World Peace Council and other organizations such as WIDF, WFDY or WFTU, in the perspective of moving towards greater class and anti-imperialist coordination in order to articulate a powerful global anti-imperialist front, in whose program the struggle against war is a central issue.

At the same time, it is more necessary than ever to redouble efforts in the struggle for the clarification of positions within the International Communist Movement, developing a relentless battle against opportunistic positions represented by those who defend theories like multipolarity.

The Communist and Workers' Parties should be prepared to intervene politically in the case of new imperialist wars demanding the return of imperialist military missions, hindering the development of military plans in their own territory (military bases, transportation of soldiers, CIA flights, etc.), and fighting for their own country's withdrawal from the imperialist blocs and alliances such as the EU and NATO as an element directly associated with the struggle for socialism-communism.

Finally, the Communist and Workers' Parties should be prepared for the event that our respective countries enter into direct confrontation in an imperialist war. In this case, our goal must be nothing else than fighting for turning the imperialist war into a revolutionary civil war. In this sense, the lessons offered by the 1917 Russian revolutionary experience are invaluable, just as all the debate between Lenin and the opportunists in the Second International.

It is more than likely that we will see how opportunistic forces re-sign the war credits, carried away by their own bourgeoisie and losing sight of internationalist positions. The tactics of the Communist and Workers' Parties should focus then in a clear line of weakening their own bourgeoisie while aiming at the seizure of political power by the working class, even to undertake a separate signing of the peace if necessary to strengthen the revolution.

The challenges before the International Communist Movement are large and difficult, but certainly we will be able to address them if we do not lose the internationalist perspective and the strategic goal of socialist-communist construction.