THE WORLD SITUATION AND THE PARTIAL REGENERATION OF THE WORKERS STATE
The text below is prologue to J. Posadas’ book titled (by the Editorial Board): “From the Revolution Betrayed to the Partial Regeneration of the Workers State”. The Third World War which the capitalist system is desperately preparing to launch against humanity, is at the heart of the concerns of all progressive sectors of global society. To confront this very critical situation, the need is urgent to develop the tools that lead not to “the end of history”, but to the end of this capitalist regime. To achieve this, one must assess fundamentally the function played by the Soviet Union since 1917, its triumph as the first Workers State and the true extent of its dislocation in 1992. About the latter, the Posadist Fourth International speaks of a partial disintegration. For one must also identify and observe what aspects belonging to the Soviet Workers State survived after 1992, and continue to live on in the Russia of today. Our International Scientific Cultural and Political Editions (ISCPE) published this book in its Spanish original in October 2025. As J. Posadas died in 1981, the book’s title is from the Editorial Board. The ISCPE have already published several books by J. Posadas on this question. These include “Workers State and Socialist Society” (1968) and “The Soviet Union: Historic Experience and Essential Program for the Construction of Socialism” (texts from 1968 to 1981). We are publishing this book separately. This is only its prologue. The book itself contains three chapters. These focus on the “Partial regeneration” in the USSR and the world Communist movement, as J Posadas saw that process emerging during and after World War II. That process stemmed from the way the Soviet masses fought, and the way they defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad. More generally, it stemmed from their unconditional defence of the Soviet Workers State. With the subsequent spread of revolutions in Eastern Europe, J. Posadas saw that, although still in the orbit of the Soviet apparatus, conditions were being created for a regeneration in the Soviet Union. A regeneration that did not exclude Political Revolution as a way to eliminate the bureaucracy. Following WW2, the new relations of power in the world became markedly favourable to revolution. To justify its role as ruling caste in the Soviet Workers State, and because its very existence depended upon the Soviet Workers State, the bureaucracy had to endorse the expansion of the world revolutionary process. J. Posadas defined this regeneration as “partial” however, because the bureaucratic support which it gave to the revolutionary processes did not aim at the expansion of the Workers States’ system. The policy of that caste remained a means to justify its usurpation of the political power. In the preface to the Edition of J Posadas’ book “The Soviet Union”, we said: [1] “Today, the bureaucracy has failed to restore capitalism; it has not transformed itself into a bourgeois class. The most it has managed is shake hands with small, mafia-like bourgeois sectors, with no possibility of capitalist development because they cannot compete with global capitalism. These sectors can only be transitory. The Yeltsin leadership that came to power in 1992 after Gorbachev’s dissolution of the USSR, did not last a single minute historically. Its intention to sell the Soviet riches to global capitalism and dismantle the USSR completely, was in direct contradiction with the vote of the Soviet masses in the 1990 referendum. In that referendum, 80% of the population of the Russian Federation took part [..]. The Russian masses fought in a way that limited imperialism’s ability to exploit the situation. This prompted Vladimir Putin to reinstate state control over strategic natural resources like oil, and to cut off their transfer to capitalism. The Putin leadership did not continue on the Yeltsin’s line. Today and globally speaking, Russia and China contribute to the development of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. They do it through economic and military accords that help people continue their revolutionary struggles, or continue to resist imperialism.” In 1992, imperialism rushed to declare victory over Communism. After the success of many “colour revolutions” that incorporated almost all of Europe into NATO, “neutral” nations included, these ‘colour revolutions’ began to lose momentum. The imperialist provocations against Russia were having doubtful effects on that country, but they were having devastating effects on the Nato countries implementing them. And what of the economy of Russia? Induced by imperialism and its satellites over time, there is a rise of economic problems in Russia. The Russian government remedies the situation by renationalising the strategic sectors of the economy, returning to planned production; it has improved living standards in the population, with better healthcare, education, wages, pensions[1]. But it is necessary to return to the first seven years of the USSR, to the basic Marxist principle according to which socialism is “the lower stage of communism”. The Soviet Union never embodied fully fledged socialism. The designation of Workers State comes precisely from this understanding, with the Workers State itself a transitory phase on the road to Socialism. Communism comes after that, world conditions allowing[1] (2) In the communist and socialist movements, the failure to uphold this view caused internal distortions, errors in their positions and policies of conciliation with the capitalist system. All this because they dropped the central anti-capitalist tenet of the struggle: the proletarian class must seize the power in order to carry out the social transformations. The need to understand Ukraine is fundamental today The current war in Ukraine is now central to the global confrontation between two antagonistic social systems – a confrontation that did not stop with the temporary dissolution of the Soviet Union. How to explain such a hatred of Russia in the Nato member states? Why do they put Russia and Putin at the head of their new “Axis of Evil”, along with China, Iran and North Korea? What must we say of the countries that Nato defines as “systemic enemies”? The capitalist countries pose as the “defenders of democracy” but they end up criminalising their political opponents; it is in fascist ways
NO TO THE ESCALATION TO WAR! – No to the military budget in France!
On 13 July 2025, Emmanuel Macron addressed the armed forces, the enterprises, the territorial authorities and the population of France. That was to impose his take on the international situation and attune minds to the fact that our country, and the whole of Europe, are now supposedly in danger. The ‘danger’ here is a fabrication that places Russia central stage, labelled extreme threat’ and set to invade Europe before 2030 (&). This is the view that the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Thierry Burkhard, had developed two days earlier during a press conference, presumably to lend more credibility to this speech of the President of the Republic. It is on the basis of this reasoning therefore, that the country should be accelerating its rearmament, its arms sales, and the militarisation of its industrial-economic sectors – to proceed with finding the extra funds necessary to “let our armed forces defend our freedom”. To the detriment of the social needs and the environmental emergency, the defence budget will have to be increased, never mind the enormous public debt which reached €3,345 trillion (nearly 4 trillion) at the end of the first quarter of 2025. France’s President Emmanuel Macron (C) reviews the troops flanked by Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces (CEMA), Thierry Burkhard (2nd L) and France’s Chief of Military Staff of the President of the Republic (CEMP) Fabien Mandon (R) during commemorations marking the 106th anniversary of the November 11, 1918, Armistice, ending World War I (WWI), on the Place de l’Etoile, in Paris, on November 11, 2024. //04SIPA_POOL1844/Credit:Eliot Blondet-pool/SIPA/2411111538 The ‘defence of Ukraine’, and the forced march towards war Ukraine must be defended at all costs against Russia, since it has become a permanent threat on the borders of Europe. In the published decisions of the French government’ you read: “Never since 1945 has liberty been so threatened … the liberty of the peoples is being flouted by imperialisms and powers of annexation … freedom is being trampled when the rules of war are erased … the freedom of our Europe was threatened at the very moment when war was brought to our soil by the [Russian] invasion of Ukraine …” Here, the notion of liberty – the first of the three values of the French Republic enshrined in the Constitution – is utilised by the government for the sole objective of confrontation and war. Since contrary to the stated objective, the notions of equality and fraternity have become inexistent. This view of ‘the defence of liberties’ is a collective manipulation. But you find it in the discourse of all the capitalist powers, all in crisis, all looking for scapegoats to criminalise their political opponents. They invoke a so-called “clash of civilizations” allegedly acting against democracy, what they call democracy, to justify the measures they take, measures that lead to their violent clashes with the population. Capitalism introduces totalitarian and fascist-like policies as the only way it has to keep its grip on power. Defence has been the priority of the President of the Republic since his election in 2017. After weeks of debate in the National Assembly and Senate, the 2024-2030 military budget was finally adopted, to the tune of €413.3 billion. The amount going to the armed forces doubled since 2017. It is now set to rise incrementally in the next two years with an additional investment of €10 billion: €3.5 billion for 2026 and €6.5 billion for 2027. Macron calls for a “national effort on behalf of all the French“. Add to this the return to the National Military Service soon. A glimpse of this was already on offer during the SNU days (the Universal National Service); this is a civilian service offered to young people aged 15 to 17 “who wish to make a rich collective experience, useful to others, forging strong bonds, discovering a talent for civic engagement” – in government parlance. Macron is not the only one to accelerate rearmament and announce wartime economic plans. With its “ReArmEurope” program, the European Commission allocates €800 billion to the national industries of the 27 EU member states. This priority public investment will compensate for the present shortcomings in the weapons production capacity of the European countries. And it will give them a measure of independence from the world’s leading arms supplier, the United States. This investment must however cater also for the military support of Ukraine; as well as for the possible conflicts and threats, the new technologies, cyberspace and artificial intelligence. This leads to an explosion in weapons’ purchase plus military hardware more and more sophisticated. It is probable that the European Union will not be able to cover the costs of this rearmament. EU military spending on Ukraine went up from €204 billion in 2022 to €326 billion in 2024. But in the current economic climate, the capitalist countries see their deficits constantly on the rise. The EU had to modify its own rules to facilitate its increased spending and is now appealing to private funding. This is how a ‘defence fund’ has been set up for individuals, drawn from people’s savings, life insurance policies and long-term investments, among other things, and without always consulting the policyholders. NATO is the instrument for the war In his address to the Armed Forces, Emmanuel Macron announced his wish to “build the true European pillar of NATO”. The Hague Nato Summit of June 24 and 25 decided to raise the contribution of its 32 member-countries from 3.5% to 5% of GDP by 2035. For France, this increase means finding an additional €8 billion, while the need to make significant further savings is also being hammered home. With their support for Nato, the European countries of the Atlantic Alliance show their disposition to keep pushing ahead at all costs with war preparations against Russia. And not only Russia, but the other countries on NATO’s blacklist too: China, Iran, North Korea. The way NATO stands at the centre of Europe’s collective defence confirms that it has no aim of achieving peace. It cannot accept Ukraine’s defeat in the conflict with Russia. Nato’s
TACTICAL RETREATS: Why the Venezuela’s revolution still stands
Just as the false claims of betrayal made on 3 January are now easily disproved, so too are the claims of betrayal in the two months since. The Posadists Today agree wholeheartedly with the article below. Its analyses demonstrate with clarity and argumentation that the United States have not managed to change the Bolivarian revolutionary regime. Tactical Retreats, why the Venezuela’s revolution still stands, is an article written by Manolo De Los Santos, on 3.2.2026, exactly 2 months after the US kidnap of the presidential couple in Caracas. Posadists Today have drawn this article already translated into English from: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/03/03/tactical-retreats-why-venezuelas-revolution-still-stands/ Here goes Manolo De Los Santos: The early morning hours of January 3, 2026, marked an inflection point in Venezuela and Latin America’s centuries-long struggle for self-determination and independence. Operation Absolute Resolve, ordered by the Trump administration, constituted the most brutal and direct military assault on a sovereign state in the region in recent memory. In a shocking operation that left hundreds dead, President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores were illegally kidnapped from Venezuelan soil and transported to the United States, where they now face fabricated charges in a New York federal detention facility. In the two months since this act of war, a torrent of speculation has emerged from so-called experts and pundits across the political spectrum. This has followed three main lines: The operation’s success indicated treason at the highest levels of the Bolivarian Revolution. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and the remaining leadership have abandoned the Bolivarian project and socialist transformation, surrendering the country, its economy and its resources to US imperialism. In foreign relations, the Venezuelan leadership has abandoned its historic anti-imperialism. Taken together, these claims amount to a proclamation that regime change has succeeded in Venezuela. They are each false, reflecting an amateurish and superficial approach to politics, reactive “hot takes” rather than real analysis or investigation, which provides a left-wing echo of Trump’s own presentation. To understand Caracas’s current trajectory requires a sober appraisal of what took place on January 3, a close look at the facts of Venezuela’s financial and commercial situation, and an honest assessment of the international correlation of forces in which Venezuela operates. It requires understanding what has changed in this new situation. To sort through the complicated reality of the present, certain examples in the history of socialist states can serve as a guide. A close look at the facts will prove that what we are witnessing is not surrender but a tactical retreat in the face of overwhelming force for which there are clear analogies in revolutionary history. The main claims that supposedly reveal “betrayal” are examined and refuted below, but before beginning, an important theoretical distinction must be drawn between government and state power. Government offices and ministries set and execute a range of policies, issue declarations, and so on, and temporarily change hands from “left” to “right.” The permanent institutions of state power (the military, the courts, and the police) represent the real power in any society. Almost all the leftist governments of the region have been elected to hold office in recent years, but they did not hold state power. Presiding over policy but with the same capitalist state in place (especially in the military), there is a clear limit to how much these governments can actually contest the capitalist order and transform social reality. The Bolivarian project likewise emerged as an electoral movement, with Chavez initially just holding government office, but with an important difference. Decades of US-funded coup attempts, internal struggles, and other crises have step by step led to the replacement of the forces loyal to the old order in the judiciary, police, and military with forces formed by and loyal to the Bolivarian Revolution. The United Socialist Party maintains its mission to advance working-class power and build socialism. The struggle may proceed in zig-zags, advances and retreats, based on the correlation of forces, but at every stage, the party works to preserve its gains and minimize its losses. This is important because Venezuela’s concessions are primarily being made at the level of government, not at the state and party level. Claim No. 1: The success of the US operation on January 3 indicated treason at the highest levels of the Bolivarian Revolution. The so-called “evidence” No US service members died in the operation that abducted Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores. More than 150 US aircraft penetrated Venezuelan airspace without being shot down by the country’s advanced air defenses obtained from Russia. The “peaceful” extraction of Maduro and Flores could have only occurred due to “collaboration” from Maduro’s inner circle. There was no immediate military counter-escalation by the Venezuelans. The reality: Resistance in the face of overwhelming military superiority Much more is now known about the events of January 3 than was initially clear. Contrary to the narrative imposed by Western media and repeated mindlessly by some on the left, there was resistance. Testimony from survivors and statements from President Trump himself confirm that the presidential security detail, alongside Venezuelan military units and a contingent of Cuban internationalist fighters, engaged the attacking forces in a firefight. Thirty-two Cuban combatants fell alongside more than 50 Venezuelans in the security forces and presidential guard, who defended the president with their lives. First, US electronic warfare systems totally disabled the country’s air defenses and communications infrastructure. According to Venezuela’s defense minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez, the US used Venezuela as a “laboratory” for weapons technologies never used before. Padrino is well-known as the military leader who consistently exposed US efforts to corrupt and bribe the military to turn on Maduro and the Bolivarian Revolution, as well as prior US assassination attempts. He personified the country’s “military-civic union” that blocked years of regime change efforts under the banner of “always loyal, traitors never.” An official Venezuelan account of January 3 still has not been released, given that the country remains militarily surrounded (more on that later). But unofficial reports from witnesses and survivors back up Padrino’s comments. They recount