Skip to content

Structured Analytical Summary: "An appeal for a rational discussion: reply to Luis Oviedo"

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

This article defends the position that the slogan of a Constituent Assembly (CA) is not a transitional demand appropriate for contemporary Argentina or Bolivia, but a bourgeois democratic slogan that, in the current conjuncture, serves as a cover for counterrevolution. The central thesis is that the objective character of the coming revolutions in these countries is socialist, not bourgeois democratic, and that the CA slogan—far from bridging working-class consciousness to revolutionary conclusions—blocks the path by diverting attention from the question of workers' power.

Woods argues that the Partido Obrero (PO) has made a strategic error by elevating the CA to the centre of its agitation, and that this error flows from a mistaken characterisation of Argentina as a semi-colonial nation. The article contends that Argentina is a relatively developed capitalist country where the working class constitutes a decisive majority, and that the PO's insistence on the CA slogan—despite its formal qualifications ("with power", "sovereign")—objectively aligns with the manoeuvres of the bourgeoisie and reformists who rally around the same demand to contain revolutionary momentum.

The polemic is structured as a defence against accusations of counterrevolutionary positions, imperialism, and monarchism levelled by Luis Oviedo, while simultaneously advancing a positive case for the correct tactics: critical support for mass organisations when they move towards action, patient work within reformist unions, and the centrality of the slogan of workers' power (soviets) over bourgeois democratic forms.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on several interconnected Marxist theoretical traditions:

The Theory of Permanent Revolution: This is the article's deepest theoretical anchor. Woods argues that in the modern epoch, the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat, and that once in power, the working class will not stop at democratic tasks but proceed immediately to socialist ones. The CA slogan, by contrast, implies a "two-stage" theory—first bourgeois democracy, then socialism—which the article identifies as a fundamental departure from Trotsky's conception.

The Marxist Theory of the State: The article insists on the incompatibility between bourgeois parliamentarism (even in constituent form) and workers' power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is presented not as a totalitarian concept but as "workers' democracy"—the rule of the working class through soviets, which is the polar opposite of bourgeois democracy. Woods argues that the PO's attempt to reconcile the CA with workers' power through verbal qualifications is theoretically incoherent.

Lenin's Analysis of the Constituent Assembly in 1917: Extensive quotations from Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution demonstrate that even in backward, semi-feudal Russia, the CA slogan had become "pale and faded out, an empty shell, a form naked of content" by 1917. The Bolsheviks never made it central; their central demand was "All Power to the Soviets". The article argues that the PO's elevation of the CA to the centre of propaganda represents a regression behind the Bolshevik position.

The Marxist Theory of Imperialism and the National Question: A substantial portion of the article is devoted to demonstrating that Argentina is not a semi-colonial nation but a "weak imperialist" state—combining features of dependence on foreign capital with its own predatory ambitions. Drawing on Lenin's distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations, and Trotsky's analysis of tsarist Russia as simultaneously semi-colonial and imperialist, Woods argues that the Argentine bourgeoisie is incapable of any progressive role and that the Malvinas war was a reactionary diversion, not a national liberation struggle.

The Marxist Position on Terrorism and Guerrilla Warfare: The article defends the classical Marxist opposition to individual terrorism, citing Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and applies this to both the Provisional IRA and the Argentine ERP. This is presented as part of a broader critique of adventurist methods that substitute military action for mass work.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in July 2005, and its conjunctural analysis is rooted in the immediate aftermath of the October 2003 Bolivian insurrection that overthrew Sánchez de Lozada, and the ongoing crisis of Argentine capitalism following the 2001 collapse.

Bolivia: The article engages directly with the concrete situation in Bolivia in early 2004, where the COB (Bolivian Workers' Central) had called an indefinite general strike with roadblocks and the demand to close down parliament and replace it with a Popular Assembly. Woods argues that this movement—despite the reformist character of the COB leadership—posed the question of power concretely, and that the PO's insistence on attacking the COB leaders as "counterrevolutionary" at the very moment they were calling for action was sectarian and self-defeating. The article notes that Evo Morales and even the World Bank had embraced the CA slogan, which it presents as empirical proof of its counterrevolutionary content.

Argentina: The analysis situates Argentina as a country with a developed capitalist economy, no peasantry, and a working class that constitutes a decisive majority. The article argues that the Argentine bourgeoisie has had two centuries to demonstrate its incapacity, and that the only possible revolution is socialist. The Malvinas question is treated as a recurring device used by the bourgeoisie to divert revolutionary energy into nationalist channels, with Kirchner's raising of the issue cited as a contemporary example.

Geopolitical Context: The article identifies US imperialism's growing alarm at developments in Venezuela and Bolivia, and warns of the danger of Washington inciting military intervention from neighbouring states (Colombia against Venezuela is mentioned). The war danger in Latin America is presented as real, and the article argues that nationalist demagogy around territorial questions (Bolivia's access to the sea, the Beagle Channel dispute) could be used to derail revolutionary movements.

Ireland: The article engages with the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement and the IRA ceasefire, arguing that the "armed struggle" of the Provisional IRA has ended in complete disaster, with Irish unification further away than ever. This is used to reinforce the general argument that nationalist methods, divorced from class politics and socialist perspective, inevitably fail.

Where the Argument Continues

This article is part of an extended polemical exchange. The argument continues in several directions:

Within the IDOM/Marxist.com corpus: The article references earlier pieces—"Marxism versus Sectarianism - Reply to Luis Oviedo" (January 2005), "On the constituent assembly slogan: Is it applicable to Argentina?" (February 2002), and articles on Bolivia by Jorge Martín. The broader theoretical position on the national question is developed in Woods' book The Revolutionary Dialectic of Irish Republicanism, available on the same website. The article also points to the historical writings of Ted Grant on the history of British Trotskyism as essential background.

Against the Stream episodes: The political line defended here—critical support for mass organisations, rejection of sectarian denunciations of reformist leaders when they move towards action, and the centrality of the slogan of workers' power—is a recurring theme in the tendency's output. The analysis of the Malvinas war as a reactionary conflict on both sides, and the critique of "Third Worldist" nationalism in Latin American Trotskyism, are positions that continue to be developed in subsequent analyses of Venezuelan, Bolivian, and Argentine developments.

Broader Marxist texts: The article explicitly directs readers to the Theses of the First Four Congresses of the Communist International as the authoritative expression of Bolshevik strategy and tactics. Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution and The Permanent Revolution, and Lenin's writings on the national question (Critical Remarks on the National Question, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination) are the theoretical foundations.

Connections

Theoretical lineage: The article situates itself within the tradition of the British Trotskyist tendency associated with Ted Grant, which waged a decades-long struggle against the "Mandelite" United Secretariat of the Fourth International. The break with Mandel, Hansen, Healy, Lambert, and Cannon is presented as a necessary defence of orthodox Trotskyism against both opportunism and ultraleftism.

Contemporary polemics: The article engages with the Partido Obrero (Argentina), the LCR (France), the SWP (Britain), and the MST (Argentina). The critique of the SWP's capitulation to Islamic fundamentalism and the PO's flirtation with "military united front with the Taliban" connects the national question debate to the post-9/11 conjuncture.

Historical parallels: The article draws extensively on the history of the Bolshevik Party's internal struggles in 1917, particularly Lenin's confrontation with Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin over the CA slogan at the April Conference. The analysis of tsarist Russia as simultaneously semi-colonial and imperialist is used to illuminate the character of contemporary Argentina.

Key thinkers referenced: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Ted Grant, James Connolly, Jorge Altamira (quoted approvingly on the Malvinas), Pierre Broué (defended against Oviedo's attacks).

Key Quotes

  1. "The slogan of the Constituent Assembly (CA) can under certain circumstances serve as a cover for the counterrevolution in a democratic form. In the case of Bolivia, this slogan is now being supported by Evo Morales and by all the bourgeois politicians. Even the representative of the World Bank in Bolivia supports this slogan."

  2. "A transitional demand is supposed to act as a bridge between the present consciousness of the masses and the socialist revolution. But in the context of the present situation in both Argentina and Bolivia it is not a bridge to the socialist revolution but a barrier blocking the way to it."

  3. "The fact is that the slogan of the CA did not play a central role in the propaganda of the Bolsheviks in 1917. The central demand was All Power to the Soviets—that is, the slogan of workers' power. The bourgeoisie and the Compromisers constantly hid behind the slogan of the CA, appealing to the masses to wait for the convening of the latter."

  4. "The whole essence of a socialist revolution is the active involvement of the masses, both in the revolution itself and in the socialist reconstruction of society after the revolution. That is what we mean by a democracy of the working people—a conception that was well known to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, although not, it seems, to the chief theoretician of the PO."

  5. "The day when nationalism could play a progressive role in Latin America is long past, because the progressive period of the bourgeois democratic revolution is long past. The Argentine bourgeoisie—and all the other bourgeoisies of Latin America—have had almost two centuries to show what they can do. They have been weighed in the balance of history and found wanting."

  6. "Neither Argentinean nor British workers had anything to gain from this conflict. A victory for either side would mean the strengthening of their own ruling class... This was not a war as they claimed of democracy versus 'fascism', but a war to defend the power and prestige of British imperialism."