 So I think today we're here all for the same reason and the reason is that the one that we've discussed many times over during this weekend Today, we're living through one of the deepest crisis of capitalism ever The only thing that capitalism has to offer to millions of young people like me and you is a future of increased austerity of environmental catastrophe in one word is a future of misery and horror. I think given these conditions It's quite unsurprisingly that many young people and many workers are like are increasingly looking back toward revolutionary theories This is part of the struggle of our struggle to fight for a better war to fight against capitalism and for a better society Now I think that the two main theories that the majority of those consider themselves sympathetic to revolutionary theories, they get close to Our Marxism and Anarchism or in any way some sort of shades and combination between the two of them And the question I think arises quite naturally at that point comrades because at the end of the day We're our comrades fighting against capitalism, right? So why do we even have two different revolution two different revolutionary theories? What's the point of that? What's the difference between them and especially I think the most important question that we need to ask herself It's which one of the two or combination of the two perhaps is the best tool at our disposal to fight against Capitalism and for the overthrow society of of capitalist society and for the revolution the socialist revolution Because in fact on the surface Marxism and anarchism do look a lot similar at first glance You know, we're both anarchists and Marxists. We're all fighting against the state We're all fighting for a stateless society a society without class division a society without sexism without racism Without homophobia without transophobia a society that it's finally free from all oppression Exploitation and all of that crap that we have to witness every day But while the similarities between Marxism and anarchism might appear very striking at first glance In reality, these two theories are actually incurring irreconcilable theories. That's the word I'm looking for In fact, and I think and this is exactly the thing that I want to discuss today No, like there are many many many different ways in which you can discuss the difference between Marxism and anarchism Right, you could talk about Bakunin and Marx and the debates inside the first international You can talk about the CNT. You can talk about the McNovist You can talk about how about way to organize and not to organize and what's the best way at our disposal But the thing that I want to talk about really is the essence of Marxism and the essence of anarchism And what's the core difference between the two of them? In my opinion in my understanding the core difference between Marxism and anarchism is the following one And that is that Marxist theory tries to understand oppression and inequality on a material basis We ask ourselves where does oppression where does inequality comes from historically and materially and Starting from this understanding from the scientific understanding Then Marxist argue what's the best way to fight against this and what kind of society we're actually fighting for On the other hand, I think that anarchist theory Paradoxically in a way, it's a theory that rejects Historical analysis and scientific analysis and theory in general are some sort of intellectual kind of things And more usually calls for direct action and all of these kind of things But in fact rather than starting from an historical or a materialist understanding of society and the problem with society The starting point of anarchism It's it's it's usually comes from the individual itself Anarchism I think to the essence to the core is that rejection from the individual side from the middle Sorry from the individual point of view of all forms of authority Now over the weekend, I'm sure we have discussed many many times over what Marxism is what Marxism is not and all of this So I won't dwell on that too much. But what's anarchism is that? Well, first off I put a disclaimer now and that is that because of the nature of anarchism There are so many different shades of anarchism as probably there are anarchists in this world And all of them as some sort of small or big similarities between each other, right? But clearly there is something common about all of the anarchist theories. Otherwise, they wouldn't be called anarchist theories, right? There is there is something that that brings them together and I don't want to tell you like I don't want to improvise what that is but we can read it from anarchist texts There is this widely available pamphlet that you can easily find online It's a very nice speed actually if you're interested on the on the theories and what the anarchists argue for and it's called What is anarchism? There is like an introduction on the pamphlet and then there are some sort of extract from all of the difference main Anarchists theorists in the world like there is work of Malatesta, work of Kropotkin and all of this Anyway The point is that in this in this pamphlet in what is anarchism. Anarchism is defined as this The ideal of anarchism and I'm quoting here The ideal of anarchism is a society in which all of the individuals can do whatever they choose Except interfere with the ability of other individuals to do whatever they choose and I'm quote here So it is on this ground That anarchism rejects the state because the state limits the freedom of the individual It is on these grounds that anarchism rejects religion rejects class divisions reject sexism and some anarchist would even go as far as Rejecting the decision of the majority because all of these things they argue put limitations on the individual and on the freedom of the individual Fundamentally anarchism again is the absolute rejection of all forms of authority from the individual as those as these Authority is believed to be the source evils of all the source of all of the evils that we have in society today Now if you stop one second and you look the word around you today You see the police and the police uses their authority to keep the population into place You see the bosses that would you see the bosses and the bosses use their authority to force you to work when you are in the workplace You see the bourgeoisie state and the bourgeoisie state uses its authority to restrict the personal freedom of people You see all of this kind of example in which authority is used actually to Restricted the freedom of people and you might start to think that actually, you know the anarchist Kind of point-of-view have some sense. Maybe they do make some sense But in reality, I think that the simple observation that we're starting from is only scratching the surface So what is actually going on if I can use an analogy for example? If you are sick and you go to a doctor Because you're feeling sick that doctor won't just look at you Having a good look at you and being like oh, I can see that you're feeling sick and that's not good You should try to feel better. That's that's not how it works if the doctor is not a charlatan It's probably gonna have a serious look at you perform some analysis or whatever come up with that diagnosis And then based on that diagnosis It will prescribe you a treatment to hopefully cure the disease that you have and I think that the matter of authority We should have the same kind of approach when talking about authority or when talking about any other form of Problems that have to do with society. We should approach the question on where do these things comes from? Why do they exist and what is that we can do about it? We shouldn't stop on the surface We should try to go deeper than that like a doctor does go deeper than just your surface look when it does analysis of you Sorry In fact, you might try to reject the authority of your boss But you still have a stomach you still have to feed yourself And that means you still have to go to work and get a wage and all of that You might try to reject the authority of the police But the police is a very material thing and as we unfortunately know very well today The police doesn't care if you as an individual reject it Now most anarchists so the key question that we have to ask ourselves is why do these people even have authority over us? Where does their authority actually comes from and fundamentally? Thank you. What is that we can do about it? How it is that we can fight their authority now most anarchist theory I think would subscribe to some sort of variation or what I would call what I would refer to as the theory of force Now the theory of force is the assumption that authority Basically comes from the direct use of force so that for example The authority of the bosses of the capitalist class over society comes from the fact that they have monopoly over the use of force of coercion over society today For example Charlotte Wilson, which was an English anarchist and a narco-communist I think and was a close co-oblator we crop up in at the time Stated that all society and states were constructed and held together by force so that force was the So the force was the basis of state power of authority and of the power of the capitalist class according to them But if you think about it You're not really answering the question in a way like this You're just changing the word authority with the word force. It was then at that point the thing we might ask ourselves Well, okay authority comes from force, but where does force comes from? Well, how it is possible that some people have forced and some other people have not you know if you watch Star Wars Force is this mighty thing that descends upon some people, right? And if you're lucky enough to have force within you or whatever, it's the way of saying it in Star Wars way Then you're lucky enough and you're gonna be a protector of the states or you're gonna be one of the evil guys But in the real world force is not these ghosts that descend upon people. So the question stands Where does force comes from? What's the basis of force? This is the key question I think we have to answer ourselves and that most of the anarchist theory do not actually answer to this and I think Angles just to just to give some quotes at some point provided an answer to these questions in his polemic against during at the time Now during wasn't in self-anarchist But a lot of the theories and a lot of the arguments that during was making were very similar to the ones that anarchist would make Today and we can talk later about why that is the case actually But anyway here I'm quoting from angles on force and where does force comes from? So force this is angles is not merely an act of the will But requires the existence of very real preliminary conditions before he can come into operation These these conditions are these instruments the more perfect of which gets the better of the less perfect of these instruments But the instruments means weapons here Moreover these instruments the weapons the arms have to be produced Which implies that the producer of more perfect weapons or more perfect instruments gets the better of the producer of the less Perfect instruments of the less perfect weapons and that in a word and this is the key passage I think the triumph of force is based on the productions of weapon and these interns on production in general therefore on economic power On the economic situation on the material means which force as a disisposal Unquote so force comes from economic power and comrades I think this is the point of the question right if you want to rely for example on the authority of the police First you need to feed the police officers Then you need to to arm them to give them weapons and all of that Then you need to train them all of things which require Material means that require money that require wealth they require very material stuff Which are not simply an act of the will and by the way This is one of the problem with Star Wars right because like you look at the movie and like on one side You have capitalist production and all of these things on the other side It's kind of a feudalistic kind of society in which like there is this thing that descend upon them And they live like on this night's kind of thing Another movie which is instead is great is alien and in alien actually Authority comes from actually capitalism and the company has authority over their workers because they need to get a wage and all of that And also discusses how Capitalism put profits between be How to say in front of people in front of the interest of before people that's what I'm saying anyway That's not the topic of the discussion, but it is a great movie and a good critics of capitalism. I think So force Comes from the role that the capitalist class as in society It is through their economical power that they acquire force and not the opposite Which is what many anarchists would end up would end up arguing for the capitalist class today Through their capital estate that they control through their control of the economy have a monopoly over violence Precisely because they control the economy and not the other way around The state that is the armed body of men and women Which protects the power of the ruling class is an inevitable product of the fact the society is divided into classes Or the fact that are oppressed people on one side and oppressors on the other side This is a necessary product of the fact that That yeah, the society is divided into classes. Sorry. I'm repeating myself You see so rather than coming from force itself Authority these things that the anarchists argue against The darkest theories are not the artist has a basis on the material conditions of class as society And it is this that we have to take all if you want to do with state Authority and with authority in general and not a simple rejection of abstract authority in the abstract sense And in fact if you go on and look at the question historically, where does the state come from? Where does the authority of the state come from and you look at the Historical evidence and archaeological evidences and all of that and there have been there was a talk I think before this talk on this question. You see that actually the state Didn't existed for all of our existence in this planet actually is a very recent things It dates just a few a few thousand years ago The state as we know it it's very recent and the reason for this ultimately the reason for this is that prehistoric society Were characterized by such a low productivity that they could not afford the Possibility of maintaining a privileged stratum that would stand above society, which is what a state is Now this wasn't because of some great ideas and all of that It was a necessity It was the necessity of the time because each small community was organized in a much more egalitarian way And the reason for that is that Everybody needed to take part in production and that kind of little food that was gathered We kind of be spread equally among the rest of society at the end of the day, right? And the situation this situation of primitive communism of primitive egalitarian kind of society Changed drastically with Technologically innovation because of technological innovation that led to increased production and that happened a few thousand years ago It's a very recent in the in the great scheme of the history of humanity if you think about it And most notably the the great revolution was the agricultural revolution and the introduction of cattle farming Now when you hunt and gather as a way of subsistence you get what nature gives you, right? But with agriculture and cattle farming humanity started to have a degree of control over nature and these men that we started to having some sort of degree of control of a production and Productivity the amount of food that we produced and the amount of things that we produced changed very drastically at that time This was an incredible revolution that over the course of century changed forever drastically the way in which humanity inhabited this planet for the first time ever Humanity was producing a surplus was producing more than what it actually barely needed for subsistence, right? The key question of the future development of the whole history of society Centred around this surplus what to do with this extra wealth who was to get for themself this extra wealth and This was the beginning of economic inequalities the long story short This is a very interesting topic that I'm not gonna cover But I see here the regions of the family private property in the state and this is the thing to read about this In my opinion at least The long story short is that people that found themselves in a favorable economic positions Started to acquire incredible economic power with respect to all the rest of the population Now because it's it's a simple thing, right? If you have control of the over the economy, that is if you control the means of productions comrades Then you have a firm grip over society This is where your authority come from because if you control of the economy You can decide who has a plot of land and who does not have a plot of land You can decide who eats and who doesn't eat you can decide who has a job and who does not have a job and most importantly If you have more wealth than what you actually need You can also pay some guards to defend your eastern interests to defend your property and not just that You can also write books or have people writing books for you Newspapers and all of this kind of propaganda that is used to justify your role And in fact and but anyway since that time the state Hasn't been much but are tools in the hands of the ruling class to control the oppressed classes of society and to keep them into place In fact if you think about it today the situation today It is true that the state oppresses and is through the state our users authority to oppress people But it doesn't oppress everybody in the same way in fact Capitalists and even some petty bourgeoisie today some people some people from the petty bourgeoisie today. They feel very much Thank you very much. They feel very much represented by the current state Because this is their state This is the capitalist state that is there to defend the interest of the market the interest of private property And that's the interest of their class and the point is this that as long as classes with Completing interests will exist in society for example the patricians and the plebeian in the Roman times or the feudal lords and the serfs in the Middle Ages or today the capitalist class and And the working class as long as classes with conflicting interests will exist in society There is no way that these classes that everybody can happily come together and resolves all of their differences and Have some sort of rational plan to overcome all of the difference between all of us Because what is of benefit of what for one class for example a pay rise? It's detrimental to the interests of the other class For example if we get a pay rise it means they were cutting through the profits of the of the capitalist class So and state power this is because of it so and and this This is this conflict of interest which is the class conflict is the initiator is the regional reasons of state power State power is the inevitable results of this because we can't solve in any rationalistic way this class conflict is conflict of interests Society can't simply come together and find the best path out of this question and these this is where laws come from This is where the police come from this is where violence where coercions come from and all of the sorts of state Institutions that we have today comes from these contradictions built in within class society a Stateless society a society without a state cannot simply be conjured upon like some sort of wizard You know like exactly like the doctor thing is not a wizard that can simply kill you You have to go to the material roots of what is happening beneath them so if you if you like the the what's it the The medicine kind of the healthcare kind of metaphor here. It's like the state is the is the symptoms here But it's class divisions. There is this diseases of society. This is where things come from But so we so you know if you want to to to to get rid of the state You first have to get rid of class society first has to get rid of the inequalities that is coming from all of that But contrary to prehistorical conditions that we were arguing that during the prehistory People were not living in this kind of state society like we're doing now Back in the days that this egalitarian thing came from from ultimately came from scarcity and from the lack of food and from the lack of Surplus and all of that this is very different from today today. We actually live in a society of abundance We live in a society in which we have plenty of houses for everybody to live in we produce plenty of food for everybody I believe we produce something or we have the capability of producing food for 10 million people or something like that We have plenty of medicines. We have plenty of books We're really like if we really can produce whatever we want to produce really kind of if we if we put our mind to it But the problem is that this wealth this incredible wealth is in the hands of the capitalist class of the bourgeoisie And only when the working class will unite humanity together under a rational plan of production Only then we can take all of this wealth and we can put it Democratically to use to satisfy the needs of everybody so that no lasting antagonism between classes between nations Between peoples will last and only when the needs of everybody will get satisfied Only then classes will go away will wither away and only then we can pave the way for the future communist stateless society But how do we get there? What is that we first need to do? Well, I think first we need to fight against the capitalist class Because I don't know about you, but I cannot see Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk Just giving us the the keys to the office of Amazon or Tesla or whatever Elon Musk is doing nowadays because We need to fight against them, right and for the working class to fight and defeat a capitalist class It will require a conscious and political effort on our side It will require us to arm ourselves with our own independent Political weapons our own independent organization to struggle against the bourgeoisie and in the struggle to fight the class war the working class will be compelled to arm itself and to do all of these things and and build a worker state to fight and to defend the workers revolution and To be sure a worker state and a workers revolution governments are matters of authority. There is no way out of this What we are talking about is to defend ourselves is to take the keys of the Amazon offices or something like that And this is authority. It's us imposing our authority over the capitalist class We need to be careful when we talk about authority in general and now we're all against authority and all of these things Because there are certain things that if we want to have a revolution we do we do do we do need to do And I think angles expressed this quite strikingly again. I'm quoting from angles again He said and I'm quoting here a revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing that there is It is the act whereby one part of the population Imposes its will upon on the other part of the population by means of rifles bayonets and cannon Authoritarian means if there are any authoritarians mint at all Now I don't think we will use bayonets in the revolution because those are kind of outdated But the point stands that we need to impose our will on the other part of society It is not authority in the abstract sense that Marxist oppose We definitely oppose the fight against the authority of the bourgeoisie over the working class Why? because the bourgeoisie is Is How to say it's dooming us it's condemning us to a future of misery while destroying the planet in the meantime But we fight for a worker state We fight for the authority of the working class over the capitalist class for the authority of the working class over society and when anarchist when anarchist theory denounced every forms of authority in the abstract there are two options either They're not being exactly clear of what they mean or They are de facto renouncing to the revolution They're de facto disarming us in the face of our enemy in front of the in front of the ruling class in front of the capitalist class And they're condemning us to the feet But the difference there is a clear difference There is a key difference between a worker state Which is what we are fighting for in the first place and the capitalist state Which is this monstrous thing that is destroying our planet and our lives today and And the and the difference is that in a worker state and in a worker's revolution For the first time in history It will be the majority of the population Using the state to defend their interests against the minority of the population But which I mean the oppressors the capitalists For the first time in history it will be the oppressed people deciding what to do deciding their faith and all of that democratically and together and The thing is these comrades. This is not Some some idea it's a it's in a sense It's a very scientific and beautiful ideas if you want But it's not just a beautiful idea as they came out of the mind of somebody it's reality imposing this on us in fact For all the denunciations that you can find in anarchist theories about authority and about the state and all of that Every time that the anarchists have been at the forefront of a revolutionary struggle They have been forced to throw away all of their theories about the state and build something that very much resembled some sort of central state authority for example during the Russian Civil War When Maknoff's troops and I don't know if if the if the name Makno is new to you Makno was this anarchist in the Ukraine that was fighting during the Russian Civil War that followed the Russian Revolution of 1917 and So during the Russian Civil War when Maknoff was an anarchist and his group was an anarchist group Well, every time the Maknoff army conquered a new town or a new city They would just put post-resol around the town stating again I'm quoting Maknoff army does not represent any authority will not subject anyone to any obligation whatsoever Which is all very anarchist and all of that, right? But what was the reality of the matter? Maknoff's were actually acting like a state for example Maknovists passed an enforced law for the for the redistribution of land They had a tight control over the press they ban every political party and organization, which was not the Maknovists They even set up a monetary policies and organize legislative conferences Not only that they even instituted something called the regional military Revolutionary Councils of Paysons workers and insurgents Which basically acted as a government in the regions that were occupied by the Maknovists When faced with the threat of the white army, which was the reactionary army the capitalist army Maknov enforced conscriptions for the defense of the revolution Now you can call these the workers consuls of Paysons workers and insurgents and all of that But what is it right if you like what is the way of saying it if it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck Then my friend. This is a duck right if you set up monetary policies if you have conscriptions if you have a government This is a state doesn't matter what you call it. It's it. This is what they end up for me now It's not like Maknov was this sort of dishonest anarchist or something What what other choices did he even have? Facing the threat of an enemy army. You had to have an army himself having an army yourself You had to feed the army You have to have a con if you want to feed the army You have to have economic policies to feed the army and you have to have a government to implement these policies There is just no way out of all of these those are material forces Which are independent of the kind of ideas which are in any single person kind of mind and in fact This is not a thing but cooler to Maknov even the CNT leaders did something very similar to this again The CNT was the major Anarcho-syndicalist trade unions that was operating in Spain during the Spanish the civil war against Franco against fascism It was a mass workers organization with the main workers organization in Catalonia at the time But after what what did the CNT did during the during the revolution during the civil war? After first refusing to form a government when they had the chance to do so alone and they refused because they were Anarchists later on they made a year-turn and joined the popular front government Basically, they refused to form a government by themselves and ended up joining a bourgeois government after that Now one of the leader of the CNT at the time justified the decision with the following statement The entry of the CNT into the central government is one of the most important events in the history of our country That's some betrayal of revolution. It's very important in fact The CNT has always been by principle and conviction anti-state and the enemy of government but Circumstances have changed the nature of the Spanish government and of the Spanish state unquote now we have to ask ourselves if we're honest What good is a revolutionary theory? If it doesn't hold through during a revolution because circumstances change The whole the whole meaning of the word revolution is actually changed right like what what other things are gonna happen here Of course these circumstances are gonna change during evolution And again it was the reality of the events that forced the CNT leaders to abandon the previous theory and to join the government and The reason for this I think Fundamentally lies in their theories or lack of theory in the theories of anarchism. I think Trotsky Compared anarchy's theory to an umbrella with holes. It's useless exactly when you need it Theory is worth nothing if it is not a guide to action and exactly at the moment in which the CNT and the Makno and Makno leaders Needed a guide to action that is during the revolution their theory betrayed them their theory left them completely unarmed and Instead of carefully planning ahead. They just had to improvise really Now don't misunderstand me I'm not trying to justify what the CNT did because the CNT did betray the revolution when they entered the bourgeois government Exactly like I'm not trying to justify what Maknof did because Maknof did build a Personal dictatorship of the Ukraine the difference between the forms of state the Maknof and the the CNT ended up forming or joining and The Marxist understanding of a worker state and in fact very significant I think a worker state needs to be something very different from a capitalist state from the state in which we are living in Instead of standing above society a worker state would be the expression of the majority It will be used by the majority to defend itself from the oppressing minority, which are the capitalist It would be comprised of democratically elected neighborhood and workplace Committee and this would be linked up locally regionally and then nationally and then even internationally at some point These things would be based on the election and recall of all public officials at all level with no official to receive more pay than a skilled Worker and positions would be rotated regularly Finally instead of a minority of specialized oppressor a worker state would have the armed masses themselves Armed elected and accountable in defense of the revolution These kind of organs that we're talking about again are not the beautiful invention of Marx and Engels one day And yesterday we had an amazing talk I think about the Paris commune and what happened in the Paris commune She had things that Marx is to learn a lot from on the concept of the worker state and the dictatorship of the proletariat This kind of worker state this kind of workers organizations arise every time that there was a Revolutionary struggle on the part of the working class against the bourgeoisie We see this as I just said on the Paris commune. We saw these things in during the Russian Revolution in 1917 We saw these things in Italy in 1919 and 1920 during the the the two red years, which was a betrayed revolution We see these things in Bavaria in Germany during the the failed revolution in there We see these things in Spain. We see these things everywhere in which the working class is struggling for power for political power and This is the point right that the Marxist understanding of authority the Marxist understanding of state the Marxist understanding of a worker state It's not does not come for from the genius Mind of Marx and Engels or something like a bitch by by any means they were probably very very incredible genius thinkers and all of that But it comes from lived from historical experience. Thank you Instead the anarchist theory and this is the paradox here because Anarchist would argue that we need to live in the real anarchist theories I don't talk about our Anarchist theory would argue that we need to live in the real world We need to have two things by itself and all of that But in reality anarchist theories are to be the product of the mind of a single person May this person be Prudhon Bakunin or Steerner or any or Chomsky or anything like that Is these people thinking what they think the ideal society is and wanting to implement that? It doesn't come from the lived experience of the working class It doesn't come from history in any direct sort of way at least it comes from the mind from the theory of a single person from the ideas of a single person and Really, this is the main problem of anarchist theory. It's abstract When faced by events it soon clashes against the reality of the evolutionary situation and forces anarchists Leaders to act differently from their theories for all their current similarities This is the ambridgeable gap between anarchism and Marxism Anarchism is abstract is an idealist philosophy It's based on abstract ideas of freedom of individuality and of authority Marxism instead is a concrete philosophy based on the material world from which he takes inspirations and learns lessons If you think about it for a second the main slogan of anarchism Are not really different from the slogans of the great French Revolution liberty equality in fraternity Which was a bourgeois revolution and the point of this is that Anarchism is a bourgeois is a petty bourgeois ideology nowadays It builds on the individualism in Dean. Sorry. It builds on the individualism of the petty bourgeoisie For example there elect the rejection of leadership and organization that many anarchist theories have Kind of reflects the role that the petty bourgeoisie holds in production today under capitalism There is not a single honest worker that has ever taken part in a strike That came down for a second the need for working-class unity in the class struggle The need for fighting against and for fighting together against the bourgeoisie for imposing their authority On the rest of society Workers in a picket line actually have a war to describe the individuals that reject the decisions of the majority and they call them scubs They call them class traitor and this this is what anarchism actually very often ends up arguing for This is the difference. This is the key difference between a true proletarian Revolutionary Marxist standpoint and a petty bourgeois and individualistic the anarchist theory argues for and You know like what I want to make clear here is that what I've talked about is about anarchist theories I don't doubt for a single second and actually It's very inspirational think the anarchist movement has produced the most inspiring Revolutionary fighters ever that we talk about the leaders of the CNT, but what about the rank and file of the CNT? I think the rank and file fighters of the CNT Demonstrated the heroic efforts when and sacrifices in fighting against fascism They gave their lives fighting for the cause of the international socialist revolution And they did this when the whole of the world was against them including their leaders by the way And I think if we want to honor them Along with all of the other people all of the other workers all of the honest people and fighters They gave their life to the cause of socialism in my opinion. I think as revolutionary It is our duty today to learn the lessons from the pasts and there is also Including learning the lessons from the anarchist movements and unfortunately I think I have to say we learn from their struggle We learn that sacrifice and willingness to fight alone are not enough to win are not enough to win the revolution We also need a correct program that goes through the understanding of what authority is and what authority is not What a state is and what a state it is not and especially that goes through an understanding of what is that we have to do to fight against capitalism To overthrow the capitalist state Replace it with a worker state and pave the way for the future communist stateless classless society of tomorrow and comrades Marxism is the crystallized experience of the working class struggle fighting for the socialist society We build from the past history and we learn the lessons from it So that we can avoid making these same mistakes over and over again in the future And this this is what we are trying to build with the marxist student federation This is where we are trying to build with socialist appeal And this is what we are trying to build with our comrades from the international marxist tendency So if you if you want to fight against capitalism If you want to fight for the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist society and for socialism then you should join us in this fight Thanks