On the last November, 9th, ten years have elapsed since the fall of the Berlin’s wall, a fact that marked the beginning of the capitalist annexation of Eastern Germany (German Democratic Republic) by the German imperialism. The GDR was one of the first bureaucratised workers’ states of the European east to fall down on the hands of the world-wide bourgeoisie. In every place, the imperialism commemorated this date as that of the rollback of the democracy to the European East and the USSR. Even though the press very timorously recognises that the life conditions of the population of that part of the planet are worse than in the past, the spokesmen of the imperialism have not stopped to hammer in the same keyboard key as they had made during all the cold war by saying that "the Wall of the shame was the symbolic border between the democracy and the Communism" (O Estado de São Paulo, 09/11/99). This is the classic argument of the bourgeois ideology where the class struggle is presented as a war between the democrats from one side and the totalitarians from the other. We will come back further on to this question, but before doing so, it would be necessary to make a short description of the Marxist interpretation of the causes of the fall down of the Berlin’s wall, which for us, represented a backtracking at world-wide level of the working class and its historical conquests.

The expropriation of the bourgeoisie in the USSR and the European East settled the bases for a planned, collectivised and statised economy which resulted in great advances for the working masses. In the USSR, due to the economic backwardness and the imperialist blockade, a bureaucratic degeneration took place on the Bolshevik party and the soviet society, giving rise to a parasitic bureaucracy. The Stalinism, which after having squashed the Left Opposition in 1924, in the following decade assassinated the whole generation of Bolshevik revolutionaries and sponsored the reactionary policy of "pacific convivence" with the mortal enemies of the revolution, paved the way for the capitalist restoration.

Having as axis of its politics the preservation of its parasitism in the USSR, the bureaucracy established a zigzag behaviour that, by refusing to make a Workers’ United Front with the social-democracy against the fascist reaction, allowed the raising of the nazism in Germany. After this extreme-leftist period, it yawed to the right and adviced the PC’s to search for the construction of strategical alliances with "democratic and progressive" bourgeois sectors, calling for People Fronts, and sabotaging the revolutionary processes, as occurred in France and Spain in the 30’s. In spite of its reactionary policy of searching to collaborate with the imperialism, the bonanza conditions of the post-war period compelled the Stalinism to expropriate the bourgeoisie in the European East and to establish Workers’ States bureaucratically deformed on those regions occupied by the Red Army. Far from having a revolutionary and internationalist program, as the Bolshevik party of Lenin and Trotsky -which led the October revolution- had, the Stalinism was pushed to take these measurements because of: the pressure of the imperialism towards the East, the refusal of the native bourgeoisie of the occupied countries to establish people front governments with the PC’s; the necessity of establishing an isolation belt around the USSR (to protect its source of parasitism); and to suffocate the revolutionary fervour of the victorious eastern masses in order not to spread such a feeling over the soviet masses, a fact that could shake its domain over them.

After the USSR caused a humiliating defeat to the nazism (despite the Stalinist suicidal policy of "pacific convivence" with the German bourgeoisie and its stupidity of believing in the fulfilment from the nazi’s side of the not aggression pact that Stalin established with Hitler, which almost led to the destruction of the USSR) sweeping the Third Reich Army from the gates of Moscow to Berlin, the Russian bureaucracy signed the agreements of Yalta and Postdam, splitting the world in areas of influence between the Yankee imperialism and the USSR in order to collaborate with the reconstruction of the capitalist states in the countries where the fascism had been defeated through the resistance headed by the partisans. Insisting on the pacific convivence, the USSR had considered the withdrawal of all the troops of occupation from Germany and the reunification of this country through the fusing of the management of the East and the West. However, due to the anti-Communist hysteria of the McCarthyism in the USA, "the occidental powers suspected that this design occulted an intention of communist infiltration all over Germany. Therefore, they demanded free and democratic elections in the soviet zone as pre-requisite for any eventual agreement. Had all the German parties banned in the East, including the social-democracy, been allowed to participate on the elections, for sure the communist government of Pieck and Ulbricht would have been knocked down (...). Nevertheless, it was not the only reason for the occidental powers’ opposition to the German unification. They were also afraid that a withdrawal of the North American troops automatically would established the Russian supremacy in the European continent" (Russia after Stalin, Isaac Deutscher, 1956).

Because of the impossibility of establishing an agreement, the four occupation armies remained in Germany. The occidental powers (USA, England and France), in the West side, and the Soviet Union, in the East. Berlin started to be the strategical dividing string between the imperialism and the Bureaucratised Workers’ States during all the cold war. The objective of the Yankee imperialism started to be the reconstruction of a capitalist Europe through a great plan of international speculation, the Marshall Plan, and the anti-Soviet rearmament of the continent through the creation of the NATO. In addition, with the aid of the treacherous social-democracy it tried to corrupt politically the West European proletariat stimulating the so called welfare state. As an answer to the imperialist policies, the Kremlin created the Pact of Warsaw, a military agreement that grouped Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and the GDR.

The "Socialism" in half a country, the GDR occupied a quarter of the territory that Germany had in 1937, was a product of an immense capitulation of the Soviet bureaucracy to the imperialism, who rejected to fight for extending the expropriation of the bourgeoisie to the whole Germany, and used the GDR as a mere instrument of bargain in the cold war. Once the West Occidental Germany (GFR) had become the biggest economic power of the capitalist Europe and a basic ally of the USA in the NATO, the creation of the Berlin’s wall was a defensive and bureaucratic measure taken by the Stalinism to protect the GDR from the external pressures. Internally the wall meant an extreme measure of the bureaucracy to contain the escape of qualified professionals and to prevent the contraband of merchandises (mainly foodstuff, whose prices were subsidised and therefore cheaper in the GDR) to the West, which, up to 1961, year of the creation of the Wall, already had caused a damage of approximately US$ 15 billion to the GDR. On the other hand, the wall represented also the oppression of the bureaucracy over those that tried to run away from the GDR, and also symbolised the militar and political border that the bureaucracy established to the advance of the NATO to the East. In this way, the bureaucracy as was said by Trotsky "defended with its own methods the proletarian dictatorship... methods that facilitate the victory of the enemy". (The Class Nature of the Soviet State, 1933). The key for the German question and certainly that of the whole Workers’ States would have been the construction of a revolutionary party that matched the legal fight with the illegal one, the social revolution in the GFR and the political revolution in the GDR, fighting against the social-reformist imperialism in the West as well as against the Stalinist bureaucracy in the East. As Lenin had well enunciated, "a victorious proletarian revolution in Germany would blow, with extraordinary easiness all the imperialist rind ... and would surely turn real the victory of the world-wide socialism" (On the tax in species, the meaning of the NEP and its conditions, 1918)

After the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, the East European countries had reached fantastic levels of development reconstructing their industry and sponsoring working and social conquests never reached in the capitalism for those peoples. However, the "socialism in one country’s" policy, which restricted the economic planning to a nation or a small parcel of the world with an insufficient level of economic development, led to the strangulation of the productive forces in those regions. Due to the technological backwardness and the impediments of the bureaucratic management, the Bureaucratic Workers’ States were not able to compete with the low cost of the capitalist productivity. In addition, the armament race, which for the capital always is a lucrative industry, for the nations where the bourgeoisie had been expropriated meant a titanic effort that consumed a great part of the gross national product (GNP) which could have been used in the development of other branches of the production. Facing these insoluble contradictions, the only way that could find the Stalinism to solve them, within the framework of its opposition to extend the revolution to a world-wide level, was to appeal to external loans, to introduce mechanisms of capitalist market in the economy, eroding the bases of the state monopoly of the foreign commerce, running the Workers’ States into debt, and becoming them hostages of the world-wide financial capital.

Despite their strive to establish its own economic community, the COMECON, the USSR and the other countries of the European East had never freed themselves from the world-wide market which functioned according to capitalist rules. With the crisis of the oil and the increase of the prices of the raw materials in middle of the 70’s, the importations from the West made by the USSR had become very expensive, aggravating enormously the unequal exchange with the capitalist countries to whom it could only sold little competitive merchandises with low aggregate value. Many times, in order to export, the USSR had to fix prices below their production cost. Thus, it could not support the exportation of merchandises subsidised inside of the COMECON as before (e.g. these exportations to the GDR, from 1971 to 1978, had reached the value of US$ 4.8 billion). The financial difficulties of the USSR led the rest of the Workers’ States to appeal also to credits from the West. Because of all these reasons, the rhythms of growth of the USSR declined from 6.5% in the period 1961-65 to 2% in the period 1976 -85. At that moment, the Kremlin decided to reorient its relations with the other countries of the Pact of Warsaw and with the imperialism, creating the Perestroika (reorganisation) and the Glasnost (transparency). With these measures it tried to recompose its economy and to save the source of its parasitism, the USSR, towards the end of the cold war, the reduction of the military expenses, the achievement of new external credits and imperialist investments, and the introduction of market mechanisms in the planned economy. At external level, Gorbachov removed the Russian troops from Afghanistan and tried to facilitate the capitalist restoration in the European East, in particular in the GDR, for which he received resources for an approximate value of US$ 20 billion from the GFR in order to agree to suspend the USSR rights and responsibilities, which meant the withdrawal of the Red Army and the advicing of the bureaucrats of the GDR for the fall of the Berlin’s wall.

Unlike the Eastern Berlin anti-bureaucratic workers’ uprising of 1953, in which more than three hundred thousand workers mobilised themselves under the leadership of the civil construction’s workers against the increase of the production rhythms required by the Stalinists, or the demonstrations that had taken place in Hungary and Poland in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and again in Poland in 1970 and 1980-8, which had been jammed by the tanks of the bureaucracy, the demonstrations that followed the fall of the Berlin’s wall and all the demonstrations that occurred in the Workers’ States in the period 1989-91, with the exception of Tienamen in China, have been manipulated versions of those occurred between the 50’s and the beginning of the 80’s. These protests, in spite of being originated by genuine anti-bureaucratic feelings and national independence wills, were led by sectors of the same bureaucracy in its process of rupture with the Stalinism and other agents of the imperialism in favour of the bourgeois democracy and the chauvinism with the aim of speeding up the capitalist restoration.

The reality of this last decade contradicted all the theories that have presented as gradual the events of the 1989-91 period, which were baptised as "democratic, pacific, and blind and deaf revolutions". A large part of the pseudo-Trotskyist centrism addressed to present the capitalist restoration as an anti-bureaucratic revolution without a revolutionary leadership. All of them lie. On top of that, these theories cannot explain the consequences of the restoration, i.e. the war in the Balkans, the extermination of entire cities like Grozni, only comparable to the one that the nazis have made in Stalingrad, and the falling back of the life standards that the USSR and the European East peoples have had. "According to the European Bank for the Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), hosted in London, the GNP of the former Soviet republics was, in the last year, equivalent to 65% of the 1989 levels. From 1988 until middle of this decade, the number of poor persons in the region jumped from 10 million to 145 million, in agreement with a research carried out by the World Bank. The life expectation continues diminishing in Russia, and as an irony of the destiny, despite the USS 800 billion in subsidies injected in the last decade by the GFR in the former GDR, unemployment and misery have increased in the poor sister with communist past shelters." (Carta Capital, 12/1999). After a decade of destruction, to call these processes "revolutions" is a probe of incurable delirium and of the dirtiest charlatanism never exhibited by the left before.

The PSTU and the LIT are the best representatives of the pseudo-Trotskyist groups (PO, PTS, MST, LICR, SU, Lambertism), which with small variations among them, acclaimed the destruction of the Bureaucratised Workers’ States and the installation of democracies similar to the ones of any semi-colonial country of the capitalist world on behalf of the combat to the Stalinist totalitarianism.

With a scoundrel behaviour not reached when Moreno was alive, the LIT argues that "these processes had been revolutionary and (...) they were limitations in the results of these processes because, when the bureaucratic regimen of the PCUS fell, the bureaucracy remained in power, by means of a recycled sector of it that adapted itself tactically. All the analysts say that in the East the nomenclature is the new capitalist class. That is a limitation of the revolutionary process. The cause of this limitation is the absence of a revolutionary leadership. However, we cannot say that these revolutions had not taken place, even when they were not finished, since a democratic change en the regime was obtained. This half revolutions in spite of their limitation were colossal conquests of the masses." (Intervention of P. Stanislaw in the International Executive Committee of the LIT, Correo Internacional 75, August of 1998). The amount of attacks to the Marxism that these revisionists can accumulate in a few lines is surprising. They do not have limits for their quackery, the most the reality unmasks them, the most myths they create, quenching the thirst with salty water. Besides reaffirming the humbug that the counter-revolutionary processes of 1989 -91 have been revolutions, they say that they have to be completed. For the LIT, China is already capitalist, but the current situation of Russia, where they affirm that " the bureaucracy has transformed itself into new bourgeoisie"(idem), is undetermined. Russia is not a Workers’ State and is not a bourgeois one, something that never was supported by the Marxism, for which all the states have a class character. The bureaucracy is not independent of the existence of the Workers’ State, if it disappears this parasitic sector will also do it. In The Betrayed Revolution, Trotsky affirmed that "if a bourgeois party knocks down the Soviet bureaucracy, it would find not few servers between the current bureaucrats, the technician, the directors, the secretaries of the party", and concluded: "the bourgeois restoration would have to get rid of less people that a revolutionary party".

Supporting that the permanence of the old bureaucrats in the state administration would be the test of the limitations of the "revolutionary process" in course, the PSTU conscientiously feeds the confusion. In fact, the permanence of many former-Stalinists in the governments, like Yeltsin and Putin, only confirms that currently Russia is a bourgeois state born from a counterrevolution. It is a mistake to continue calling them Stalinist bureaucracy since such an expression was used to name the parasitic bureaucracy at the time of the USSR. The members of the current Russian government and the opposition headed by the PCFR are a group of capitalist bureaucrats that administrate the state and a group of nostalgics, composed of petty bourgeois social-chauvinists, that vindicates Stalin, respectively. Finally, since they reaffirm that what had occurred was a "democratic revolution" (that had given birth to not democratic regimes, even considering the narrow limits of the bourgeois democracy), they arrive at the nonsense of defining that the new regimes are a "colossal conquest".

This "colossal conquest" besides having destroyed the life conditions of the masses also extincted the Workers’ States, encouraging the military, economic and politic offensive of the imperialism against the proletariat of the entire world. During the cold war, the capitalists have made some concessions fearing that the revolutionary conquests of the full job and the public and gratuitous health and education, that the USSR and the European East obtained through the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, could serve as inspiration for the fights of the exploiteds in the West. Therefore during the cold war they yielded their rings in order to protect their fingers. Thus once they were free of the "communist threat" from the European East, the capitalists treat to take their rings in return. This situation is illustrated in the film "El pariente de la serpiente" made by the Italian Mario Monicelli. An Italian journalist complains because for the first time in his life he is being obliged to work in the day of Christmas. His interlocutor answers - You have to get used to it, the Berlin’s wall fell down.

In a scandalous manifestation of adaptation to the pressures of the bourgeois public opinion the PSTU insists on saying that "in 1989, the workers had knocked down the Berlin’s wall, the wall of the disgusting tyrannic Stalinist dictatorships, symbol of a totalitarian regime, that had been hidden (and they had spotted) behind the flags of the Socialism and the Communism from where it had opened the gates for the capitalism (...) The wall of the shame of the Stalinist Socialism fell" (Opiniao Socialista 88, 25/01/2000). It is important to note that shamelessly the characterisation that these raging leftists make against the Workers’ States today does not differ very much from the ideological propaganda that the reactionary right and social-democracy always make, which did not save Hollywood jingles to define the USSR as the "empire of the evil", phrase created by Ronald Reagan. Although it tries to beautify its position with a few left critics to the Stalinism (it paved the way for the capitalist restoration), the PSTU omits any mention to the class character of these regimes, a thing that is basic for the Marxists. As Trotsky well defined, " the speeches about the dictatorship on the proletariat, which without a deep analysis, or without a clear explanation of the social reasons and the class limits of the bureaucratic rule, dilute themselves in mere democratic phrases, that resemble those that were popular among mensheviks" (The Class Nature of the Soviet State, 1933)

What is common to the characterisations that Reagan, the bourgeois media, the social-democracy, and Opiniao Socialista make of the Bureaucratic Workers’ States? We do not use the classic method of the Stalinist calumny which consider that all the critics to the parasitic bureaucracy favours the right, but the denominations of "wall of the shame, disgusting tyranny, symbol of totalitarian regimes and jail of the peoples" in the way that are presented, without any social content only can serve as a weapon for the democratic counterrevolution.

Affected by the anti-Communist liberal propaganda, every day a new centrist current revises its characterisation of the USSR and the countries of the European East. If we admit that the ascension of the Stalinism was enough for imposing the counterrevolution in those countries, then we are committing the crime of treating a sick person as a corpse, burying it alive. "There are persons who defend that when the real state, that appears after the proletarian revolution does not correspond with the a priori established ideal, then it is necessary to turn it down. This is an eccentricity common policy of the pacifist-democrats, the libertarian circles, the anarcho-syndicalists and in general extreme-leftists of the petty bourgeois intellectuality" (The Workers’ State, Thermidor and Bonapartism, L. Trotsky, 01/02/35). This is the current policy of the PSTU regarding China. In addition, even when it still recognises that the USSR and the East European countries were Workers’ States until the 1989-91 processes, it affirms that those regimes had nothing to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat, since they were Deformed Workers’ States under the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. In this way, these gentlemen does not undertake a violent attack to the Stalinist bureaucracy, but to the Marxism, mutilating its foundations that define that any state is the instrument through which the ruling class exerts its dictatorship and that this social domination can be expressed through diverse political forms. A dictatorship, being the power concentrated in the hands of only a man or a handful of people, is always the dictatorship of a social class on another. The Bonapartist Regimes of the Workers’ States were a distorted expression of the proletarian dictatorship. The social content of this dictatorship is determined by the productive relations created after the expropriation of the capitalists.

The last political battles of Trotsky have been against the leftists, the great majority members of its own party, the Fourth International, who did not resist the pressures of the democratic imperialism, passed to a sectarian position in relation to the USSR, denying its proletarian character and refusing to defend it in front of the internal or external counterrevolution, and justified this capitulation on behalf of the combat to the Stalinist totalitarianism.

Certainly, the leadership of the PSTU uses a typical menshevik phraseology and opposes to make a Marxist analysis of the origin of the Stalinist dictatorships because it would find that the main contribution given by the Stalinism to the blockade imposed for the imperialism to the Workers’ States was the People Front policies developed for it in the rest of the world, which aborted any revolutionary development of the class struggle. Precisely, the PSTU applies this strategy in Brazil. It is not only due to its theoretical slips that its centrist characterisations finish by falling into the slogan "totalitarians versus democrats". A wrong position on the Workers’ States and the proletarian dictatorship contaminates with anti-Marxism all the policies of a left-wing party.

If the stalinofilia is a criminal policy because it renounces to the theoretical and politician combat against Stalinists bureaucracy who betrayed the world revolution and paved the way to the counterrevolution, the stalinophobia is not a crime of lesser carat. The latter was fed by the imperialism who searched to restore the private property and the dictatorship of the capitalism based on the rhetoric of the anti-authoritarianism. With this aim, it used those who searched an intermediate path between the bourgeois democracy and the proletarian dictatorship, those who defended the socialism with democracy, as Kaustky did.

If until the 60’s and 70’s the majority of the left groups considered the imperialism as its greatest enemy, today, swallowed by the democratic pressures, the smashing majority of the left considers the totalitarian regimes and the lack of democracy as the worst bad. In this way, these left reformists drunk with democratic illusions, support sometimes ashamed and others openly, the anti-totalitarian crusade of the world-wide bourgeoisie, supporting politically the democratic counterrevolution in the Workers’ States, the humanitarian interventions of the NATO and the UN in the semi-colonies commanded by dictators (Iraq, Balkans, East Timor ), and tens of other imperialist crimes.

The PSTU tries to show itself as the vanguard of the "democratic" counterrevolution, standing at the right of the proper PT. The PT through its secretary of International Relations, the historian Marco Aurelio García, says that "we did not fight for the fall of the wall. In this way, he says metaphorically that the PT did not defend the so called real socialism (practised by the Soviet and its satellites) destroyed for the practical effects of the fall of the wall" (Folha do São Paulo, 04/11/99). The PT does not lament itself because of the counterrevolutionary destruction of the Workers’ States, on the contrary, after 1989 due to an anti-Communist ideological reaction, its reformist leadership have banned the left from the party and combined itself deeply with the Brazilian capitalist regimen. On the other hand, what the PSTU laments, is that not all the Stalinists dictatorships had been swept by the winds of the capitalist democracy which took away all the obstacles for the capitalist conquest of the former Workers’ States. "Unhappily not all the bureaucracy has been swept, aberrations as the Chinese dictatorship have survived. Its socialism with Chinese features is just a wild capitalist slavery lead with iron hand" (Opiniao Socialista 88).

Euphoric with the democratic counterrevolution, after the ’89 events the Morenoites, who have later given origin to the PSTU, adopted a criminal and openly anti-Trotskyist policy. According to it, "it continues the combat against the totalitarian regimes in China, Albania, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba (independent of the form that the political revolution takes in each of them), in which already started the countdown." (Correo Internacional, July, 1990). Even for an unwary reader, it is clear that the Morenoites have supported unconditionally the destruction of the Deformed Workers’ States. As early as in 1990, they have supported the falling of the bureaucracy in favour of the only possibility that could be confirmed in the absence of a revolutionary party, its replacement by a capitalist regimen. As the history has confirmed, at that moment it was clear for any revolutionary that the new regimens would eliminate the revolutionary conquests that still remained on foot (full job, gratuitous health, education and housing). The PSTU did it by cynically emphasising that it supported the forms (terror of the Mafia, civil war, privatisations and massive firings, etc.) that the capitalist counterrevolution assumed, rebaptizing it criminally as "democratic" revolution.

The PSTU follows stalinophobic lines of the Trotskyist revisionists as Burnham, Schatman (who have left the American SWP because they opposed to defend the USSR after the agreement between Stalin and Hitler), and Tony Cliff (recently dead leader of the English SWP, who was excluded from the Fourth International in 1950, when he opposed openly to defend China and North Korea against the Yankee imperialism). However, the deserters of the Trotskyism have not added anything new to the anti-Marxist thesis of the old adversaries of the Trotskyism, as Hugo Urbahns, Lucien Laurat, and Majaiski who developed the theories about the bureaucratic class expropriation, the state capitalism, and the existence of neither proletarian nor capitalist states (criticised by Trotsky in The Class Nature of the Soviet State and In defense of the Marxism). In fact, they had only deepened the old anarchic preconceptions against the "authoritarianism" of the proletarian dictatorship. Burnham, Shachtman, and Cliff had some originality, but we would say that the PSTU evidently is unaware that its new ideas are nothing but remakes of the ideas of the old enemies of the Marxism, who for more that a century more work for the reaction.

As Engels said, the anti-authoritarians, due to their ignorance always finish collaborating with the reaction. The History showed that the raging anti-Stalinism divorced of the social analysis from the Stalinist degeneration, which is the first step to help the counterrevolution. There are famous examples of how the petty bourgeois anti-authoritarian hysteria against the Workers’ States culminated working for the imperialist repressive apparatus. The former Trotskyists Burnham and Shachtman, after renouncing to defend the USSR and quitting the Fourth International have finished in the extreme-right. Burnham collaborating with the McCarthyist hunting of witches, supporting entirely the politics of the Yankee imperialism. Shachtman entering the American Socialist Party and starting to be the representative of its more reactionary section, defending the invasion of Bahia de los Cochinos, and the Vietnam war. A Former partisan in the Spanish Civil War, the writer George Orwell, who criticised the Stalinist totalitarianism in "Animal Farm" and "1984", in the same year that he published this last romance, also elaborated for the British secret service a list of 86 artists (among them Charles Chaplin), to be accused of Communist activities.

When the Trotskyists admit the probability that under bonanza conditions the petty bourgeoisie may be capable of leading the social revolution, then they applyed the same criteria for the political revolution. Trotsky supported that only a proletarian vanguard who possessed a Marxist and defensist programme would be able to perform a political revolution conserving the social conquests of the expropriation to the bourgeoisie and reorienting the country towards the socialism. According to him "the inevitable collapse of the Stalinist regimen would lead to the establishment of the Soviet Democracy only in the case that the liquidation of the Bonapartism would be the product of the conscientious action of the proletarian vanguard. In any other case, the place of the Stalinism could be taken by capitalist-fascist counterrevolution" (The Workers’ State, Thermidor and Bonapartism, 1935). "Only the Fourth International is capable to lead the Soviet masses’ rebellion." (Transitional Programme, 1938). The Morenoites have always worked with the thesis that the petty bourgeoisie, not as exception but as rule, would be able to lead the social revolution to the triumph. Because of this, they constantly call to the formation of People Fronts and support the construction of democratic and popular governments. The PSTU also extended this openly anti-Trotskyist conception of revolution to the political revolution supporting any restorationist movement who raises in the Workers’ States as agents of the democratic revolution. From here we can deduce its conception that for the workers, the bourgeois democracy is better than a Bureaucratised Workers’ State. For sure, the workers of the former USSR and the European East do not think the same.

While the pseudo-trotskyist bubbled of stalinophobia demanded the unconditional falling of the totalitarian bureaucracy in the Workers’ States, working together with the imperialism so that a on rock of the "wall of the shame" remains, the eastern workers did not need much time in order to perceive that it was not valid to change their material conquests by a formal democratic freedom or other wonders of the capitalist world as the unemployment, the nazi-fascism, the infantile prostitution, the hunger, the illiteracy, etc. In few days after the fall of the wall the masses wrote on it "Wir wollen unsere mauer wieder (We want back the wall)". This was the slogan written in posters and T-shirts of young orientals a few months after the fall of the Berlin’s wall and is the desire of one of each five Germans. The data came out from a research of the Berliner institute Force done with the aim of knowing what the Germans think ten years after the fall of the wall." (Folha de São Paulo, 04/11/99). In addition, two months after the economic and monetary union Germany already have almost three millions of underemployed and unemployed people where all had right to the full job.

The balance that the eastern workers have empirically obtained after this decade, is diametrical opposed to the democratic illusions sold by the petty bourgeois centrist. For astonishment of the democratic redeemers "the orientals are absolutely not thanked. They vote for the PDS, what remains of the Communist Party of Eastern Germany, and they do not reveal even friendly. The orientals tend to look backwards, nostalgic of their former social standard, the security in the job, a less materialistic perspective and the warmer personal relations that the Communism produced" (The Guardian, 07/11/99). Most intriguing for the apologists of the restoration is that although the propaganda against the "satanic" Stalinism, the eastern German workers express in the proper bourgeois elections (even in a deformed way) their rejection to the capitalist restoration voting for the party of their former Stalinists oppressors because they identify them (in a wrong way) with the life conditions that they used to have in the dead Workers’ State. As Trotsky said, the Stalinists without the Workers’ State are equal or worse than any social-democrat. The recycled Stalinists in Germany, Russia or any part of the world are not a political alternative to the capitalist reaction. Only a party of the Fourth International will be able to guide the proletariat to new October revolutions, and to stimulate the political revolution and to prevent that new catastrophes occur in China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam. By making associations with our class enemies and sharing their ideological preconceptions we will never ever develop a genuine revolutionary communist ideology. Even less, by saling the already gotten conquests that we will need to succed again with new Octobers.