Originally published in De Acero No. 1, Stage II, in March 2026.

A few days ago, I came across a defamatory article by a postmodern Trotskyist published in Izquierda Diario. [1]This supposed newspaper is actually a propaganda outlet for postmodern revisionism, and, moreover, a Trotskyist group with international aspirations, the Trotskyist Fraction of the Fourth International, hides behind its acronym

I know it sounds like a joke, something out of Life of Brian, but no, they actually believe they are a political organisation.

Their editorial line is that of the postmodernism that comes from the US; like good Trotskyists, they remain at the service of the imperialists. They already did so at the beginning of the Soviet revolutionary process, sabotaging and assassinating. Once defeated, they continued doing the work of the “opposition” in service of US imperialism, and now they are the promoters of the dogmas of faith of the system's monolithic thinking.

Like good dogs of the system, they now point the finger at us to make us look like what they really are: reactionaries, albeit in their case disguised with glitter.

The article this author dedicates to us is a nonsensical jumble that begins by calling the Frente Obrero (Workers' Front) "Stalinist". This demonstrates that he doesn't even have the capacity to differentiate between a front and a party; he wants to “dismantle” us and doesn't even know what we are or what our positions are.

The Frente Obrero is not communist, and besides, of course, Stalinism is an invention of the Trotskyists to criminalise communism, so it could hardly be "Stalinist". He should have been referring to the PML(RC).

Anyway, a Trotskyist talking about sects makes me burst out laughing, since they've been denounced as such by all revolutionary movements in every country. Trying to sell newspapers has gone to their heads.

Of course, your article is a rehash of quotes in an attempt to use an appeal to authority to discredit us—if Lenin said it, we're doomed. But what's clear is that these are mutilated quotes, which you don't even understand, and I'm going to prove that they even expose you.

That's what happens when you study Marxism as if it were dogma, a religion, by reciting verses. We must prioritise living, creative Marxism over the dead letter, especially if you don't even understand it and, moreover, have such a limited repertoire.

Given your limitations regarding your historical knowledge of the Soviet revolutionary process itself and the debates that took place, I would recommend that you start studying Marxism and the history of the revolutionary movement again. But since you're not going to do that, at least expand your Word document of quotes—yes, unfortunately, there are people with compendiums of quotes for debates among the mentally destitute so they can avoid exposing themselves in this way.

He begins his attacks with a quote from Marx, which he misquotes and fails to reference. I have taken the trouble to find the original and cite it correctly so that the reader can access the full text:

"Secondly, the English bourgeoisie, besides exploiting Irish misery to worsen the situation of the English working class through the forced immigration of poor Irish people, divided the proletariat into two hostile camps. The revolutionary fervour of the Celtic worker does not blend harmoniously with the positive, but slow, nature of the Anglo-Saxon worker. On the contrary, in all the major industrial centres of England, there exists a profound antagonism between the English and Irish proletarians. The average English worker hates the Irishman, whom he regards as a rival who drives down wages and the standard of living. He feels a national and religious antipathy towards him. He looks upon him almost as the poor whites of the southern states of North America looked upon the Black slaves. The bourgeoisie artificially fosters and maintains this antagonism among the proletarians within England itself. It knows that in this division of the proletariat lies the true secret of maintaining its power." [2].

First, I want to make it clear that the migration processes taking place in Europe in 2022 are qualitatively different from those that occurred in 19th-century Ireland.

Second, we are in complete agreement with Marx. We advocate for the integration of immigrants at all levels, which of course includes ensuring they have decent living and working conditions.

Our approach is one of integration; theirs is one of open borders, marginalisation, exploitation, and segregation in ghettos. They are the reactionaries.

To achieve our goals, we advocate, of course, border control and orderly immigration, contingent on the country's capacity to absorb immigrants. Anything else would be living in anarchy, in the most derogatory sense of the term.

These Trotskyists talk about socialism and economic planning, yet they promote a system where the country's population is unknown and contribute to the existence of ghettos and marginalisation.

A couple of paragraphs later—it's not just that he doesn't know how to quote; he's paraphrasing without citing what the author actually said—we get to his interpretations, which, as you can imagine, aren't exactly accurate. In fact, he changes the order.

The original quotes from Lenin that he has attempted to paraphrase are the following:

"The bourgeoisie stirs up the workers of one nation against those of another, trying to divide them. Conscious workers, understanding that the destruction of all national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, strive to help enlighten and organise their comrades in backward countries." [3].

I completely agree. In fact, that's what we always say: immigrants are victims of capitalism, which encourages them to emigrate in order to drive down the wages of native workers. Therefore, workers must unite against the real enemy: capitalism.

But this doesn't mean doing so anarchically, following the dictates of big capital, as these Trotskyists do.

Since I'm going to be called a Red-brown for this, I'll show you what Marx said about the issue, lest I be the first Red-brown in history for these people:

"Faced with the power of capital, individual human strength has disappeared, and the worker in the factories is nothing more than a cog in the machine. To regain their individuality, workers must unite and form trade unions to defend their wages and their lives. Up to this point, these associations have maintained a more or less local character. Only capital sees its power grow daily, thanks to new discoveries and advances in industry, which renders a large number of national unions powerless. If one studies the struggles of the English working class, one notices that factory owners, in order to resist their workers, bring in labourers from abroad to produce goods for lower wages. Faced with this situation, the working class, if it wants to continue its struggle with any chance of success, must transform its national associations into international ones." [4].

Anticipating what I know will be said in response to this, I want to make it clear that we advocate for the creation of a new international and for international trade union cooperation. Being internationalist does not mean denigrating material reality and falling into the capitalist globalism of open borders; we defend planning, not anarchy.

This would be the second quote:

"There is no doubt that only extreme poverty forces people to leave their homeland and that capitalists exploit immigrant workers with the utmost shamelessness. However, only reactionaries can close their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of peoples. It is not, and cannot be, possible to redeem oneself from the oppression of capital without the successive development of capitalism, without the class struggle, which is its consequence. And it is precisely in this struggle that capitalism incorporates the working masses of the entire world, breaking the routine and harshness of local life, shattering national barriers and prejudices, and bringing together workers from all countries in the great factories and mines of America, Germany, etc." [5].

The author of the article neglects to mention that the cited text dates from 1913 and that during the pre-revolutionary period, a debate took place in which some held positions favouring the absence of borders. However, reality subsequently prevailed, and these positions were superseded, since, as we will see below, Lenin himself advocated for strong borders and immigration control. He must have been another dangerous red-brown to them. [6]. Debía de ser otro peligroso rojipardo para ellos.

This Trotskyist has also forgotten the relationship between theory and practice and the requirement that the former be tested against the criterion of certainty. He has also forgotten Lenin's opinions on Trotsky.

First, let's look at some excerpts from the 1927 Regulations on the Protection of the State Borders of the USSR to see what the famous "open borders" were like in the USSR:

"Persons who have crossed or attempt to cross the state border of the USSR outside of the established crossing points, or at least through the latter but illegally, are recognised as border violators, detained by the border guards of the Joint State Political Administration and, in appropriate cases, criminally liable, in accordance with the legislation of the USSR and the Union republics." [7].

“Open borders” in full force… this is the reality that unfolded in the USSR.

The debate prior to the revolution settled on this position, also overcoming the contempt for the national identity, distinguishing it from nationalism. They declared themselves revolutionary patriots.

I began by quoting something from the Stalin period so that the Trotskyists might delude themselves into thinking they can get away with saying that everything was different under Stalin. Therefore, we will now discuss what happened in 1918 with Lenin:

"On May 28, 1918, the Council of People's Commissars discussed a draft decree on the establishment of a border guard and adopted it with minor amendments. The decree stipulated that the border guard would be established under the People's Commissariat of Finance. It was entrusted with the task of protecting the border interests of the RSFSR and, within the border zone, protecting the person and property of citizens. Its main responsibilities were:

a) …preventing the clandestine transport of goods and the clandestine passage of persons across the land and sea borders of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic;

b) protection against the theft of water resources in our border and territorial waters;

c) monitoring compliance with international navigation regulations on border rivers;

d) protecting our fishermen and industrialists in the border seas, lakes, and rivers;

e) Protecting our border towns from attacks by bandits and nomadic tribes;

f) Implementing border quarantines where necessary, etc." [8].

Here we can clearly see that it was under Lenin's leadership that the open borders policy was abandoned in favour of strict border control. They even spoke of "border quarantine". In other words, when they came to power, they realised that this was unfeasible and absurd.

How could they prevent spies and provocateurs from infiltrating if there were no borders? The revolution would have lasted three days otherwise.

They can distort and take reality out of context to defend their childish and leftist positions, but the reality, the history of the Russian Revolution, is available to everyone.

Open borders are impossible to implement under existing material conditions; they live in a fantasy world, even though their policies would inexorably lead us to one of terror.

Soviet borders were secure and robust. Faced with the development of imperialist aggression, they were forced to defend themselves on all fronts, and this defence necessarily involved reinforcing border control.

"The primary and constant task of the Soviet border troops was the daily duty of protecting the border, suppressing all attempts to violate it. Every year, tens of thousands of people attempted to cross the border illegally. Nearly two-thirds of the offenders were deserters hoping to find temporary work in the RSFSR. In the Far East and Siberia, peasants crossed the border to harvest hay, cut down trees, hunt, and fish. Residents of neighbouring states entered the border areas to visit relatives. And yet, a significant proportion of the perpetrators were smugglers. Under the guise of deserters and smugglers, spies, terrorists, and saboteurs attempted to cross the border of the Soviet state. Numerous nationalist formations broke through the border." [9].

The Soviet position could not be clearer; there is an evident shift from some of the positions they previously defended, including those expressed in the 1913 article. They speak directly of repression and the fight against illegal immigration.

To defend globalist positions on open borders, they sometimes show images of refugees or exiles, including Spaniards, in the USSR due to wartime situations. I must remind you that this was legal and orderly immigration.

The USSR planned its economy and resources; anarchy did not prevail within its borders.

The Western view of Soviet borders was that they were fortified, hermetic, and difficult to cross, and some even went so far as to say they were impermeable (Añorve, 2010). The entire view defended by these individuals that the USSR was a migrant paradise and a haven of free love is based on lies. I strongly recommend consulting primary sources from that period.

After presenting a whole array of false quotes and arguments, this Trotskyist ends his article with more quotes from postmodern revisionists, unsuccessfully attempting to link them to Marx and Lenin.

Of course, they label us as left-wing extremists without offering anything but empty mantras and clinging to the outdated left-right dichotomy. Even a renegade, revisionist, and traitor like Trotsky would be turning in his grave to see what has become of his followers.

I must thank them for attempting to write an article "debunking" us, as it has allowed me to make public arguments and positions that I would never have been able to express until after our June Congress. This is very positive for us, especially considering the low level of argumentation they have demonstrated.

This article will help our rank and file prepare for the debates to come with more educated and capable people.

The battle against postmodernism and reformists continues, and we must prepare ourselves to fulfil our historical duty in the struggle for the transformation of society.

REFERENCES

[1] «El Frente Obrero a favor del cierre de fronteras y los controles migratorios», Izquierda Diario. Disponible en: https://www.izquierdadiario.es/El-Frente-Obrero-a-favor-del-cierre-de-fronteras-y-los-controles-migratorios.

[2] Karl Marx, «Extracto de una comunicación confidencial», Ediciones Bandera Roja, 1870. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1870s/educ70s.htm.

[3] Vladimir I. Lenin, «El capitalismo y la inmigración de los obreros», en M. Kuznetsov, ed., V. I. Lenin, Obras completas, tomo 24. Moscú: Progreso, 1984. Trabajo original publicado en 1913. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/espanol/lenin/obras/oc/progreso/tomo24.pdf.

[4] Karl Marx, «Manifiesto del Consejo General de la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores a las secciones, a las sociedades cooperativas y a todos los trabajadores», Edicions Internacionals Sedov, 1867. Disponible en: http://grupgerminal.org/?q=system/files/1867-07-09-manifiestocgait-marx.pdf.

[5] Vladimir I. Lenin, «El capitalismo y la inmigración de los obreros», en M. Kuznetsov, ed., V. I. Lenin, Obras completas, tomo 24. Moscú: Progreso, 1984. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/espanol/lenin/obras/oc/progreso/tomo24.pdf.

[6] Nizhny Novgorod. Organización Pública Regional de Veteranos del Servicio Fronterizo «Guardia Fronteriza de Nizhny Novgorod», «Capítulo 7. Creación de la guardia fronteriza soviética (1917-1924)». Disponible en: http://xn--80afaddfnecahkg3akbiaetpiq8m.xn--p1ai/stranicy-istorii/epizody-pogranichnoj-istorii/glava-7-sozdanie-sovetskoj-pogranichnoj-oxrany-1917-1924-g-g.html.

[7] Reglamento sobre la protección de las fronteras estatales de la URSS, 1927. Disponible en: http://museumreforms.ru/node/13978.

[8] Nizhny Novgorod. Organización Pública Regional de Veteranos del Servicio Fronterizo «Guardia Fronteriza de Nizhny Novgorod», «Capítulo 7. Creación de la guardia fronteriza soviética (1917-1924)». Disponible en: http://xn--80afaddfnecahkg3akbiaetpiq8m.xn--p1ai/stranicy-istorii/epizody-pogranichnoj-istorii/glava-7-sozdanie-sovetskoj-pogranichnoj-oxrany-1917-1924-g-g.html.

[9] Nizhny Novgorod. Organización Pública Regional de Veteranos del Servicio Fronterizo «Guardia Fronteriza de Nizhny Novgorod», «Capítulo 7. Creación de la guardia fronteriza soviética (1917-1924)». Disponible en: http://xn--80afaddfnecahkg3akbiaetpiq8m.xn--p1ai/stranicy-istorii/epizody-pogranichnoj-istorii/glava-7-sozdanie-sovetskoj-pogranichnoj-oxrany-1917-1924-g-g.html.

[10] D. Añorve, «La transformación del concepto frontera en la transición de la URSS a la Federación Rusa: implicaciones para la supervivencia del Estado», Estudios Fronterizos, vol. 11, 2010. Disponible en: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iIl-7jFwKS47bcYzvT7jskkQXqoco2vb/view.