This statement was adopted at a Solidarity conference on 25 October 2025.
After our departure from LSP/PSL in June 2025, 40 former LSP/PSL members came together and decided to start a new project. The aim of this project is to build an intersectional Marxist organisation in Belgium. Before the break with LSP/PSL, we organised ourselves as a political platform within LSP/PSL in an attempt to transform the organisation. In this statement, we explain why we did not succeed in fully implementing this transformation of LSP/PSL, how we tried to do so, and what we want to do differently in the future.
A world of imperialism, destruction and oppression.
We live in a world that is changing radically. What was once considered a “certainty” is often no longer so: peace in Europe, the chance of progress and a better future, democratic principles in the West, etc. For most people around the world, however, these have never been a given. For them, life has consisted of colonial rule, brutal exploitation and oppression, war and violence for centuries. At the turn of the century, neoliberalism tried to create the illusion that these phenomena were remnants of the past that could be eliminated. Today, these forms of society are becoming the norm.
In Western society, every form of entrenched solidarity is being systematically dismantled: social security, public services, healthcare, education, democratic rights, etc. Forty years of neoliberal dismantling policies have transformed our world into a place where violence, individualism, hatred, aggression, etc. prevail. Colonial rule, which is always accompanied by extreme forms of violence, is today being applied without hesitation in all corners of the world. Fascist methods are seizing power in the United States, among other places, and 100,000 people took part in an extreme right-wing demonstration in London. We were live witnesses to a streamed genocide in which world powers legitimise, participate or look away. Democratic rights, where they still existed, are being thrown away without hesitation. War is an inevitable reality for many and a prospect for everyone. The elite rules more brutally than ever, with even more racism, sexism and aggression.
Capitalism survives and rules by applying increasingly brutal forms of competition, exploitation and oppression. In response, a massive counter-movement is emerging. Gen Z is taking to the streets against corruption, injustice and lack of prospects. These feelings are so widespread that this movement will spread around the world. A number of revolts in countries such as Nepal, Madagascar, Kenya and Morocco have already shaken regimes, some even causing them to fall. It is deep anger against the ruling elite that fuels these protests, without a clear alternative in sight. The global protest movement for Palestine has evolved into more direct forms of boycott, which have been successful in some places, such as Italy. In the major cities of the US, tens of thousands of Americans are organising to resist the aggressive and repressive agenda of Trump and ICE.
While Gen Z activists and grassroots action groups, such as the radical trade unions in Italy, are trying to block everything, the traditional organisations of the left-wing movement often react conservatively. They are stuck in familiar routines, based on the comfort and co-management of a milder form of capitalism. They seem to have no answer to today’s imperialist aggression. Protesting is no longer enough. Organising at the grassroots level, blocking the machinery of destruction and building an alternative are the tasks we face. But how? “Marxism” as it manifests itself today bears the consequences of the defeats and failures to realise socialism. There is a need for profound reflection, renewal and correction. This was not possible at LSP/PSL. The organisation was not a safe environment and it slipped further and further into repeating wrong and outdated formulas and slogans.
Correction regarding sexism, refusal to apply this consistently
Since its foundation, LSP/PSL has been part of the Committee for a Workers’ International. A Marxist project started in the mid-1970s, which did important work but at the same time had serious shortcomings. There was a condescending attitude towards forms of struggle that did not originate from the “classical” labour movement, in particular feminist, anti-racist and anti-colonial struggles. This is the background against which a deep crisis developed in this project over the past six years. This limited view of class struggle also had a major impact on the internal culture of the CWI and its national organisations.
Among some of the membership of the LSP/PSL, there was a growing awareness of how this tradition had negatively influenced our organisation. Too often, our “Marxist” approach was economically reductionist in nature, focusing primarily on economic exploitation and too little on specific forms of oppression and how these also influence exploitation. There was too narrow a focus on struggles around purely economic demands. The experiences gained through the work of Campagne ROSA were instrumental in coming to this realisation.
We can only conclude that we were remarkably late in this realisation; some people were already defending these ideas with verve 30 to 40 years ago. The various struggle movements such as #metoo, BLM and the one against genocide taught us that the struggle against oppression must start from an explicit recognition of the brutal impact that this oppression has.
Our political tradition contained elements of an economistic, crude and flawed approach to oppression. It failed to focus on the lived experiences of the oppressed, to take their aspirations as a starting point or even to acknowledge them. And it too often made concessions to more privileged sections of the working class.
In the past, we have often intervened and invested ourselves in the struggle against oppression. Too often, this was primarily a way to build the party. In doing so, we did not make enough effort to understand what drives activists, why and what other ideas exist in those movements, what the struggle against oppression should look like… As a new organisation, we still have many steps to take to correct this, by sincerely listening and trying to understand what people from oppressed groups have to say.
Oppression is not only expressed in forms of structural economic discrimination, lower wages, lower pensions, and so on. It is also accompanied by violence and daily forms of discrimination, also practised by other members of the working class, based on widespread ideas and attitudes.
The brutality of economic exploitation is intensified when you are also a victim of various forms of oppression. A female worker without papers suffers a much more brutal form of exploitation than a white, highly educated male wage earner, even though they are part of the same social class, the working class.
In the LSP/PSL, there was a dominant political approach that argued that the struggle around issues that supposedly unite us — such as socio-economic demands for higher wages, pensions, public services — would ensure that sexism and racism would disappear automatically. This position proved to be naive at best, but above all wrong. Oppression is an essential part of exploitation by capitalism and imperialism. The most brutal forms of oppression are ideologically legitimised through the dissemination of racist and sexist ideas. A struggle against all forms of oppression is a necessary condition for achieving the class unity that is essential to wage the struggle around socio-economic demands. If we fail to take on this task, these ideas will continue to rage unchallenged.
This was also felt in our organisation. There was a certain hesitation to be resolutely feminist or anti-racist. This was quickly dismissed as moralistic. The struggle around economic demands dominated our approach and, according to some, the programme against sexism had to be tested against what the average man would find acceptable, even though sexist ideas dominate. A number of (mainly) male members did not consider it “Marxist” to talk about rape culture, to recognise microaggressions and interpersonal power dynamics. Even mentioning the responsibility that each individual man or white person plays in this was dismissed as moralism. When members were confronted about their own toxic behaviour, they were quick to take offence, become defensive or, worse still, portray themselves as victims.
There has been a huge evolution in the consciousness of young leftists that capitalism is not only based on the exploitation of labour, but also on patriarchy, racism, colonialism and cisheteronormativity. These structures reinforce each other and deepen capitalism’s capacity for exploitation. The struggle against patriarchal oppression, against racist and colonial oppression, of queer and trans people against cisheteronormative exclusion is also a struggle of the working class. None of these struggles are ‘secondary’ — they are part of a multifaceted and diverse struggle against a system that produces inequality in order to make a profit.
Decades of racist and conservative propaganda have created a breeding ground for reactionary tendencies. Within parts of the left, in trade unions and among older activists, there is a certain habituation to and acceptance of racist and sexist prejudices. The long period of neoliberalism has had a major impact on the individualisation of social problems. Among other things, it has led to the normalisation of racist and sexist ideas. When a principled stance of solidarity against all forms of oppression and discrimination crumbles, the way is open for an even more brutal and violent form of capitalism.
An active and conscious struggle against all forms of oppression is a necessary condition for uniting the working class in the struggle against its common oppressor. Such an approach starts with unbreakable solidarity with the most vulnerable sections of our class, the victims of multiple forms of oppression. This conclusion has been cautiously mentioned in conference texts in recent years. When the internal crisis erupted, it became apparent that part of the membership did not agree with this at all, and certainly not with its concrete application in relation to internal culture.
Modesty and self-criticism as a basic attitude in an open and democratic internal culture
An organisation that struggles with critical self-reflection and considers innovation unnecessary will sooner or later find itself in crisis. LSP/PSL went through this process — first at the international level, later in Belgium. The party failed to do what we believe should be in the DNA of a Marxist organisation: constantly criticise itself and use that experience to renew and strengthen itself. Within LSP/PSL, there was a culture of complacency, arrogance, machismo and a lack of debate culture to enable critical reflection and renewal.
In one of his works, Marx described how the proletarian revolution (from capitalism to socialism) differs from the bourgeois revolution (from feudalism to capitalism). The transition to socialism must be the result of a conscious, supported process by a majority of the class. In this passage, he aptly expresses the modest and self-critical attitude that is necessary for this. Organisations that want to be a driving force in this process will have to embody this attitude and propagate it within all sections of the movement. ‘Proletarian revolutions constantly criticise themselves, constantly interrupt their own course, return to what seems to have been accomplished in order to start again, mock with relentless thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses and paucity of their first attempts, …’
The intention of Solidarity is to recognise “the half-measures, weaknesses and poverty of our first attempts” and, based on this recognition, to draw crucial lessons for our future.
From a deep crisis to an existential crisis
At the beginning of this century, LSP/PSL established itself as a new and young anti-capitalist organisation, with involvement and a role in many protest movements. We do not wish to give a complete account of the work that this organisation has done here. Despite the profound criticism we now formulate of our political tradition, some of the contributions made by LSP/PSL have been valuable. Unfortunately, these contributions have become increasingly scarce and limited in recent times.
What we want to focus on are the profound shortcomings and important mistakes that lie at the root of the crisis in our organisation. The process of decline as a political organisation had been going on for some time. For many LSP/PSL members, this only became clear at a late stage. The pretence was maintained that everything was going well and that the difficulties in the organisation’s functioning were mainly due to a difficult historical period for the radical left. Part of the leadership hid behind this reality to explain the steady decline in the organisation’s activity and effectiveness. In practice, the LSP/PSL became an organisation that was stuck in old formulas, slogans and working methods. This became painfully clear in its failure to attract a younger generation and to give that generation a place in the organisation and its leadership.
This younger generation no longer accepts that left-wing movements talk big about sexism and racism but fail to consistently combat it within their own organisation or movement. This phenomenon was also present in LSP/PSL. In practice, there was a hyper-masculine, sometimes verbally aggressive or arrogant culture, both internally and externally. This had already led to an impoverishment of the political debate culture. More and more, young people, women, queer people and victims of oppression and violence complained about an unsafe environment.
On top of this came the political failure to play a role in the resistance movement against the genocide in Gaza. The struggle against genocide and for Palestinian liberation has left a decisive mark on this era and on the consciousness of this generation of young people. The party’s unwillingness to question its programme and learn the lessons of the renewed consciousness around imperialism, colonisation and resistance alienated us from the movement and the young generation of activists.
Stop the genocide! A failed test for LSP/SPL. What next?
In the first crucial test of the transformation process, in the movement against the genocide in Palestine, we encountered the refusal of some of the members and the leadership to consistently apply conclusions about the struggle against oppression. Some people tested which slogans and programme we would use in the movement against how this would be received by the Israeli working class. We argued for resolutely standing on the side of the oppressed and the victims. We argued for recognising the colonial occupation character of the Zionist state and supporting the movement’s demands for boycott, divestment and sanctions. Not because this would be enough to stop the genocide. But as steps in the development of a movement that could lead to the isolation of Israel, an awareness among the world’s population (which requires action) as a condition for moving towards even greater mass protests and boycotts by the working class.
In an undemocratic manner, the editors of our website and newspaper banned the term “genocide” from articles and pamphlets for many months. Members were berated by certain leaders when they used the Palestinian flag as an illustration on social media, as a symbol of solidarity with the victims. There was a refusal to fully support the demand for a boycott. It is shameful to have to admit this today, and we can only conclude that part of the leadership and membership had lost touch with the vibrant struggle. They lacked anger and empathy. They placed abstract and flawed principles of class unity above solidarity with a people undergoing genocide.
In recent months, participants in Solidarity have actively participated in weekly local actions, direct action forms, and local and national demonstrations out of a desire to contribute to the movement, correct past mistakes, and learn from activists and Palestinian voices.
Our interpretation of Marxism is intersectional: in word, in struggle and in our internal culture. It requires us to see how the structures of power and oppression are intertwined and permeate throughout society. In contrast, it is necessary to build solidarity that can be equally intertwined, equally multifaceted and equally powerful.
The end of LSP/PSL
After a long and gruelling process of internal discussion, it had to be concluded that LSP/PSL was no longer viable. We went through a lengthy and at times painful process of self-criticism. Despite the efforts of many members, it was not possible to implement the necessary transformations within the organisation: the differences of opinion and structural shortcomings proved too great.
During the summer of 2024, an internal investigation was conducted after new facts came to light about past acts of violence committed by a senior member. Several young people had complained about this same senior member’s toxic leadership, machismo, bullying behaviour, etc. In the autumn, the conclusions of the investigation were presented and accepted. As a result, the person was expelled. It was not until April 2025, after many months of internal obstruction, that we published a public statement on the website socialisme.be. This website has since been taken offline by the former editor.
“In this statement from LSP/PSL, we wish to take responsibility for a safeguarding crisis that came to light in 2024. This crisis led to the exclusion of a former leading member of our organisation. We are publishing this statement because we are convinced that it is not possible to build a revolutionary organisation in which there is a cover-up or silence about the truth or damage caused. (*Safeguarding refers to the set of measures, codes of conduct and practices aimed at protecting people — especially those who are oppressed or vulnerable — from harm, abuse and transgressive behaviour, both within and outside our organisation.)
As a result of this investigation, the majority of the party’s day-to-day leadership resigned, namely those who had been part of the leadership for a long time and had not acted adequately in the past. Some did so out of a wholehearted recognition of their responsibility and a willingness to rectify mistakes made. Others did so reluctantly and were more concerned about their own prestige than the future of the party. A few of them hid behind ignorance. The publication of this statement was delayed for months in an attempt to maintain the appearance to the outside world that there was no crisis. However, the publication was an essential part of the process of reporting honestly on the mistakes made and initiating change in a credible manner. Among other things, we wrote:
“We want to publicly acknowledge our mistakes and face up to the damage caused. We therefore offer our unreserved apologies to everyone who has suffered harm as a result of our organisation’s failings — not only to victims of gender-based violence by a former member, but also to those who suffered harm as a result of the way in which this was responded to. This has deprived people of the safety, solidarity and responsibility they were entitled to expect.”
In the statement — drafted by a partially new leadership and supported by a majority of the then-active members — we not only openly admitted our mistakes. We also set out a path for further change. Among other things, we stated:
‘We are committed to a thorough review of our entire political approach, our specific approach to oppression, our safeguarding policy, our political culture and our culture of leadership. We are committed to continuing this transformation process in a transparent and collective manner. We are preparing additional material for reflection and documentation that we will share with members and supporters, such as the statement in this magazine on Palestine.’
Meanwhile, a growing number of members fully recognised that there was something fundamentally wrong with the internal culture at LSP/PSL. A group of courageous young members were the driving force, both in the discussion about safeguarding and internal culture, and in the broader transformation process. They were met with mistrust by too many leaders instead of appreciation.
After the in-depth debate about our internal culture, a minority continued to oppose the conclusions and decided to boycott the organisation. By the spring of 2025, our organisation had de facto fallen apart, although it still formally existed. A Platform was set up within the structures to advocate for a Consistent Transformation.
With this, we still hoped that such a transformation process could be continued within the structures of LSP/PSL. In practice, however, it soon became clear that the opportunity to make the necessary corrections through internal reform had been exhausted.
A new start: Solidarity
By then, the end of the party was already a fact. Life in the party came to a virtual standstill. Tensions only increased. The departments emptied. Victims of the internal culture lost their patience with a process that was constantly being undermined and whose necessity was repeatedly questioned. They no longer felt welcome. Several members ended up with burnout, others had to withdraw for their own protection. Twelve of the sixteen members of the elected National Committee signed a resolution stating that the party had fallen apart and that everyone had to go their own way.
‘Many comrades have experienced deep disappointment at seeing the stubborn resistance to the necessary transformation process. As a result, LSP/PSL has not only become a paralysed organisation, but is now also in a phase of dissolution. This deep crisis is not the result of the transformation process itself, but rather of its absence.’ (…) The aim of the transformation process was to bring about fundamental changes and to have an honest debate about the mistakes of the past. A profound exercise in self-reflection and political reorientation was necessary to make the party viable again. We succeeded in initiating this process within the contours of the LSP/PSL — but we inevitably came up against its limits. In practice, the party has fallen apart. There are profound differences of opinion about the causes of the crisis, political perspectives and the role of revolutionaries today.
These divergent views are — as practice shows — irreconcilable and will each have to follow their own path. As many comrades feel, a third session of the congress would not change this. On the contrary, such a congress would in practice become a performative spectacle — a ‘boxing match’ between a few convinced individuals — which would only deepen the trauma of recent years.”
12 of the 16 members of the National Committee decided to leave the party and start working on a new organisation. These 12 are all involved in Solidarity. No one was willing to take over the leadership of LSP/PSL and continue the party. We invited all LSP/PSL members who wanted to take a different path to discuss this openly. “If a group of LSP/PSL members wants to continue the old project, work under its name and declare this as its political objective, it is free to do so openly. Until such a position is taken, we consider it our duty to dissolve the party in a responsible manner, with full respect for the commitments made by the party and its members.” Ironically, those who most strongly defended the tradition, methods and programme of the LSP/PSL were themselves unwilling to take the lead and continue the project. No group of former LSP-PSL members was willing to take responsibility for the dissolution. They abandoned the sinking ship and some took with them whatever they could grab.
The announcement that the party had fallen apart came as a shock to many members, even though it did not come as a complete surprise. For many, it represents a deep disappointment in a project in which they had placed their hopes, found motivation and invested a great deal of time, energy and resources.
Throughout the entire process, we have been consistent in taking our own responsibility for the failure of this political project. Where necessary, we have offered sincere and heartfelt apologies to those whom we disappointed or hurt as an organisation. In this statement, too, we want to acknowledge our failure and apologise to those who had to bear the consequences. Today, we are members of Solidarity. Prior to that, we each fought in our own way, with our own insights, to reform and correct the LSP/PSL party. We can only conclude that it was too little and too late to avoid the end of LSP/PSL.
The end of LSP/PSL does not in any way mean the end of our commitment to the struggle for a socialist world. On the contrary, this experience — with all its painful elements — has been a difficult but important learning experience for many of us. As a group, we have taken responsibility for closing down the old organisation properly, raising funds to pay all outstanding invoices, compensating all employees fairly, etc. At the same time, at the beginning of July, we decided to set up a new organisation together.
With every step towards the establishment of this new organisation, we are taking the necessary time for reflection and discussion. We take a critical look at our past and recognise that LSP/PSL, in addition to valuable contributions, also had major shortcomings. In addition to the themes we have already mentioned regarding the place of the struggle against oppression in the class struggle and our internal culture, we want to break in particular with the dogmatic and sectarian practices of our political tradition.
Even though our tradition arose from the important struggle against the Stalinist, bureaucratic and sectarian degeneration of the communist movement, we cannot deny that the entire revolutionary left — including our organisation — was influenced by concepts of party culture and leadership that we inherited from the caricatures of what passed for revolutionary or Marxist parties. Throughout most of the 20th century, Stalinism and reformism had an enormous impact on what passes for Marxism. This had a profound impact on the vision of, relationship to, and practice of class struggle, internal organisation, and party culture. We are aware of this and want to break with the sectarianism and dogmatism that resulted from it. We do not have definitive answers to the many questions that arise. But we do have a clear direction that we want to follow.
Establishment of Solidarity
In mid-September, we adopted a provisional name: project Solidarity. Our ambition is to set up a new intersectional Marxist organisation, with a radical focus on the dynamic, innovative and militant elements of today’s struggle movements. We are adopting a modest attitude, given the political mistakes we have been part of. We are committed to always putting the interests of the struggle, the oppressed and the working class first in our political practice, away from the sectarian party traditions of the past. We will formally establish the new organisation at a congress in December.
We still believe that mass struggle is the instrument to bring the capitalist destruction machine to a halt. To achieve this, forms of organisation and instruments of struggle are needed that place the struggle against all forms of oppression at the centre of their vision of class struggle. Revolutionaries must play a leading and exemplary role in this, with attention to responsibility, safety and solidarity within their ranks.
The struggle for a socialist world — free from barbarism, exploitation and oppression — remains our ambition. Solidarity!