After the first round of the presidential elections, the two candidates who will advance to the final round on June 21 were determined: the fascist Abelardo De la Espriella (ADLE) and Iván Cepeda, representing the current regime. Given the flood of analyses and opinions inundating the political landscape in Colombia, it is necessary to address some key points to help navigate this polluted environment:

1. As many political commentators have pointed out, these elections are taking place amidst acute political polarization, which has reached the point of taking on an identity-based character, where the main driving force has been emotion, appealing primarily to fear and the desire for “revenge.” The disregard for truth and “stirring people up” seen in the 2016 plebiscite has intensified and reached unprecedented levels.
2. De la Espriella represents a fascist program that treats all who oppose him as enemies and promises to “rip them apart.” He advocates for open repression, extreme militarism and severe punishment, and is ready to trample on the rule of law and any due process. He openly promotes submission to U.S. imperialist domination, blatant misogyny, the defense of patriarchy and traditional values, nationalist chauvinism, and the mobilization of the most fundamentalist religious sectors.
3. The fact that more than ten million people voted for De la Espriella in the first round shows the discontent among a broad sector with the Petro government, but also the legitimization of fascism not only among a significant sector of the ruling classes, but also in an important sector of the people, especially among the urban middle class (including many young people), which has grown rapidly since the beginning of the 1960s.
4. Emulating the fascist Trump, ADLE has used his image as a “successful millionaire” to capitalize on the rise of the aspirational garbage culture of the cult of “get rich,” presenting himself as a supposed outsider, “independent from traditional politics” or even “anti-establishment.” However, this characterization stems from the erroneous idea that there is a “political class” independent of the ruling classes of this system. In fact, today a significant sector of the ruling classes, traditional political parties and political bosses, the business sector, the media, and Trump’s fascist regime seem to have relative unity in supporting such a political program.
5. The strengthening of the fascist program that De la Espriella represents is part of the rightward shift in the world and is specifically connected to the influence of the rise of fascism in the United States, which has its main geopolitical focus in Latin America, and seeks to consolidate a loyal fascist bloc in what it considers its “area of influence” (or “backyard”).
6. With the coup and the imposition of a neocolonial administration in Venezuela, and the direct pressure in Argentina, Honduras, Chile, Brazil, and now Colombia, the United States seeks to establish proxies it considers more loyal to U.S. imperialist interests. Petro tried to convince Trump that he was a loyal servant, but Trump made clear his support for the fascist candidate De la Espriella.
7. The ADLE program revives the “Milei model” in economic and political terms, reflecting the rise of Agustín Laje, the “theoretical” inspiration for Milei and the most reactionary elements of the right in Colombia and much of Latin America, and of the right-wing “International” (with significant Ibero-American influence), and the work they have been doing for years. (And their results in preparing the ground, or defining the political climate, even in these elections here, and in the region.)
8. The discontent and fury of a sector of the people and the desires for political change from the “social explosion” of 2021 were channeled into the political program of Petro’s movement, which, with the slogan of being the “government of change,” promoted certain social reforms while maintaining the core of the same capitalist system and trying to convince a sector of the dominant classes that their form of government was the best option to avoid the explosion of popular discontent.
9. In this election, the Petro movement, represented by Iván Cepeda, was confident that its subsidies and social reforms (and the distribution of jobs and contracts among the “left’s” clientele) had generated a social base of millions of voters, especially among the basic masses, and that this would guarantee a comfortable victory. And while in absolute terms its vote share was higher than Petro’s in the first round four years ago, it wasn’t enough to surpass the vote of the leading right-wing candidate.
10. In a class-divided society like today’s, there is no such thing as “democracy for all.” Regardless of the type of regime that prevails, this system is based on the dictatorship of the capitalist class over the people. This election does not address the issue of such a dictatorship of the capitalist class, and both candidates ultimately represent and defend the same capitalist system.
11. The fact that both candidates are part of the same system doesn’t mean that fascism, the open exercise of bourgeois dictatorship, is exactly the same as the forms of government that conceal such dictatorship under the guise of bourgeois democracy. There are indeed differences between a fascist-style government and a non-fascist one, and De la Espriella does represent a fascist regime, as his electoral opponents denounce. But both, although they are NOT the same, have in common that they represent the same system. It’s about the mode of production!
12. Whether in the name of the “lesser evil” doctrine or the “mass line,” some self-proclaimed revolutionary forces are calling for support for the non-fascist candidate because he represents “the will of the masses” (and supposedly, the role of revolutionaries is to be their beasts of burden—ah, beasts!). It’s not a question of not taking into account public opinion, but “taking it into account” is not the same as blindly following it. Yes, it’s about changing objective reality. And what the masses feel or think is part of that objective reality, but it doesn’t define it!
13. Many on the “left” are under the illusion that defeating De la Espriella in the second round of the election will “defeat fascism.” But a Cepeda victory will not magically make an entire sector of the ruling classes who have opted for fascism disappear, nor will it erase their social base of millions of people.
14. While it’s impossible to predict exactly how the situation will unfold, these elections will not dissipate tensions or halt the shift to the right and the rise of fascism. A decisive political struggle is needed, one that is not limited by the confines of this system (which is the cause of the rise of fascism and the rightward shift) but rather one that uproots all oppression and exploitation.
15. The left-wing candidate, in his eagerness to not “épater le bourgeois” (offend the establishment), has campaigned against socialism and communism in a way that rivals that of his supposed right-wing nemeses, joining the chorus of those who parrot that there is no alternative to this world of wars, genocide, climate catastrophe and rising fascism, and that the Russian and Chinese revolutions of the 20th century were unworkable “utopian projects” that turned into “totalitarian nightmares.” It is the capitalist-imperialist system speaking, instilling the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. But this does not hold up in the face of the facts.
16. As Bob Avakian (rightly) says: "Once the possibility of a really radical and truly emancipatory alternative —a fundamentally different system and way to live, as represented by the communist revolution— once this is closed off, in reality and in people’s minds, all kinds of horrors will continue, and sooner or later those whose minds have been closed to this emancipating alternative will become complicit in, or at least accommodate to, those horrors, in one way or another." (HUMANITY ON THE BRINK: A Forced March Into the Abyss, or Forging a Way Forward Out of the Madness?)
17. The wave of “neoliberal” reforms that began in Latin America in the 1990s spurred greater penetration by imperialist capital, not only from the United States, which eroded local agriculture, accelerated rural-to-urban migration, privatized basic goods, and created more poverty and a lower standard of living throughout the region. This fueled a wave of opposition, including the rise two decades ago of the so-called “Pink Wave,” “anti-neoliberal” governments that were enemies of “unbridled” capitalism but proponents of a more “humane” capitalism they dubbed “21st-century socialism,” imbued with the ideals of the bourgeois revolution of over 200 years ago.
18. The progressive governments of the “Pink Wave” sought to implement social welfare and subsidy programs without severing their dependence on imperialism or many of the existing backward relations. During this period, there was a boom in raw materials, and these countries were able, to some extent, to distribute a portion of the profits to the basic masses (through programs like Chávez’s missions in Venezuela and Bolsa Família in Brazil). However, sooner rather than later, they ran up against the limitations of the anarchic workings of imperialism, with which they did not break.
19. So-called progressives may have good intentions, but “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Even if there are palliative changes in some areas, as long as this system remains, patriarchal domination will not end, environmental destruction will not stop, and the impoverishment, unemployment, and growing hunger they cause will not be definitively and fundamentally resolved, nor will the painful moral and intellectual degradation to which this system condemns many people, especially youth of the basic masses. The war against the people, the criminalization of youth, the discrimination and oppression of Indigenous and Black people, and racism and xenophobia will not cease. The stifling and persecution of dissent and critical and scientific thought will continue, as will the promotion of all kinds of superstition, and we will witness time and again the deepening of imperialist domination and the food dependency of countries under the yoke of imperialism, such as Colombia.

The whole system is rotten and illegitimate! 
We need and demand a whole new way to live, a fundamentally different system!