The current Latin American context demands a recovery of Marxism as a theoretical-political instrument of analysis and intervention. However, these possibilities are not feasible in a vacuum or in abstraction. Evaluating the set of production conditions under which such an exercise can be carried out is an irreplaceable part, which must be considered from the outset as a necessary step. Starting from a point of view that focuses on the problem from the category of totality, we can situate both the Latin American specificity (if this can be grasped in a single movement) and trace the outline in which it develops. Totality, the fundamental category of Marxist analysis, does not mean homogeneity, but rather an understanding of the specific place of each part or segment within a larger whole, with which it coexists, is determined, enters into contradiction, and from which sufficient cracks usually open up to propose another horizon, that is, the set of strategies and guidelines for thinking about the emancipation of society. The general outline is based on two issues that urgently demand the work of the social sciences: climate change (or, for others, the climate catastrophe) and increasingly massive migration processes. The global crisis that has these two expressions most evident, however, is not limited to these events. A civilizational crisis is what surrounds these and other processes: the food crisis, the wars over water, the financialization of the economy, the precarization of all life, the commodification of lifeworlds. Without considering these elements, it is impossible to account for any project – whether it is like ours focused on theoretical work, or like others focused on fieldwork – and its relevance. The current civilizational crisis is a crisis of the entire system; its breakdown or fissure can only be found to the extent that the "weakest link" is located. The dimension of the civilizational crisis must be addressed as such, from a holistic perspective, which does not shy away from the weak points, where intervention is possible through community management of public affairs, but which also does not forget the general trends of the dominant productive social form. However, it is not enough to speak of the civilizational crisis as a great process that affects us all equally, although with a clear drama in the Global South. It is also pertinent to talk about the other moment that accompanies the category of concrete totality: the conjuncture. The conjuncture is a fundamental category from Marxism, insofar as it denotes the capacity to carry out the "concrete analysis of the concrete situation" for the political intervention of social subjects. Totality and conjuncture thus become two starting points of view that Marxist analysis considers in a privileged way, a true point of support and beginning of the critique of society as a whole. Here we are no longer in the realm of empirical views of the civilizational crisis already mentioned, but in the realm of categorical and conceptual understanding of said crisis and the multiple possibilities of making use of what René Zavaleta Mercado called the “theoretical accumulation” that we have carried out in the region. The theorists of the region – who have thought about the State, the national-popular, geopolitics, epistemology – have inherited a diversity of approaches that remain useful and on which we must insist, not for the construction of a lost genealogy, but as a vital part of our historical praxis. The “theoretical accumulation” is at the heart of our approach, as it encompasses both the intention to understand the set of elements that give meaning to the whole (in crisis) and to intervene in the face of a changing and dynamic, that is, transformable, reality. However, it is necessary to point out that there are two opposing dominant trends looming over the region: on the one hand, the well-known shift to the right following changes of government in many of those countries that had progressive governments in the previous two decades; on the other hand, the arrival in Mexico and El Salvador towards a new perspective of socio-political transformation, nations that now accompany Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba. Regarding the shift to the right, it is noticeable that it has at least two tendencies. A passage that refers to governments with eccentric ways and gestures of governance, but whose management is in the same coordinates as the whole, that is, the crisis, which makes them an easy target for criticism due to the impossibility of smooth economic management. In other words, these are governments that will sooner or later be defeated at the polls, since their room for maneuver is as limited as that of all other nations and national economies. Subjected to the dynamics of the whole, their perspective is linked to the contemporary crisis. The other, more worrying trend is one that has taken root deep within society and refers to a set of conservative tendencies that have been implemented in the name of hierarchy, anti-egalitarianism, and anti-democracy. This is undoubtedly the most delicate element, as it refers to conservative expressions – some of them popular – that must be considered within the framework of the dynamics of the civilizational crisis. Thinking about these forms of expression in the face of a fear of a more violent and insecure reality immediately brings to mind the reflections made by Antonio Gramsci, first on the fascist movement and later in his proposal for an intellectual and moral reform. These two trends that we have been pointing out are the framework left by the socio-political conflict of the last two decades. While it may appear in immediate terms as an eternally unfavorable situation, it is actually a scenario in which political positions are defined more clearly and contrary to the previous era, where neoliberalism governed conflicts, today the contradictions of that process and the effects generated by this form of capital accumulation are shown, not only among the wage-earning classes, but also among their allies. Despite the rightward shift of governments and significant sectors of societies, we can continue to insist that Latin America offers multiple possibilities for "theoretical accumulation" and also practical experience for other experiences around the world. The scenario presented, as we said, no longer hides the neoliberal and right-wing tendencies and places them on a plane where it is possible to distinguish them beyond rhetoric, discourses or fetishes. It is worth highlighting that Latin America's central role as a reservoir of transformative experiences is crucial in this complex environment. A reservoir that underpins forms of a national political community, based on "national-popular" experiences, forms of decommodification of lifeworlds, and the conquest of social spaces that allow for the deepening of democracy and equality. Emancipation, in a broad and contemporary sense, has been attempted in significant gaps. Through their struggles, Latin American societies have rehearsed the future, not without problems or contradictions. This is because the region has accumulated enough political experience to challenge the prevailing sense of the times, while at the same time this space condenses multiple problems that appear throughout the world.

Within this complex and contradictory framework, we will explore the relevance of establishing a network that connects and unites those interested in the study and development of Marxist perspectives. We will do so based on two key elements, which give our proposal its name: legacies and perspectives. As René Zavaleta has stated, a crisis is the quintessential moment of knowledge, for it is in this context that latent tendencies, principal contradictions, and counter-tendencies are expressed; it is the moment when fetishes crumble and things are laid bare. Thus, in times of crisis, Marxism assumes the form of a viable instrument for understanding the dynamics of the whole, its points of autonomy, and its fissures. Crisis, as the culminating moment or pinnacle of contradictions and antagonisms, also expresses the possibilities for intervention.

We will move forward, first, starting from inheritances. By inheritances we understand the set of propositions that Marxism made to understand the development of the capitalist social form during the 20th century. José Carlos Mariátegui is well known as the "founder" of this claim. However, after Mariátegui, we find a wide range of positions that contribute, in a conflicting and contradictory way, to the understanding of reality. These become more pluralistic and expand after 1959, when the Cuban revolution renewed all strategic discussions: politics and theory assumed a stronger commitment and traveled along shared paths. These discussions assess the state of capitalism, the historical formation of social classes, and the socio-political situation of the remaining classes and groups in power in relation to the State. The legacies of Marxism are expressed in political practices – such as programs, actions aimed at emancipation, overcoming private property, forming subjects who recognize themselves in community and in the common good, and processes of reappropriation of their conditions of life reproduction – in cultural practices – such as magazines or publishing houses – and in a broad horizon of reception of attempts at theoretical renewal, in the face of new forms of political and cultural domination of Marxism. Latin American Marxists read and translate K. according to their own conditions. Marx, VI Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci, Mao-Tse-Tung, Ho-Chi-Mihn, Jean Paul-Sartre, Louis Althusser, and so many others, in an attempt to make them dialogue with their own reality. The negotiation between representatives of "Western" Marxism and Marxism resulting from national liberation struggles takes place based on the evaluation of the specific conditions of capitalist development in the region and the political strategies for overcoming them. However, this is not the only area where Marxists in Latin America are producing. They do so in at least two more records that are of interest to us. The first one stems directly from that assessment of the situation of the social formation: the political dispute within national horizons. For much of the century, Marxists have been striving to "nationalize" Marxism, that is, to make the general theory appropriated by the subordinate classes and to build a new common sense. In this endeavor, Marxists find themselves confronted with the historical dynamics of each nation, its symbols and heritages. The negotiation there is directed not towards the great references of global history, but towards the cultural practices of the subaltern classes: the revolutionary nationalist workers, the communitarian peasants, the enlightened or Jacobin middle classes. The political dispute opens the possibility for the emergence of figures who inherit, in the best sense, an open work: René Zavaleta, Carlos Pereyra, Agustín Cueva, José Aricó, among others, who directly intervene in the understanding and political praxis of specific conjunctures: coups d'état, formation of Popular Assemblies, crises of governments and an endless variety of forms that the dispute and political tension of the social classes assumes.

The second approach that accompanies the goal of fully understanding capitalism in its regional form is that which draws from a deeper engagement with Marx's work. Contrary to the Eurocentric desire for a Marx reserved only for German speakers—a view that should have remained within the confines of early 20th-century German social democracy—Latin American Marxists mobilized their imaginations to make Marx an everyday author, someone to engage with and critique, and thus they understood that reading Marx was writing with him. Marx's work became a space of tension and dispute, a potential for theoretical work and production. The philosopher from Trier ceased to be a collection of scattered writings and became a tool whose meaning was contested by various political forces.

These three elements are linked within the set of practices (political and cultural): the evaluation of the specific form of capitalism, the evaluation of the national-popular horizons of the classes, and, finally, direct engagement with the work of Marx. Interestingly, it is this last aspect that has been most explored in the various historizations of Marxism.

The main objective of our Working Group is to recover the categories of concrete totality and transformative praxis in order to emphasize the recovery of the imprint of Marx's work on the political sphere, that is, on organizations and historical events marked by that work and which are present throughout the region. Thus, we can conclude with four key elements of the theoretical relevance of our project:

1. It contributes to the recovery of a set of highly significant theoretical propositions that are our own (the work of Marxists of all currents), which in past decades were attempts to silence it.

2. The understanding of society—contrary to dominant trends such as Eurocentric liberalism—has had a long trajectory, built from within society itself, from the collective experience of sectors engaged in struggle. Marxist ideologies have confronted and continue to confront this Eurocentric thinking and are integral to the very meaning of transformative praxis, which involves fundamental changes to the conditions of the majority in Latin America, while insisting on a universal horizon of emancipation.

3. The aim of all this has been a development that goes beyond theoretical production, drawing instead on the mobilization of society in its efforts to overcome conditions of injustice. This has resulted in a permanent link between the struggles of the people and a way of reasoning and thinking about the world.

4. Reclaiming history with meaning for the present (this is perhaps the most significant theoretical impact of our work) allows us to understand the scope of this current, its transformations, and its current potential to be part of the alternative to the civilizational crisis. Its theoretical relevance lies in breaking with scholasticism and academic inertia, recovering a field that transcends narrow intellectual debates and seeks to influence our realities. This is not just another interpretation, but rather the open and diverse recovery of a current of great impact and relevance, an integral part of a living history, of processes of change.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that propositions associated with Marxism must be considered in a pluralistic manner. There is no claim to "correct" or "orthodox" readings, or any other equivalent; rather, there is a focus on productive work with a broad corpus that allows us to think about society, its contradictions, and the forms these take within the socio-political context. These are diverse Marxisms, and their plurality reflects nothing other than the very diversity of the social world, the cultures of the subaltern classes, and their attempts to achieve self-determination. The mediations that these classes have established—parties, unions, associations, alliances—are what allow us to speak of a national-popular perspective in the region and are, undoubtedly, the foundation upon which democratizing aspirations rest. Furthermore, Marxism, as a universal current, engages in dialogue with other propositions that arise from the heat of socio-political struggle in other regions. While the so-called "Western Marxism" has an undeniable presence, starting with figures like Gyorgy Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, Jean Paul Sartre, and Louis Althusser, the truth is that there is also a strong presence of what Domenico Losurdo calls "Eastern Marxism," that is, the set of theoretical propositions born from the processes of decolonization.

Thus, GT's task is not only to delve deeper into the best-known elements of plurality, but also to gather sources for the study of dialogue with other Marxisms.

One final point that must be made to understand the context for the proposal to continue the Working Group “Legacies and Perspectives of Marxism” is the novel situation in Mexico. Running counter to the process of “progressivism” and facing the rightward shift in the region, the current situation in that nation presents a high potential for encouraging research in, from, and about Marxism.