A critique of the IMT/RCI and its so-called “orthodox Marxism”

 

By Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 24 September 2024, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

Alan Woods’ “International Marxist Tendency” recently renamed itself to “Revolutionary Communist International”. But despite the new name, it continues to defend its old opportunist program, as we did show recently in several articles. ^[1] This becomes evident, once more, in an introduction to a new book in which they republished selected works of V.I. Lenin about imperialist war. ^[2]

 

While the introduction formally shall provide the reader with an overview about the contents of the book, it rather attempts to distorts Lenin’s program against imperialist war. In fact, nearly half of the whole introduction is dedicated to substantiating the long-standing ridiculous claim of Ted Grant (the late founder of this current) and Alan Woods that Lenin would have abandoned the program of revolutionary defeatism. [3]

 

Of course, Lenin didn’t do this, so the IMT/RCI has always tried to downplay the importance of revolutionary defeatism for the Bolsheviks, at least, so they claim, after 1916.

 

“In raising the idea that the defeat of one’s own government is the lesser evil, Lenin was addressing the cadres, the most advanced layers of revolutionary Social-Democracy, and in so doing he used the sharpest formulations in order to straighten out any vacillation and to draw a line which excluded the confused elements. On important occasions, Lenin would ‘bend the stick’ in the opposite direction to his opponents to emphasise a point. This was a clear instance of that. As a result, the slogan of revolutionary defeatism is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted of Lenin’s formulations.“

 

“Secondly, the slogan was used mainly between 1914 and 1916 in the context of polemics against the waverers and the centrists. In fact, the slogan was not used in any of the agitation carried out by the Bolsheviks in Russia during that period.”

 

“Once the revolution broke out in Russia in February 1917, and Lenin was able to return to the country in April, he completely dropped the idea that the defeat of one’s own government would be the lesser evil, because he was now addressing the masses in the context of a revolution.” (Later, Jorge Martín, the author of that introduction, adds two quotes from Lenin which, he claims, would substantiate his thesis.)

 

Furthermore, the IMT/RCI author, tries to substantiate his claim that Lenin did not attach much importance to the program of revolutionary defeatism by referring to the fact that draft resolution of the Left delegates to the Zimmerwald Conference “did not, however, contain any mention of the defeat of one’s own government being the lesser evil.” He adds:

 

“Lenin also drafted his own resolution for the Left delegates. In it he explained that socialists should use “the masses’ growing desire for peace” in order to intensify their revolutionary agitation and should not be “shying away in that agitation from considerations of the defeat of their ‘own’ country”. It should also be noted here how, in this resolution, Lenin – who had energetically rejected pacifist illusions and even the use of the ‘peace’ slogan – made a point of recognising the need to base revolutionary agitation on the desire for peace amongst the masses. He explained that this was an expression of their rejection “of the bourgeois lie regarding the defence of the fatherland, and the awakening of their revolutionary consciousness”. Again, in Lenin’s text there is no mention of the defeat of one’s government being the lesser evil.”

 

 

 

What is revolutionary defeatism?

 

 

 

Before we discuss the IMT/RCI’s assertion, we shall briefly summarise the program of revolutionary defeatism and its meaning in the current historic period. Our tendency – the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) – has always emphasised that basically the program of revolutionary defeatism means nothing but the application of the Marxist program and the general methods of the class struggle to the terrain of anti-imperialist and anti-militarist struggle. It is based on the axiom that the working class is by its very nature an international class. As such, its interests are in sharpest contrast to those of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Just as the workers of a given enterprise have no common interests with their boss, so has the working class no common interests with the ruling class of a given capitalist state. Quite the opposite, as the workers want to weaken, defeat and finally expropriate the owners of “their” corporation, so do the workers of a given capitalist country desire to weaken, defeat and finally overthrow the ruling class. For these reasons the workers will utilize every conflict in which their class enemy is involved in order to advance their interests and to strengthen their fighting power.

 

In cases of conflicts between imperialist states, workers and popular organizations around the world need to act decisively on the basis of the principles of international working-class solidarity. This means that they must not support either camp. They must refuse to side with their own ruling class as well as with that of the opposing imperialist camp: Down with all imperialist Great Powers – whether the US, EU, Japan, China or Russia! Socialists totally reject any chauvinist propaganda of the ruling class. Instead of supporting their “own” ruling class, they propagate irreconcilable class struggle (following the famous phrase of Karl Liebknecht in World War I “The main enemy is at home”). This strategy implies in the case of war, as formulated by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party in 1914, that revolutionaries consider “the defeat of one’s own bourgeoisie is the lesser evil” and strive for the “transformation of the imperialist war into civil war”, i.e. the advance of the proletariats’ struggle for power under the conditions of war.

 

In the same spirit, the RCIT advocates the transformation of the Global Trade War into domestic political class struggle against the ruling elite. Such a program is the only way to unite the international working class on an internationalist basis and to break any “patriotic” unity of workers with “their” imperialist bourgeoisie as well as their lackeys inside the workers movement. The program of revolutionary defeatism is not a program which starts to be relevant only once a war breaks out (if one begins fighting for it only by then, it will be too late) but one which has to be implemented from now on.

 

In cases of conflicts between the imperialist bourgeoisie and oppressed people, workers and popular organizations around the world have to act decisively in the spirit of revolutionary anti-imperialism and working-class internationalism. They must unconditionally support the oppressed people against the imperialist aggressors and fight for the defeat of the latter. They must apply the anti-imperialist united front tactic – this means siding with the forces representing these oppressed people without giving political support to their respective leaderships (usually petty bourgeois nationalists or Islamists; sometimes even semi-colonial bourgeois states).

 

Socialists in the imperialist countries are obligated to fight merciless against social-chauvinist supporters of the Great Power privileges as well as against cowardly centrists who abstain from actively supporting the struggle of the oppressed. Socialists support the Anti-Imperialist Patriotism of the oppressed and help them to develop a socialist, internationalist consciousness. Only on the basis of such a program will it be possible for socialists to create the conditions for trust and unity of the workers and poor peasants of the oppressed people with the progressive workers in the imperialist countries. Only on such a fundament will it be possible to unite the international working class on an internationalist basis. ^[4]

 

 

 

What did Lenin really say and what did he mean?

 

 

 

Let us now review if the IMT/RCI’s claim is correct that Lenin abandoned the program of revolutionary defeatism. In fact, it is a figment of their imagination. First, Martín is wrong to say that revolutionary defeatism is a “slogan”. He uses such a formulation in order to “proof” that Lenin did not use these exact words.

 

In fact, the exact wording “revolutionary defeatism” was used only later in the times of the Communist International and was picked up by Trotsky and the Fourth International. Lenin and the Bolsheviks repeatedly spoke about “defeatism”, but the main issue is that this is not a slogan but a program which is, as mentioned above, associated with the anti-imperialist strategy to utilise a war to bring down their “own” bourgeoisie. Hence it is often associated with the slogans “The main enemy is at home”, “the defeat of one’s own bourgeoisie is the lesser evil” and the “transformation of the imperialist war into civil war”.

 

For a long time in World War I, the Bolsheviks were more or less isolated in advocating such a program and even their close allies among left-wing forces did not share it. Among these were Karl Radek, Leo Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg’s Spartakus League. This is why Lenin had to make concessions in formulating joint resolutions for the Zimmerwald Conference and Martín is wrong to interpret such compromises as an indication that Lenin was ready to drop his program.

 

Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did put forward the central pillars of the program of revolutionary defeatism in their draft documents for the two conferences of the Zimmerwald movement.

 

“In utilising that temper for their revolutionary agitation, and not shying away in that agitation from considerations of the defeat of their “own” country, the socialists will not deceive the people with the hope that, without the revolutionary overthrow of the present-day governments, a possibility exists of a speedy democratic peace, which will be durable in some degree and will preclude any oppression of nations, a possibility of disarmament, etc. (…) It is the duty of socialists, while making use of every means of the working class’s legal struggle, to subordinate each and every of those means to this immediate and most important task, develop the workers’ revolutionary consciousness, rally them in the international revolutionary struggle, promote and encourage any revolutionary action, and do everything possible to turn the imperialist war between the peoples into a civil war of the oppressed classes against their oppressors, a war for the expropriation of the class of capitalists, for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, and the realisation of socialism.” [5]

 

“It is the duty of socialists to support, extend and intensify every popular movement to end the war. But it is actually being fulfilled only by those socialists who, like Liebknecht, in their parliamentary speeches, call upon the soldiers to lay down their arms, and preach revolution and transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism. (…) That mass revolutionary actions during the war, if successfully developed can lead only to the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism is obvious, and it is harmful to conceal this from the masses.” ^[6]

 

“[T]he social-chauvinists and the Kautskyites lie when they allow the term “defence of the fatherland” to be applied in the present, imperialist war and that revolutionary action during the war is impossible unless “one’s own” government is threatened with defeat; it must be stated clearly that every defeat of the government in a reactionary war facilitates revolution, which alone is capable of bringing about a lasting and democratic peace.” [7]

 

Naturally, Lenin and the Bolsheviks elaborated their program of revolutionary defeatism even more explicit in various programmatic documents like “Socialism and War” or in resolutions of their Bern conference in spring 1915. In a programmatic article published in October 1916, they stated in their central organ: “It is impossible to be a consistent internationalist in the imperialist war 1914-16 without being a ‘defeatist’.” ^[8]

 

As the above-mentioned quote shows, the IMT/RCI claims that Lenin had “completely dropped the idea that the defeat of one’s own government would be the lesser evil” when he came to Russia after the February Revolution 1917. The truth is that the Bolsheviks in Russia were facing a new and unprecedented situation: the country had experienced an armed insurrection which brought down Tsarism, the bourgeoise was still in power but, at the same time, the workers, peasants and soldiers had built their own soviets and thus created a situation of dual power. At the same time, the imperialist war was continuing and the masses were – as Lenin called them – “honest defencist”.

 

Of course, in such a situation Lenin did adapt their agitational slogans to such new conditions. But this did not mean that he had dropped his program and principles. In fact, the Bolsheviks did utilize the difficulties of “their” bourgeoisie in order to advance the class struggle (e.g. their attempt to escalate the mass demonstrations after the beginning of the Brusilov offensive in June 1917); in fact, they did transform the imperialist war into civil war by, first, organizing an armed insurrection and then, by fighting the counterrevolution for three years.

 

In one of his last documents before his death, Lenin discussed the tasks of the communist delegation at The Hague International Peace Congress which was organised by reformist trade unions in December 1922. Among others, he emphasised the necessity of the delegates “to explain what “defeatism” means.” [9]

 

 

 

Trotsky and the Fourth International

 

 

 

Contrary to the claims of the IMT/RCI the program of revolutionary defeatism became part of the authentic Marxism. Trotsky and the Left Opposition (which included many Old Bolsheviks who had not forgotten Lenin’s teachings), who fought against the Stalinist revisionists, formulated the essence of defeatism in 1927:

 

„What is meant by the term defeatism? In the whole past history of the party, defeatism was understood to mean desiring the defeat of one’s own government in a war with an external enemy and contributing to such a defeat by methods of internal revolutionary struggle. This referred of course to the attitude of the proletariat towards the capitalist state.“ [10]

 

In his programmatic theses “War and the Fourth International”, Trotsky wrote in a chapter called “’Defeatism’ and Imperialist War“:

 

In those cases where it is a question of conflict between capitalist countries, the proletariat of any one of them refuses categorically to sacrifice its historic interests, which in the final analysis coincide with the interests of the nation and humanity, for the sake of the military victory of the bourgeoisie. Lenin’s formula, “defeat is the lesser evil,” means not defeat of one’s country is the lesser evil as compared with the defeat of the enemy country but that a military defeat resulting from the growth of the revolutionary movement is infinitely more beneficial to the proletariat and to the whole people than military victory assured by “civil peace.” Karl Liebknecht gave an unsurpassed formula of proletarian policy in time of war: “The chief enemy of the people is in its own country.” The victorious proletarian revolution not only will rectify the evils caused by defeat but also will create the final guarantee against future wars and defeats. This dialectical attitude toward war is the most important element of revolutionary training and therefore also of the struggle against war. The transformation of imperialist war into civil war is that general strategic task to which the whole work of a proletarian party during war should be subordinated.” ^[11]

 

And the same approach was codified in the founding program of the Fourth International, the famous Transitional Program:

 

“Imperialist war is the continuation and sharpening of the predatory politics of the bourgeoisie. The struggle of the proletariat against war is the continuation and sharpening of its class struggle. The beginning of war alters the situation and partially the means of struggle between the classes, but not the aim and basic course. The imperialist bourgeoisie dominates the world. In its basic character the approaching war will therefore be an imperialist war. The fundamental content of the politics of the international proletariat will consequently be a struggle against imperialism and its war. In this struggle the basic principle is: “the chief enemy is in your own country” or “the defeat of your own (imperialist) government is the lesser evil.” ^[12]

 

We could provide many more quotes, but we think these few should be sufficient to refute the IMT/RCI’s myth that Lenin and Trotsky would have abandoned the program of revolutionary defeatism. [13]

 

 

 

Why does the IMT/RCI desperately hold to the myth that Lenin and Trotsky would have abandoned revolutionary defeatism?

 

 

 

So, why does the IMT/RCI leadership – despite all the contrary evidence – hold to the myth that Lenin and Trotsky abandoned revolutionary defeatism since decades? The answer is simple: because they themselves have abandoned this program!

 

In all the wars in which Britain – the country where the leadership of the IMT/RCI (resp. its predecessor organization, the CWI) has always been located – was involved, Grant, Woods & Co. never advocated that “the defeat of your own (imperialist) government is the lesser evil” and that the imperialist war should be transformed into civil war.

 

As we did show in other works, the CWI/IMT/RCI refused to support the struggles of oppressed peoples and semi-colonial countries when they were in military conflict with “their” imperialist motherland. They refused to side with Argentina in its war against Britain in 1982, with the Irish Republicans in Northern Ireland throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with Iraq against UK/US in 1991 and 2003, with the Afghan resistance in 2001, or with the Palestinian armed resistance against Israel, etc. ^[14]

 

Throughout its history, the CWI/IMT/RCI has always held a semi-pacifist, opportunist position when its “own” imperialist government was at war. This is why they feel the necessity to distort Lenin and Trotsky approach to the program of revolutionary defeatism. In fact, IMT/RCIT policy is neither internationalist nor anti-imperialist, neither revolutionary nor communist. It keeps the same programmatic old garbage of opportunism, and it presents old wine in a new bottle.

 

In contrast, the RCIT resp. its predecessor organisation always advocated a consistent internationalist and anti-imperialist strategy calling for the defeat of the imperialist powers. ^[15] In the ongoing Zionist war, our comrades in Israel / Occupied Palestine – like our whole international tendency – advocates the victory of the Palestinian resistance and the defeat of Israel. We play an active role in the global solidarity movement and call for “aid and arms for the resistance”. Likewise, we urge the international workers movement to organise actions for the boycott of Israel. ^[16] As a result, the author of these lines got a 6-months suspended prison sentence for alleged “support of terrorism” – in fact, for expressing solidarity with the Palestinian resistance in a video statement. ^[17]

 

In Putin’s imperialist war against the Ukraine, we also take a consistent anti-imperialist position. Our sections in Russia and Ukraine are advocating the defence of the Ukraine and the defeat of Russian imperialism – without lending political support to the bourgeois Zelensky regime and without supporting sanctions. ^[18]

 

Those comrades of the RCI who want to fight for authentic revolutionary communism need to get rid of the pacifist and reformist heritage of Alan Woods’ IMT. A rupture with this tradition is the precondition for playing a progressive role in the building of new World Party of Socialist Revolution – a task in which the RCIT would strongly welcome to collaborate with these comrades!