On the Ted Grant school of neo-imperialist economism and its failure to defend countries of the Global South against Great Power aggression

By Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 22 March 2023, www.thecommunists.net

A few days ago, the ISA did republish several articles on the occasion of the 20^th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. ^[1] At that time, it was still united with Peter Taaffe’s CWI as the split between the two groups occurred only in 2019. However, as the affirmative republication of these old articles demonstrate once more, the ISA has fully retained the joint methodological fundament of opportunist adaption to social-imperialism. In 2003, as well as during the following years of resistance struggle by the Iraqi people against the US-UK occupation, the CWI/ISA failed to take an anti-imperialist stance.

The three articles republished by the ISA show this beyond doubt. Of course, they stated many times that they oppose imperialism in general and Bush’s and Blair’s policy of warmongering in particular. Yet, this was no big achievement since, at that time, most people in the world – including the French and German governments – rejected Washington’s war. But usually, their statements were limited to calls for anti-war mass actions in Western countries. There was (and is) nothing wrong with such calls but it is hardly enough.

What distinguishes authentic Marxists from pacifists and liberals is not if one is against the imperialist wars of Washington and its allies. It is rather how to fight against such imperialist war; it is about who’s side are you on. [2]

The RCIT respectively our predecessor organisation took a clear and unambiguous anti-imperialist stance as we did show in a recently published documentary at the 20^th anniversary of the Iraq War. We did not limit ourselves to opposition to the war, but we advocated the defeat of the US-UK forces and called for the victory of the Iraqi resistance. While we did not lend any political support to the (petty-)bourgeois nationalist and Islamist forces in Iraq, we sided with their struggle to expel the imperialist invaders. We combined such an approach with a perspective for a socialist Middle East. ^[3]

Our internationalist and anti-imperialist stance has been in complete contrast to the CWI/ISA. As their anniversary documentation shows they never uttered a single word about taking the side of Iraq in this war. Speaking about the duty of U.S. and British socialists to stand for the defeat of “their” imperialist government and for the military victory of the opponent side of “their” government (i.e. the Iraqi forces)? No way, as far as the ISA is concerned! There has always been radio silence in the CWI/ISA publications about such an anti-imperialist stance. [4]

In one article, where they talk about the tasks of socialists in Iraq, they mention some words about the perspective of a “socialist Iraq”, about the need to form “democratically organised defence committees” … against “the sectarian divide”. Again, all this is fine. But there is nothing about the most pressing task at that time: the struggle to expel the American and British occupiers by any means necessary (including armed resistance). Not a single word! [5]

A long-standing method of adaption to social-imperialism

All this confirms our assessment of the deep-rooted method of the Ted Grant school which is fully shared by the ISA, the CWI as well as the IMT. This method – which we call neo-imperialist economism -is characterised by opportunist adaption to one or the other imperialist Great Power. It is characterised by ignorance of the national question and of the revolutionary duty to side with the struggle of the oppressed people (even if they have no socialist leadership yet).

Hence, it is no accident that the ISA/CWI/IMT has repeatedly failed to defend oppressed people against imperialist aggression and national subjugation. As we demonstrated in a recently published pamphlet, this has been the case in a number of important national wars and rebellions. Among these are the Malvinas War between Argentina and Britain in 1982, the armed resistance in Northern Ireland against the British occupation, the two Iraq Wars in 1991 and 2003 (plus the resistance against the following occupation), the Afghanistan War in 2001 (plus the resistance against the following occupation), or the Palestinian resistance against the Zionist state. ^[6]

Failure to defend the Ukraine against Russian imperialism

It is therefore no surprise that the ISA (as well as the CWI and the IMT) has also failed to defend the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion. Instead, it characterises this conflict as a “proxy war” and calls for sabotage of any military aid for the Ukraine. [7]

In contrast, the RCIT has always pointed to the dual character of this conflict. It is, on one side, a legitimate war of national defence by the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion. At the same time, the conflict contains also the element of inter-imperialist rivalry between the U.S. and Western Europe versus Russia.

Hence, we take a consistent internationalist and anti-imperialist position which requires a dual tactic in such a situation. We side with the Ukraine – a semi-colonial capitalist country – against Russian imperialism but warn against the bourgeois and pro-NATO policy of the Zelensky government. We defend the Ukraine’s right to get weapons from wherever possible.

At the same time, we lend no support whatsoever to the chauvinist and militarist policy of any Great Power against its rivals (like e.g. armament programs or economic sanctions). The RCIT has summarised such an approach in the slogans: Defend the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion! Beware of NATO and Zelensky – transform the resistance against the Russian occupation into a Popular War! Against Russian and against NATO imperialism! [8]

The ISA’s refusal to support the Ukraine against Russian imperialism is a continuation of the neo-imperialist economist method of the late Ted Grant – the founder of this revisionist school in the 1960s. Such a method is in complete contrast to the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky. The latter once said – in a polemic against the German right-wing centrist Georg Ledebour:

„Nevertheless, Ledebour’s position even on this question does not leave the precincts of centrism. Ledebour demands that a battle be waged against colonial oppression; he is ready to vote in parliament against colonial credits; he is ready to take upon himself a fearless defense of the victims of a crushed colonial insurrection. But Ledebour will not participate in preparing a colonial insurrection. Such work he considers putschism, adventurism, Bolshevism. And therein is the whole gist of the matter. What characterizes Bolshevism on the national question is that in its attitude toward oppressed nations, even the most backward, it considers them not only the object but also the subject of politics. Bolshevism does not confine itself to recognizing their “right” to self-determination and to parliamentary protests against the trampling upon of this right. Bolshevism penetrates into the midst of the oppressed nations; it raises them up against their oppressors; it ties up their struggle with the struggle of the proletariat in capitalist countries; it instructs the oppressed Chinese, Hindus, or Arabs in the art of insurrection and it assumes full responsibility for this work in the face of civilized executioners. Here only does Bolshevism begin, that is, revolutionary Marxism in action. Everything that does not step over this boundary remains centrism.” ^[9]

These words fully apply to the historic method of the ISA and their former comrades in the CWI and the IMT!

Authentic Marxists must break with neo-imperialist economism – politically as well as organisationally! A revolutionary policy requires consistent internationalism and anti-imperialism; and it requires the unification of those who share an understanding of the essential revolutionary tasks of the current period!