An Essay by Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 6 June 2025, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

Introduction

 

1.           What is the objective role of social-chauvinism?

 

The material class basis of defending the imperialist “fatherland”

 

2.           The subjective physiognomy of social-chauvinism

 

“Defence of our culture“ and ”the superiority of our values”

 

“Defence of our jobs and living standard”

 

“Defending our fatherland against foreign threats”

 

3.           Proletarian internationalism versus the national paradigm

 

The international character of the proletariat, its organisation and its struggle

 

A necessary differentiation between nationalism of the oppressor nation and of the oppressed nation

 

4.           The urgency and difficulty of the question

 

Lenin’s warning

 

Some examples of recent wars

 

Preparing for war

 

5.           The program of revolutionary defeatism

 

Revolutionary defeatism in conflicts between imperialist states

 

The struggle of oppressed peoples against imperialist and reactionary states

 

6.           The objective social basis of defeatism

 

Growing gap between the ruling class and sectors of society

 

7.           Revolutionary defeatism and agitation

 

Fertile soil for anti-imperialist agitation

 

A dialogue with advocates of chauvinism

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

The deepening of the capitalist crisis since the Great Recession in 2008/09 has fuelled the decline of U.S. imperialism and, at the same time, augmented the rise of China and Russia as new Great Powers. [1]The result of this process has been the acceleration of inter-imperialist rivalry and the end of the essential feature of the global capitalist order after 1945 respectively after 1991. The U.S. is no longer the hegemon of the world and even its relations with Westen allies in North America, Western Europe and East Asia have become tense. [2]

 

As a result of this development, we have seen a massive rise of military conflicts and armament. To name a few examples of the last three years, we refer to Russia’s war against Ukraine, [3] Israel’s genocide in Gaza, [4] the smaller but potentially explosive armed confrontation between the nuclear powers India and Pakistan, [5] major civil wars in Sudan, Ethiopia and Burma/Myanmar, as well as looming wars between U.S./Israel and Iran or between several states in East Africa. [6]

 

There is no doubt that the inter-imperialist rivalry – most importantly between the U.S. and China – is heading towards major conflicts up to World War III if the international working class does not stop them in time.

 

All these developments make anti-imperialism and the struggle against reactionary wars key issues for strategy and tactics of Marxists today. In the past years, we have repeatedly dealt with the importance to differentiate between wars of oppression and wars of liberation, with complex cases of wars with contradictory character as well as with the program of revolutionary defeatism respectively the support of just wars of the oppressed peoples. ^[7]

 

However, in this essay we shall deal with one specific aspect of this whole array of questions in more detail which we consider as particularly important in the current period: the political psychology of social-chauvinism. Social-chauvinism, i.e. the capitulation of self-proclaimed left-wing forces to reactionary nationalism of the ruling class, has always been an essential characteristic of reformist parties as well as many centrist organisations accommodating to them.

 

This is even more the case in periods where catastrophes or wars suddenly descend upon a society “out of nothing”. We have seen an such events in the last few years like the lockdown policy of most governments around the world during the COVID crisis in 2020/21, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or, more recently, India’s military attack on Pakistan. In all these cases, the vast majority of so-called “socialist” or “communist” forces rallied to the side of the governments and supported their reactionary policy, i.e. they completely failed to take a principled, internationalist position.

 

As we have entered a period of accelerating crises and catastrophes, the popular masses will increasingly face similar situations. It is therefore crucial for Marxists to understand the political psychology of social-chauvinism and to politically prepare the workers vanguard for such catastrophic shocks in order to withstand the inevitable pressure of chauvinism. Since we have repeatedly dealt with the policy of social-chauvinism and the strategy of revolutionary defeatism, we will limit ourselves at this place to rather briefly summarise our analysis and to focus on the subjective side of this problem.

 

 

 

1. What is the objective role of social-chauvinism?

 

 

 

In order to better comprehend the problem, it is necessary to approach it from different angles. Let us first start with a summary of the objective role of social-chauvinism. In the chapter “What Social-Chauvinism Is” in their famous pamphlet “Socialism and War”, the leaders of the Bolshevik party provided the following definition:

 

„Social-chauvinism is advocacy of the idea of “defence of the fatherland” in the present war. This idea logically leads to the abandonment of the class struggle during the war, to voting for war credits, etc. In fact, the social-chauvinists are pursuing an anti-proletarian bourgeois policy, for they are actually championing, not “defence of the fatherland” in the sense of combating foreign oppression, but the “right” of one or other of the “Great” Powers to plunder colonies and to oppress other nations. The social-chauvinists reiterate the bourgeois deception of the people that the war is being waged to protect the freedom and existence of nations, thereby taking sides with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Among the social-chauvinists are those who justify and varnish the governments and bourgeoisie of one of the belligerent groups of powers, as well as those who, like Kautsky, argue that the socialists of all the belligerent powers are equally entitled to “defend the fatherland”. Social-chauvinism, which is, in effect, defence of the privileges, the advantages, the right to pillage and plunder, of one’s “own” (or any) imperialist bourgeoisie, is the utter betrayal of all socialist convictions and of the decision of the Basle International Socialist Congress.“ ^[8]

 

In other words, social-chauvinism is support for chauvinist policy of the ruling class under the banner of “socialism”. Such social-chauvinist policy manifests itself in support:

 

* for the idea of “defending the fatherland” of an imperialist or a reactionary war of the ruling class,

 

* for military budget and armament,

 

* for sanctions or tariffs against imperialist rivals or semi-colonial countries,

 

* aiding in one way or another aggression against semi-colonial countries or the oppression of other nations, national minorities as well as migrants, etc.

 

Such support can take various forms: from open, undisguised support like fully endorsing the goals of the ruling class, voting for such in parliament or participating in chauvinist public rallies, etc. to disguised support in form of being silent on chauvinist crimes, refusing to organise public protests, nurturing the idea of “defending our nation (or culture)” against “foreign” or “extremist threats”, etc.

 

Social-chauvinism sometimes openly tries to mobilise the working class for the goals of the bourgeoisie, sometimes it aids the ruling class by confusing and paralysing the popular masses.

 

Let us provide a few examples from the last two decades in order to illustrate such different forms of social-chauvinism. When Putin invaded Ukraine in February 2022, all major Stalinist parties – the KPRF, the RKRP and the OKP – rallied in support of the Russian army while most centrists took a neutral position and refused to defend semi-colonial Ukraine. The same happened in India in April/May 2025: when the Hindutva-chauvinist Modi government waged military aggression against Pakistan (in so-called “response” to the terror attack in Pahalgam), the larger reformist parties – the CPI(M) and the CPI – fully supported this reactionary policy while the ex-Maoist-reformist CPI(ML) Liberation did so in a more disguised form.

 

In France (and Western Europe as a whole), most “socialist” and “communist” parties rallied behind reactionary Islamophobic campaigns (“Je Suis Charlie”, anti-Muslim legislations, etc.) and supported (or refused to oppose) military interventions in West Africa as well as Syria and Iraq in the name of “War against Terror”. ^[9]

 

In 2001, the French Communist Party (PCF) was even part of the Jospin government which joined the U.S. war of aggression and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan. While most left-wing forces did not openly support the two-decades long imperialist occupation, only a small minority dared to support the Afghan resistance against the NATO troops. ^[10]

 

Another form of social-chauvinist policy is the support of trade union leaders for tariffs on imports from other countries (e.g. for Trump’s tariff war), for sanctions against rivalling states (e.g. from Western states against Russia or China) or support for the “right to exist” of the Israeli settler state (the “two-state solution” advocated by all social democrats and Stalinists). ^[11]

 

 

 

The material class basis of defending the imperialist “fatherland”

 

 

 

Finally, what is the material class basis of social-chauvinism? It is the interests of the labour bureaucracy, i.e. the layer which dominates the trade unions and the reformist parties, and their social basis, the labour aristocracy (the privileged strata at the top of the working class). It is these layers which have an interest in collaborating with the ruling class and expanding their privileges by supporting the chauvinist policy against rivalling states, against oppressed nationalities or against migrants. Lenin wrote:

 

„What is the economic substance of defencism in the war of 1914-15? The bourgeoisie of all the big powers are waging the war to divide and exploit the world, and oppress other nations. A few crumbs of the bourgeoisie’s huge profits may come the way of the small group of labour bureaucrats, labour aristocrats, and petty-bourgeois fellow-travellers. Social-chauvinism and opportunism have the same class basis, namely, the alliance of a small section of privileged workers with “their” national bourgeoisie against the working-class masses; the alliance between the lackeys of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie against the class the latter is exploiting. Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same political content, namely, class collaboration, repudiation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, repudiation of revolutionary action, unconditional acceptance of bourgeois legality, confidence in the bourgeoisie and lack of confidence in the proletariat. Social-chauvinism is the direct continuation and consummation of British liberal-labour politics, of Millerandism and Bernsteinism.“ ^[12]

 

In summary, what have all the individual positions of social-chauvinist forces in common? They all reflect that the labour bureaucracy and aristocracy view their interests closer to those of their “own” ruling class (to which they are tied via numerous links) than to those of the international proletariat and the oppressed masses.

 

 

 

2. The subjective physiognomy of social-chauvinism

 

 

 

As the purpose of this essay is to better understand the political psychology of social-chauvinism and to elaborate a strategy to combat it, we shall discuss in more detail the main arguments provided by advocates of social-chauvinism.

 

Essentially, social-chauvinism shares with open bourgeois chauvinism the objective essence – the defence of the reactionary bourgeois state against rivals as well as against oppressed nations. However, it is easy to understand that social-chauvinist forces could not confuse and attract progressive workers if they would simply repeat reactionary ideological ideas of the “superiority” of the German, Russian, etc. respectively the “white race” or of the Christian or Hindu religion. Hence, social-chauvinism rather borrows from bourgeois-liberal ideologies which speak about the superiority of “values” (values which, of course, serve capitalist and imperialist domination). Likewise, social-chauvinism links the defence of workers interests to supporting “their” national state (respectively the European Union in the case of European reformists).

 

At this point it is worth referring to the ideological arguments of reformism in its early stages. At the Stuttgart Congress of the II. International in 1907, an intense debate took place about colonial policy. While the Marxist left wing opposed colonialism out of principle, the reformists and centrists – who constituted already the majority of the European delegates – argued for supporting colonial policy “under certain conditions.” Grigory Zinoviev, Lenin’s closest collaborator in the years 1908-17, reported about this debate in an essay written during World War I.

 

“The central point of the revisionists’ motion is:

 

‘The Congress finds that the benefit or necessity of colonies in general, but especially for the working class, are greatly exaggerated. However, it rejects (…) not in principle and for all time any colonial policy that could have a civilizing effect under a socialist regime.’ (Protocols of the Stuttgart Congress, p. 24.)

 

Further follow kind words about the excessive enslavement of the colonies; the Social Democratic deputies are called to fight against the ‘current methods of colonization’ (only against the current ones), to advocate reforms ‘for such purpose,’ etc. And finally, the resolution, to entice the wavering pacifists, proposed something like ominous disarmament and arbitration courts.

 

‘To this end, the deputies of the socialist parties should propose to their governments the conclusion of an international treaty to establish a colonial law that protects the rights of the natives and is mutually guaranteed by the contracting states.’ (p. 24.)

 

If one ignores the vague, seemingly socialist phrases, the revisionists' program is essentially acceptable to any national-liberal imperialist. To improve, reform, and perfect colonial plunder – no intelligent bourgeois will oppose this.

 

The Marxists (the minority of the commission) concentrated their main attack on the first main point of the revisionists, which we cited above. (…) They demanded the deletion of this point (as well as the last pacifist point, which we also cited) and the replacement of the first paragraph with the following:

 

‘The Congress believes that capitalist colonial policy, by its very nature, must lead to the enslavement and forced labor, or even the extermination, of the native populations of the colonial territories. The civilizing mission, to which capitalist society refers, serves only its desires for acquisition and exploitation.’“ ^[13]

 

It is not difficult to detect in this resolution the social-chauvinist concept of European superiority which would have a “civilising effect” for the “savages” in the colonies. Today, capitalist ideologies have developed further (as has capitalism itself) and chauvinists can not use the same arguments from a century ago. However, the essence remains the same.

 

Let us show this with several contemporary concepts which express the ideology of social-chauvinism.

 

 

 

“Defence of our culture“ and ”the superiority of our values”

 

 

 

In France, large parts of the left shamefully support the hijab ban for Muslim women in public schools (and increasingly in all public spaces). Likewise, they support the governments’ campaign against “Islamic separatism”, a slogan under which the authorities suppress Muslim associations and close mosques. [14]

 

When Samuel Paty, a racist teacher, died as a result of a revenge killing by an 18-year-old Chechen youth in October 2020, Macron launched a vicious Islamophobic campaign. [15] The PCF joined public rallies organised by the government and called to defend “the fundamental values of the Republic.”

 

“Islamist terrorism has just reminded us that it has been waging a constant war against the fundamental values of the Republic: the intransigent separation of religions and the State; secularism which guarantees freedom of conscience and criticism; freedom of expression, creation and the right to criticize any religion; equality between citizens who must not be distinguished by their origins, their religions, or their personal convictions. This Islamist terrorism has one objective: to spread terror on everyone, to attack democracy and public schools. (…) This threat must be fought wholeheartedly. (…) Hate preachers, fanatics who call for murder, jihadists must be prosecuted, put out of harm's way, severely condemned. (…) The means must be given to public authorities, intelligence, the police and the judiciary to thwart hate campaigns, such as the one against Samuel Paty until his assassination.” [16]

 

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of La France Insoumise, expressed a similar approach. He utilized the Chechen origin of Abdoullakh Anzorov, Paty’s assailant, in order to launch a disgusting attack. He said: “Faced with Islamist terrorism, it is necessary to respond very precisely. There is a very clear problem with the Chechen community in France. Chechens who are active in political Islam on social media must be found and expelled.” Likewise, he called the wars of Russian imperialism against Chechnya in 1994-96 and 1999-2009 as “religious civil war” and denounced the authorities for allowing Chechens participating in these horrible wars into France. [17]

 

In the real word, and in contrast to such chauvinist hysteria, “Islamist terrorists” have killed only an extremely small number of people in Europe and the U.S. compared to the number of people who were murdered by the imperialist powers in Muslim countries in the past two decades. Russia killed between 200-300,000 Chechens in the two wars [18], tens of thousands of civilians were killed during the period of Afghanistan’s occupation by NATO [19] and likewise did the US-UK occupation of Iraq result in the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. [20] In other words, the imperialists are the much more dangerous and deadly terrorists. What a cynical social-chauvinism that all these reformist parties which rallied to the flag of the imperialist republic, at the same time, refused to side with these peoples fighting against foreign occupation (or worse even supported such occupation)!

 

We should note that while the reformist left in France is particularly insistent in imposing “their“ values on migrants – officials of the reformist left in France (including the “communists” of the PCF) also distinguish themselves by proudly wearing the patriotic tricolour banner at public rallies! – most of the reformist and centrist left in Europe shares this approach in principle.

 

A similar example of such “defence of our culture and values” is the support of social-chauvinist parties for the state policy to force migrants to learn the language of their host country and to pass tests about the “values” of such state. [21]

 

In reality, such an approach is nothing but a modern version of the “civilizing colonial policy” of the revisionists in the II. International. It is of course true that patriarchal structures and cultures exist within Muslim societies. But this is true for all societies under capitalism. And why on earth should the Western culture be superior which has its own share of misogyny and rape (Epstein, Weinstein and the Tate brothers are well-known symbolic figures), in which sexualisation of the female body is an essential feature, and where it is popular among sectors of men to try to drug women at clubs so that they can rape them?! Lenin once noted on the cynical character of imperialist boasts about their “civilizing colonial policy” that the Great Powers are “‘civilising‘ them [the colonial peoples, Ed.] by the spread of liquor and syphilis” [22] These words have not lost their relevance today!

 

 

 

“Defence of our jobs and living standard”

 

 

 

Another argument raised by social-chauvinists in defence of their policy is that support for tariffs against imports from other countries or strict control of migration would save jobs and living standard. Several trade union leaders in the U.S. currently welcome Trump’s aggressive tariff policy. Likewise, many trade union leaders in Western Europe have called their governments to support “their” industry with financial support, tariffs, etc.

 

Reformist and centrist parties usually are also opposed to “unregulated” migration and call for strict border controls. A well-known example for such a policy is the “British Jobs for British Workers“ strike in 2008. At that time British workers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery wanted to stop the hiring of migrant workers. Shamefully this reactionary strike received support from the trade union bureaucracy and several pseudo-Trotskyist organizations like the CWI and the IMT.

 

The French PCF provides other examples of such anti-migrant social-chauvinism. Its opposition against “too much migration” resulted in criticism of the “liberal treaties of the EU” which allow the freedom of movement within the EU. In the early 1980s, PCF leaders even organised attacks with bulldozers against homes of “illegal migrants”. [23]

 

It is not surprising that the labour bureaucracy and aristocracy want to defend their position against “cheaper” workers. They have no internationalist perspective so the interests of a sector of workers from “their” country (who pay the wages of such party and union officials) are much closer to them then the interests of “foreign” workers (who can neither vote at elections nor do they have high wages).

 

As a matter of fact, it is a complete illusion to imagine that a country could be sealed off from migration. Cheap, foreign labour has nearly always existed in imperialist countries since the early 20^th century – even in the period of the Nazis where foreign workers constituted about 20% of the labour force in Germany.

 

Socialists do not oppose but rather welcome the internationalisation of the proletariat as this can help to overcome national-centredness and to reduce imperialist aristocratism among the upper strata of workers in rich capitalist countries. The goal of the workers movement in imperialist states must be to refuse defending the privileged position of “their” country at the cost of people from poorer countries. In fact, the national-centred strategy of “defending the interests of native workers” against those of migrant workers is self-defeating as it only divides the proletariat and, by this, helps the capitalists to utilise migrants as cheap labour forces against native workers. Hence, socialists must rather strive to integrate these migrants into the workers movement and to force the capitalists respectively the state to pay them the same wages and benefits as native workers have.

 

Such a program is based on the revolutionary approach as it was developed by the Communist International in the times of Lenin and Trotsky. This position has been elaborated in the "Theses on the Eastern Question," adopted at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International in 1922. This document unambiguously states:

 

"In view of the coming danger, the Communist Parties of the imperialist countries – America, Japan, Britain, Australia and Canada – must not merely issue propaganda against the war, but must do everything possible to eliminate the factors that disorganise the workers’ movement in their countries and make it easier for the capitalists to exploit national and racial antagonisms.

 

These factors are the immigration question and the question of cheap coloured labour.

 

Most of the coloured workers brought from China and India to work on the sugar plantations in the southern part of the Pacific are still recruited under the system of indentured labour. This fact has led to workers in the imperialist countries demanding the introduction of laws against immigration and coloured labour, both in America and Australia. These restrictive laws deepen the antagonism between coloured and white workers, which divides and weakens the unity of the workers’ movement.

 

The Communist Parties of America, Canada and Australia must conduct a vigorous campaign against restrictive immigration laws and must explain to the proletarian masses in these countries that such laws, by inflaming racial hatred, will rebound on them in the long run.

 

The capitalists are against restrictive laws in the interests of the free importation of cheap coloured labour and with it the lowering of the wages of white workers. The capitalists’ intention to take the offensive can be properly dealt with in only one way – the immigrant workers must join the ranks of the existing trade unions of white workers. Simultaneously, the demand must be raised that the coloured workers’ pay should be brought up to the same level as the white workers’ pay. Such a move on the part of the Communist Parties will expose the intentions of the capitalists and at the same time graphically demonstrate to the coloured workers that the international proletariat has no racial prejudice." ^[24]

 

 

 

“Defending our fatherland against foreign threats”

 

 

 

While social-chauvinist parties today often borrow the values of bourgeois liberalism, they are also prone to use the most vulgar nationalist ideas. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), led by Gennady Zyuganov, has always distinguished itself by open and undisguised patriotism for the imperialist motherland. [25] In its program adopted in 2008, it calls for the defence of the Russian nation (which includes the Russian minorities living in other countries) and bemoans a supposed “genocide of a great nation.”

 

“The party is fighting for the unity, integrity and independence of the Fatherland, for the restoration of the fraternal Union of Soviet Peoples, for the well-being and security, the moral and physical health of citizens. (…) [It also fights for] ensuring the territorial integrity of Russia and the protection of compatriots abroad; (...) The fires of international conflicts do not subside. The Russian question acquired extreme urgency after the years of capitalist restoration. Today, the Russians have become the largest divided people on the planet. There is a open genocide of a great nation. The number of Russians is decreasing. Historically established culture and language are destroyed. The tasks of solving the Russian question and the struggle for socialism are in essence the same.” [26]

 

Consequently, the KPRF has always collaborated with the Putin regime and supports its war against Ukraine. When the Ukrainian army managed to liberate a part of the territory occupied by the Russian invaders in autumn 2022, Zyuganov held an alarming speech in the State Duma in which he stated “that there is a war going on, and we have no right to lose it. Don't panic now. We need a complete mobilization of the country, we need completely different laws.” [27]

 

The Greek KKE – a leading force among so-called “orthodox” Stalinist parties – shares a similar approach in preaching chauvinism in undisguised form. During a period of tensions between Greece and Turkey in 2018, the KKE’s General Secretary, Dimitris Koutsoumbas, said at a public rally in Thessaloniki: “We communists will, as we have always done in our century-long history, stand in the front row defending our territorial integrity and our sovereign rights. We are doing this so that any foreign intruder who dares to attack Greece will be annihilated.” [28] This was not an one-off but rather a violent expression of the goal which the KKE states in its official program – to fight “for the defence of the borders, the sovereign rights of Greece.” [29]

 

Another expression of vulgar Greek chauvinism is the bizarre denial of any rights for the Macedonian people. The KKE shamefully supported the long-time position of the bourgeois government to deny the recognition of the Macedonian Republic. It even goes so far as simply denying the very existence of a Macedonian nation! “A historically formed ‘Macedonian’ nation, ‘Macedonian’ ethnicity, ‘Macedonian’ language, which form the basis of irredentism and raise questions of the existence of a minority, claims and defense of its rights etc., do not exist.” [30]

 

The reformist left in India is another actual example of such a social-chauvinist response to a supposed “foreign threat”. After the Pahalgam terrorist attack on 22 April this year, the Hindutva-chauvinist Modi government waged military aggression against Pakistan. [31] The Communist Party of India (Marxist) – similar to the second reformist mass party, the CPI – fully supported Modi’s reactionary policy of aggression and called for punishment of the “terrorists” in Pakistan.

 

“The perpetrators of the horrific crime must be apprehended and punished. The police and security forces are under the Central Government. The Central Government must leave no stone unturned in bringing the forces responsible for the dastardly attack to justice. The perpetrators of the crime are the enemies of the nation and more so of the people of Kashmir. It is incumbent on the Central Government to probe all angles of the attack including the lack of security in crowded tourist places. The CPI(M) stands united with the people of India in this hour of tragedy against the extremist fundamentalist forces.” [32]

 

At the same time, these social-chauvinists have not raised a single word against the brutal state terrorist occupation of Kashmir by Indian troops and not a word about their right of national self-determination! In other words, their rally to defend the “motherland against terrorist threats” goes hand in hand with support for their “motherland’s” occupation of Kashmir! Effectively, this is the same policy of British “socialists” who defended the possessions of “their” Colonial Empire or of French Stalinists who opposed the independence struggle of the Algerian and Vietnamese people.

 

Lenin once remarked about such “socialists”:

 

“It will be the duty of the Socialists to explain to the masses that English Socialists who fail to demand the freedom of secession for the colonies and for Ireland; that German Socialists who fail to demand the freedom of secession for the colonies, for the Alsatians, for the Danes and for the Poles, and who fail to carry direct revolutionary propaganda and revolutionary mass action to the field of struggle against national oppression, who fail to take advantage of cases like the Zabern incident to conduct widespread underground propaganda among the proletariat of the oppressing nation, to organize street demonstrations and revolutionary mass actions; that Russian Socialists who fail to demand freedom of secession for Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, etc., etc. – are behaving like chauvinists, like lackeys of the blood-and-mud-stained imperialist monarchies and the imperialist bourgeoisie.” ^[33]

 

Another actual example is the Finnish Left Alliance which was part of the social democratic and ex-Stalinist “Party of the European Left” (this alliance recently split in two rivalling camps). This party has been part of the bourgeois, centre-left coalition government since 2019. It remained so when the government decided to give up its neutral status and to join NATO in 2022. Worse, the party leadership even refused to oppose this decision of the government. [34] Hence, faced massive pressure from the ruling class and its “public opinion”, the party dropped its long-standing opposition to NATO accession within a few weeks.

 

A particular repulsive example for social-chauvinism is the support of parts of the reformist left for the settler state of Israel and its “right to exist”. Since the beginning of the Gaza Wars in 2008/09, sectors of the German LINKE and the Austrian KPÖ openly sided with Israel’s army in their attempts to starve and smash the Palestinian people.

 

 

 

3. Proletarian internationalism versus the national paradigm

 

 

 

As we did see, social-chauvinism has many faces – some are sophisticated and disguised while others are vulgar and openly reactionary. But what have they in common on the ideological level, what is their essence in terms of ideas? It is what we can call the national paradigm. Let us elaborate on this.

 

Marxism recognises that when capitalism entered the epoch of imperialism at the beginning of the 20^th century, the productive forces had outgrown the boundaries of the nation state. While the nation state was key for the rapid growth of the productive forces in the 19^th century, its political and economic boundaries became an obstacle. Hence, a healthy economic development required a regional and global organization of the productive capacities. However, the bourgeoisie of each country is inextricably linked with the state apparatus of the respective countries. As the capitalist class is not prepared to voluntarily give up its economic and political power, the inevitable result is rivalry and tensions between the ruling class of each country as the expanded productive forces push them all to reach out for global expansion (at the cost of their competitors).

 

Leon Trotsky elaborated this idea already at the beginning of World War I.

 

“The forces of production which capitalism has evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to break through the state boundaries. The whole globe, the land and the sea, the surface as well as the interior has become one economic workshop, the different parts of which are inseparably connected with each other. This work was accomplished y capitalism. But in accomplishing it the capitalist states were led to struggle for the subjection of the world-embracing economic system to the profit interests of the bourgeoisie of each country. What the politics of imperialism has demonstrated more than anything else is that the old national state that was created in the revolutions and the wars of 1789-1815, 1848-1859, 1864-1866, and 1870 has outlived itself, and is now an intolerable hindrance to economic development. The present war is at bottom a revolt of the forces of production against the political form of nation and state. It means the collapse of the national state as an independent economic unit.” [35]

 

This is why, Trotsky explained, only a socialist society will be able to overcome these contradictions and to organise production and distribution in harmonic proportions on a global scale.

 

“From destroying the very basis of the economy the current imperialist war is the most convincing expression of the dead-end in which bourgeois society is foundering. Only socialism, which neutralizes the nation in an economic sense, uniting humanity in lasting cooperation, liberating the world economy from the vice of the nation and liberating national culture from the vice of international economic competition – only socialism provides solutions to the contradictions which currently threaten human culture.” [36]

 

Therefore, a socialist society, i.e. social relations which allow harmonic and sustained expansion of the productive forces, can not be built in national isolation but only on a regional and global level. This idea was also the basis for Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution and not the Stalinist illusion of building “socialism in one country”. [37]

 

„Marxism takes its point of departure from world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty and independent reality which has been created by the international division of labour and the world market, and which in our epoch imperiously dominates the national markets. The productive forces of capitalist society have long ago outgrown the national boundaries. The imperialist war (of 1914-18, Ed.) was one of the expressions of this fact. In respect of the technique of production socialist society must represent a stage higher than capitalism. To aim at building a nationally isolated socialist society means, in spite of all passing successes, to pull the productive forces backward even as compared with capitalism. To attempt, regardless of the geographical, cultural and historical conditions of the country's development, which constitutes a part of the world unity, to realize a shut-off proportionality of all the branches of economy within a national framework, means to pursue a reactionary utopia. If the heralds and supporters of this theory nevertheless participate in the international revolutionary struggle (with what success is a different question) it is because, as hopeless eclectics, they mechanically combine abstract internationalism with reactionary utopian national socialism“ ^[38]

 

 

 

The international character of the proletariat, its organisation and its struggle

 

 

 

Hence, Marxists do not take the nation state but the global political and economic relations as their starting point. It is therefore the international – and not the national – working class on which socialists must base their program, their struggle, their organization. We are not Britons, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. but internationalists who are living in this or that country.

 

“Internationalism is no abstract principle but a theoretical and political reflection of the character of world economy, of the world development of productive forces and the world scale of the class struggle.” ^[39]

 

Such a proletarian internationalist approach has fundamental consequences for the attitude to the workers and oppressed. For revolutionaries, it does not matter which passport, which colour, which culture a worker has. They are all equally brothers and sister. Hence, a worker from one’s own country is not closer to a socialist than a migrant worker.

 

It is exactly the opposite for social-chauvinists. Of course, they will swear that they are full of sympathy for foreign workers but, in fact, they prioritise the workers of their own country, their own culture in relation to workers from other countries, with different cultural backgrounds.

 

Naturally, social-chauvinists disguise their nationalist policy with socialist arguments. They say that they are just opposing attempts of capitalists to weaken the working class by integrating cheaper foreign labour force, that they desire to defend the social conquests of the domestic workers, etc.

 

But why is defending wages and living standard of domestic workers more important than improving wages and living standard of migrant workers or workers in other countries?! Why is integrating foreign workers more important than integrating domestic workers into the global proletariat (for which migrants can be an important transmission belt)?!

 

In fact, social-chauvinism is ideologically based on the principle “national first – international second”. Its starting point is the national paradigm around which the rest of the world exists but is less important. Such an approach is reflected in the idea of “We” as a nation, “our homeland”, “our native workers” from which the strange (strange from a socialist point of view) identification with one owns culture, national “values” is an unavoidable consequence, i.e. which is the fundament of the whole policy of social-chauvinism.

 

Such an identification with one’s nation or culture is the ideological backbone of putting the interests of the national working class before those of the international proletariat. And such an ideology of “native workers first – foreign workers second” objectively chains the national proletariat to their national bourgeoisie and against their international class brothers and sisters. The defence of the imperialist “fatherland” and the whole program of social-chauvinism are the inevitable consequences from such an approach.

 

Authentic socialists, in contrast, do not consider the national working class, their national culture as the “We”, “our homeland”, but rather the international proletariat. The worker in India or China, France or Argentina, the oppressed fighting for freedom on all parts of the world – these are “our people”. They are all equally close to us!

 

Trotsky emphasised in his theses on “War and the Fourth International” that socialists must combat any political or “moral” link of workers to “their” imperialist national state. Without such rupture, such socialists inevitable become social-chauvinists and traitors of the working class.

 

“A “socialist” who preaches national defence is a petty-bourgeois reactionary at the service of decaying capitalism. Not to bind itself to the national state in time of war, to follow not the war map but the map of the class struggle, is possible only for that party that has already declared irreconcilable war on the national state in time of peace. Only by realizing fully the objectively reactionary role of the imperialist state can the proletarian vanguard become invulnerable to all types of social patriotism. This means that a real break with the ideology and policy of “national defence” is possible only from the standpoint of the international proletarian revolution.” ^[40]

 

Socialists need to point out that the bourgeoisie itself is not dedicated to the defence of the fatherland but rather to the defence of its profits and property. Remember all the capitalists who closed factories at home and moved production to countries with lower wages; remember the superrich who transfer their money to tax havens in the Caribbean; remember the Western powers giving billions of dollars to the Israeli settler state instead of spending it for public investment at home. The bourgeois program of patriotism is no guideline for the ruling class but rather a manipulative instrument to confuse the masses and to make them sacrifice their lives as Trotsky noted in his War Manifesto in 1940.

 

“But even with regard to the large states, what is involved for the bourgeoisie is not at all a question of defending the fatherland, but rather of markets, foreign concessions, sources of raw materials, and spheres of influence. The bourgeoisie never defends the fatherland for the sake of the fatherland. They defend private property, privileges, profits. Whenever these sacred values are threatened, the bourgeoisie immediately takes to the road of defeatism. That was the way of the Russian bourgeoisie, whose sons after the October Revolution fought and are once again ready to fight in every army in the world against their own former fatherland. In order to save their capital, the Spanish bourgeoisie turned to Mussolini and Hitler for military aid against their own people. The Norwegian bourgeoisie aided Hitler’s invasion of Norway. Thus it always was and always will be.

 

Official patriotism is a mask for the exploiting interests. Class conscious workers throw this mask contemptuously aside. They do not defend the bourgeois fatherland, but the interests of the toilers and the oppressed of their own country and of the entire world. The theses of the Fourth International state: ‘Against the reactionary slogan of “national defense” it is necessary to advance the slogan of the revolutionary destruction of the national state. To the madhouse of capitalist Europe it is necessary to counterpose the program of the Socialist United States of Europe as a stage on the road to the Socialist United States of the World.’” [41]

 

 

 

A necessary differentiation between nationalism of the oppressor nation and of the oppressed nation

 

 

 

While these principles hold true all countries, one has to make a certain but important reservation. Oppressed peoples, i.e. those who are living in semi-colonial countries or who face national discrimination, have a legitimate cause to defend their nation against imperialist and reactionary aggression. [42] Naturally, Marxists from oppressed nations oppose also such nationalism as a wrong and misleading ideology. In order to fight national oppression, workers from such nations must join the international struggle against imperialism which is the fundamental system on which such national oppression rests.

 

However, Marxists must differentiate between the nationalism of the oppressor nation and of the oppressed nation. While the first is thoroughly reactionary, the latter contains a progressive element as it reflects the desire of the masses to fight against oppression. Lenin wrote on this issue:

 

„In my writings on the national question I have already said that an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation.“ ^[43]

 

“The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support.” ^[44]

 

On the basis of such a differentiation between nationalism of the oppressor nation and of the oppressed nation, Marxists deploy different tactics in dealing with these two types. Unambiguous and intransigent struggle against the first, pedagogic explanation about the mistakes and linking to the progressive elements in the case of the nationalism of the oppressed peoples.

 

 

 

4. The urgency and difficulty of the question

 

 

 

Throughout the imperialist epoch, social-chauvinism has been a dangerous cancer in the international workers movement, first and foremost in imperialist countries. However, this is particularly the case in periods of imperialist wars and chauvinist excesses.

 

In the recent past there has been a steady increase of reactionary aggression against oppressed peoples and inter-imperialist rivalry. Since 2001, Western powers launched several wars and military interventions in the Middle East and Africa under the disguise of “War on Terror”. Putin started already a bit earlier with a similar imperialist “War on Terror” when Russia invaded Chechnya in 1999. Related to this has been an acceleration of domestic repression of migrants (in particular those from Muslim countries).

 

A decade later China became a Great Power in its own right and – together with Russia – started to challenge the long-term hegemony of the U.S. (and its Western allies). Such inter-imperialist rivalry has resulted in global trade war, a process which dramatically escalated in the past few months when Trump imposed extremely high tariffs not only on China but also against Western allies. Furthermore, the White House deepened the process of inter-imperialist rivalry by threatening not only China but also Western allies (Canada, Greenland/EU). At the same time, Trump looks to create a détente with Putin – provoking bitter reactions from America’s traditional allies in Europe.

 

One important result of this process is the breakdown of the global imperialist order which has been dominated by the U.S. and its allies for decades. A consequence of this development is, among others, that military tensions and armed confrontations are also escalating between semi-colonial states in the Global South. To name only the most recent ones we refer to the armed confrontation between India and Pakistan in April/May 2025, the civil war in Sudan and the threats of wars in East Africa.

 

An important result of this process is a massive acceleration in global armament. If the working class does not stop the imperialists on time, this process will result in major armed confrontations between the Great Powers up to World War III. We can therefore say that we are not in a “post-Cold War” period but rather that we have entered a “pre-World War” period – a period characterised by catastrophes, shocks and wars.

 

 

 

Lenin’s warning

 

 

 

Given such developments it is important to recall the lessons of the Bolsheviks in their struggle against chauvinism and war and to compare them with experiences in recent conflicts. In one of his last articles, Lenin pointed to the enormous difficulties for revolutionaries at the beginning of major wars. He warned that it would be self-deception to imagine that one could initiate mass strikes or similar actions when a war breaks out. The ruling class would rather succeed in paralysing the working class and smashing any organisation capable of serious resistance. Hence, Lenin explained, the task is rather to prepare for a longer period of illegal work to undermine the imperialist war efforts of the bourgeoisie and to eventually convert the imperialist war into a civil war.

 

“On the question of combating the danger of war, in connection with the Conference at The Hague, I think that the greatest difficulty lies in overcoming the prejudice that this is a simple, clear and comparatively easy question. “We shall retaliate to war by a strike or a revolution” – that is what all the prominent reformist leaders usually say to the working class. And very often the seeming radicalness of the measures proposed satisfies and appeases the workers, co-operators and peasants.

 

Perhaps the most correct method would be to start with the sharpest refutation of this opinion; to declare that particularly now, after the recent war, only the most foolish or utterly dishonest people can assert that such an answer to the question of combating war is of any us ; to declare that it is impossible to “retaliate” to war by a strike, just as it is impossible to “retaliate” to war by revolution in the simple and literal sense of these terms.

 

We must explain the real situation to the people, show them that war is hatched in the greatest secrecy, and that the ordinary workers’ organisations, even if they call themselves revolutionary organisations, are utterly helpless in face of a really impending war. (…) We must take special pains to explain that the question of “defence of the fatherland” will inevitably arise, and that the overwhelming majority of the working people will inevitably decide it in favour of their bourgeoisie.

 

Therefore, first, it is necessary to explain what “defence of the fatherland” means. Second, in connection with this, it is necessary to explain what “defeatism” means. Lastly, we must explain that the only possible method of combating war is to preserve existing, and to form new, illegal organisations in which all revolutionaries taking part in a war carry on prolonged anti-war activities – all this must be brought into the forefront. Boycott war—that is a silly catch-phrase. Communists must take part in every war, even the most reactionary.“ ^[45]

 

Why will the ruling class most likely succeed in paralysing the working class and any anti-war opposition at the beginning of a major war? First, because such a war – in particular at its beginning – means total mobilisation of all state resources by the ruling class. Hence, the government is at the high point of its organisational strength. In contrast, the working class is shocked by the sudden outbreak of such a war. Furthermore, it will be confused and demoralised, to various degrees, by the yearslong social-patriotic propaganda of their leaders. Its organisations are led by reformist bureaucrats who will betray the interests of the masses and support the war efforts of the bourgeoise. Add to this that such social-chauvinist consciousness amongst sectors of the masses has a material basis given the relative strength of the labour bureaucracy and aristocracy.

 

At the same time, those revolutionary forces which oppose such a reactionary war will inevitably face severe repression. Hence, they will be probably incapable to organise meaningful resistance in the first period of the war.

 

There exists an additional problem, one which Lenin did not face at his time, at least not to such a degree. Today we experience the situation that it is not only the mass of the proletariat which has been confused and manipulated by social-chauvinist propaganda. The same is unfortunately also true for large sectors of the workers vanguard, i.e. its most advanced sectors. Decades of extraordinary weaknesses of authentic revolutionary forces have led to a situation that, even in the minds of self-proclaimed Marxists, Marxism exists only in a falsified, de-revolutionised and evirated form among large sectors of the vanguard. It is the task of communists today to defend Marxism in its authentic, revolutionary, anti-imperialist form and to transmit it those sectors of the working class and youth who are the forefront of the liberation struggles.

 

 

 

Some examples of recent wars

 

 

 

Take the recent conflict between India and Pakistan. The trigger for this conflict was not a major military strike by a foreign power but rather a “small” terrorist attack. However, this was sufficient for the reformist left to immediately fall in line when Modi exploited this incident and mobilised his state and media machinery to wipe up Hindutva chauvinism. Not only did the left fail to organise any anti-war activities (despite the fact that India is still a relatively democratic capitalist country) but it even supported the official goals of Modi to “smash the terrorists in Pakistan” and to keep Kashmir in India’s possession.

 

Clearly this was the result of years and decades of political degeneration in which cadres of these parties – the CPI, CPI(M) and CPI(ML) Liberation – have been trained in the doctrine of social-chauvinism of which India’s supposed “right” to occupy Kashmir is an essential part. These parties have become accustomed to view the Indian state as “their” state – not surprisingly since they have repeatedly held regional governmental positions – which is indivisible (bad luck for the national minorities striving for independence) and which must be defended against foreign enemies (like Pakistan).

 

We saw similar cases of state of shock or even support for the government’s reactionary policy of large sectors of the reformist and centrist left in the above-mentioned case when European governments utilised terrorist attacks to launch Islamophobic repression.

 

Another example, albeit with a different context, has been the period of the COVID Counterrevolution when governments around the world unprecedentedly reacted in spring 2020 to a pandemic with massive police state measures like lockdowns for the vast majority of the population. (Tellingly, countries like Sweden which did not impose a policy of lockdown weathered the pandemic better than nearly all other European countries. [46]) The vast majority of the reformist and centrist left was totally paralysed and disorientated by the sudden catastrophe which the ruling class fully exploited in order to silence any resistance. In fact, most sectors of the left did not recover from their shock, and it was sectors of the masses both in Western countries as well as in China which spontaneously initiated protests against the Lockdown policy – protests which eventually forced the governments to back down. [47]

 

A similar as well as different example is Russia and its war of aggression against Ukraine since February 2022. On one hand, the reformist left (KPRF, RKRP, OKP) supported the war from the very beginning and the majority of the centrist left refuses to defend Ukraine. One the other side, sizeable street protests took place against the war from the very beginning, resulting in the arrest of about 20,000 activists. Opinion polls repeatedly demonstrate that – despite the nearly totalitarian conditions imposed by the regime – about 1/5 of the population continues to oppose the war.

 

Here one has to say that it has been certainly advantageous that sectors of the bourgeoisie and the middle class were politically and culturally orientated towards the West which made them less vulnerable for Putin’s chauvinist “Ruskij Mir” propaganda.

 

A different example is Israel’s genocidal war against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Despite massive support from the U.S. and Europe for Israel, these governments are facing a massive and growing pro-Palestine solidarity movement. This movement, comparable to the Anti-Vietnam war movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, increasingly forces Western governments to distance themselves from the settler state (at least verbally). However, one must also say that despite repression in Western countries – I myself got a suspended sentence of six months prison [48] – these countries themselves are not at war and domestic public pressure and repression can not be compared to a state which is waging a major war (like Russia today).

 

The Iraq War in 2003 is another different example. This conflict a) was not a major war for the U.S. and did not result in significant restrictions of democratic rights at home, b) it was unpopular among the masses in the U.S. from the very beginning and c) did not come out of the blue but was rather in the making for half a year and faced global mass opposition already before it started (according to the BBC, 6-10 million people marched on 15 February 2003 on a global day of action). Such mass opposition continued throughout the whole conflict and contributed – in combination with the mass resistance and guerrilla war in Iraq itself – to the end of the occupation and the withdrawal of most of the U.S. and UK troops in 2011.

 

 

 

Preparing for war

 

 

 

These examples show that there are different wars and different conditions for revolutionaries to combat the reactionary aggression of their government. The more such a war has the character of a major war in which the ruling class mobilises all state resources, the more difficult it will be for socialists to organise mass resistance at the beginning of the conflict. Things obviously can change: the longer the war lasts, the higher the losses and the severer the burden of the war for the population.

 

Hence, in major wars it can take some time until the masses are prepared to raise their voice against the chauvinist policy of the ruling class. Socialists must be patient, distribute propaganda by any means necessary (legal and illegal), clarify the complex events for the masses and organise the most advanced sectors of the vanguard as good as possible. However, at some point the contradictions will become unbearable for the people, public opinion might be shattered by serious losses at the front or by economic crisis, unrest might accumulate within the armed forces, frictions within the ruling class might open space for public critique, etc. (see e.g. the class struggles in Russia, Germany and other countries in 1915-18, in Italy 1943-45, the anti-fascist partisans in WWII, the anti-war movement and unrest in the U.S. army during the Vietnam War). Such developments can become a starting point for mass struggles against the war and against the regime. Socialists must prepare for such possibilities and intervene as good as possible if opportunities open up.

 

As we did already say there are also other possible scenarios of wars where the regime faces mass opposition from the beginning and/or which are not major wars and where space to publicly opposition against such wars are not or less limited.

 

In any case, the struggle against war must start long before. Socialists have to educate the vanguard about the character of the imperialist government, the inevitable reactionary nature of all aspects of their domestic as well as foreign policy, the necessity to work among the masses in order to undermine their patriotic bonds to the capitalist state and to raise their political class consciousness.

 

Preparing the masses for war starts already today by steeling them against the chauvinist propaganda of their governments, by explaining them that their closest brothers and sisters are not the capitalists of same national origin but rather workers – people like you and me who are forced to make their living with their own hard work – of all races around the world.

 

Furthermore, even if the masses are paralysed at the beginning of a major war, this does not mean that nothing can be done. Socialists must take every opportunity to publicly oppose such a reactionary war in order to strengthen the moral of the vanguard elements, to consolidate the wavering elements and to cast doubts about those sectors of the masses which are infected by chauvinist propaganda. At the same time, Marxists need to make sure that they can continue to operate under illegal conditions during the war.

 

 

 

5. The program of revolutionary defeatism

 

 

 

Trotsky once noted: “On the question of war, which is the other side of the question of the proletarian revolution, the irreconcilable opposition between communism and social patriotism will reach its most acute expression.“ ^[49] And indeed, the struggle against imperialist and reactionary war is not only a class struggle as it is directed against the bourgeoisie but also because it is a political and ideological struggle against the social-chauvinist parties. Lenin, picking up a note of Engels, emphasised in What Is To Be Done? that there are three forms of class struggle – the political, economic and ideological. The ideological struggle of Marxists against reformist parties is part of the class struggle for the liberation of the working class.

 

The class struggle in general and the struggle against chauvinism and militarism in particular is a struggle between classes respectively the institutions and organisations which represent them (state, parties, trade unions, etc.). The struggle of the workers and oppressed is consequently led by parties, trade unions, guerilla movements, etc. Each force stands for a specific program, representing the interests of different classes respectively fractions of classes.

 

The struggle for a socialist program is therefore inextricably linked to the construction of a revolutionary workers party – nationally and internationally. Without such a party, the proletariat has no organised leadership fighting for its liberation. Without such a party, the workers can not replace the reformist leaders.

 

In other words, the struggle against imperialist and reactionary wars must go hand in hand with efforts to unite Marxists on the basis of an action program in order to advance the construction of a revolutionary world party.

 

What is the program of such a party against war and imperialism? In the Marxist tradition, such a program is called revolutionary defeatism, a term which derives from the desire of Marxists to see the defeat of “their” government in an imperialist or reactionary war.

 

„The standpoint of social-chauvinism is shared equally by both advocates of victory for their governments in the present war and by advocates of the slogan of “neither victory nor defeat”. A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, and cannot fail to see that the latter’s military reverses must facilitate its overthrow. Only a bourgeois who believes that a war started by governments must necessarily end as a war between governments, and wants it to end as such, can regard as “ridiculous” and “absurd” the idea that the socialists of all the belligerent countries should express their wish that all their “own” governments should be defeated. On the contrary, it is a statement of this kind that would be in keeping with the innermost thoughts of every class-conscious worker, and be in line with our activities for the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war.“ ^[50]

 

Since the RCIT has dealt repeatedly and extensively with the program of revolutionary defeatism, we will limit ourselves at this place to a brief summary. [51] Basically, Marxists view all conflicts from the viewpoint of the interests of the international proletariat. We side with struggles (including wars) of the working class and the oppressed peoples against imperialist powers and reactionary oppressors (without lending political support to the non-revolutionary leadership which is usually at the top of such struggles). In such conflicts, we are defensists on the side of the workers and oppressed people but defeatists towards the reactionary forces. In contrast, we take a dual defeatist position in conflicts between two imperialist respectively reactionary camps.

 

The main goal of revolutionaries in imperialist countries is use the experience of such conflicts in order to weaken the political bond of workers with their own ruling class. Likewise, they strive to utilize such conflicts in order to advance the class struggle against their own (as well as any other) bourgeoisie. This is the deeper meaning of the famous slogans of revolutionary defeatism: “The main enemy is at home” and “Turn the guns and convert the imperialist war into civil war”.

 

Likewise, we oppose all those strategies which draw the workers in imperialist countries closer to their ruling class and we support those slogans and struggles which bring them closer to workers from other and, in particular, from oppressed nations.

 

Such a program of revolutionary defeatism must not start only after an armed conflict between two states has begun. Socialists must fight for such a program already in peaceful times, even more so as “war is a mere continuation of policy by other means.”, as Lenin liked to quote the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz. [52] War is therefore not something exceptional, “unnatural” in capitalism but rather an inevitable part of this system.

 

“War is no chance happening, no “sin” as is thought by Christian priests (who are no whit behind the opportunists in preaching patriotism, humanity and peace), but an inevitable stage of capitalism, just as legitimate a form of the capitalist way of life as peace is.” ^[53]

 

Hence, for Marxists the policy of class struggle, of utilising all difficulties of the ruling class in order to weaken and eventually to overthrow it, remains the same in times of peace as well as in times of war. Consequently, the means of fighting reactionary wars are fundamentally the same as those used in other struggles of the working class.

 

“The struggle against war is inseparable from the class struggle of the proletariat. Irreconcilable class consciousness is the first condition for a successful struggle against war.” ^[54]

 

“The "struggle against war" cannot be conducted as something separate and apart from the class struggle itself, from the intransigent struggle of the proletariat against imperialist capitalism, that is, against that social order which inexorably gives rise to imperialist war and oppression and which is inconceivable without these twin scourges. Any attempt to conduct a struggle "against war" by means of "special, methods" separate or "above" the class struggle itself is at best a cruel illusion and as a rule a malicious deception that facilitates the work of the imperialist warmongers.” ^[55]

 

In other words, the whole policy of conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war – which reformists and centrists find so scandalous – is nothing but the application of Marxism to the conditions of the epoch of guns.

 

“Civil war means revolutionary Marxism (not the Marxism of Kautsky and Plekhanov, but that of Marx and Engels), applied to the conditions of the first imperialist world war.“ ^[56]

 

 

 

Revolutionary defeatism in conflicts between imperialist states

 

 

 

In conflicts between imperialist powers – from sanctions, tariff war up to armed confrontations – Marxists support neither side; they rather oppose all of them and strive to weaken their government. This includes organizing illegally in underground, voting in parliament against the military budget, to refuse entering any institutions which serve the reactionary war, calling for mass protests, etc. It also includes illegal work within the armed forces.

 

Such fundamental opposition to any imperialist power also means that socialists must not lend support to the enemy of my enemy, i.e. to other Great Powers. This is a widespread but mistaken approach among sectors of the left in North America and Western Europe who sympathise with Russian and Chinese imperialism. Likewise, sectors of progressive anti-Putin forces in Russia sympathise with Western countries. Such an approach effectively transmits the necessary struggle of the masses against their regime into the hands of the ruling class. The RCIT calls such support for other Great Powers (rivalling with one’s own) “inverted social-imperialism”.

 

Combatting social-chauvinism requires also intransigent struggle against pacifism – a petty-bourgeois utopia which only serves to weaken the struggle of the working class. We strictly oppose the policy of dropping weapons in the struggle against imperialist powers and reactionary ruling classes armed to the teeth.

 

„Pacifism, the preaching of peace in the abstract, is one of the means of duping the working class. Under capitalism, particuarly in its imperialist stage, wars are inevitable. On the other hand, however, Social-Democrats cannot overlook the positive significance of revolutionary wars, i.e., not imperialist wars.“ ^[57]

 

“Marxists have never forgotten that violence must inevitably accompany the collapse of capitalism in its entirety and the birth of socialist society. That violence will constitute a period of world history, a whole era of various kinds of wars, imperialist wars, civil wars inside countries, the intermingling of the two, national wars liberating the nationalities oppressed by the imperialists and by various combinations of imperialist powers that will inevitably enter into various alliances in the epoch of tremendous state-capitalist and military trusts and syndicates.” ^[58]

 

 

 

The struggle of oppressed peoples against imperialist and reactionary states

 

 

 

Hence, the RCIT supports the struggles – from demonstrations up to insurrection and war – of oppressed nations and countries. We call workers living within the reactionary camp to sabotage the war efforts of “their” ruling class, to aid the struggle of the oppressed, etc. In peaceful times, such an approach means to oppose all forms of discrimination against oppressed nations and dependent countries (from sanctions and tariffs to visa regulations). [59]

 

There are also wars with dual or contradictory character, i.e. conflicts which involve both confrontations between an imperialist power and a semi-colonial country as well as between Great Power rivals. In such a case Marxists must determine if the inter-imperialist conflict is the dominating feature which subordinates the just liberation war of the dependent country or not. The Ukraine War is an actual example for such a conflict with contradictory character. Until now, the struggle of the Ukrainian people has not become subordinated – despite the joint efforts of Trump and Putin to bring it to a close in favour of the Kremlin – and it remains a just war. [60]

 

The systematic discrimination of migrants in imperialist countries is another type of national oppression. Here too, revolutionaries fight for full equality of migrants, i.e. for equal wages and social benefits, for their right to freely enter the country, to use their native language in public schools and administration, to live according to their customs and to have full citizenship rights including the right to vote. Such a program could be the basis to build a revolutionary migrants’ movement.

 

Socialists should strive to integrate migrants into joint class struggle with native workers for decent wages and against job cuts. This should be combined with efforts to integrate migrant workers into the labour movement and to use their participation to revolutionise the trade unions which are usually bureaucratically degenerated institutiuons representing only a minority of better-paid native workers.

 

 

 

6. The objective social basis of defeatism

 

 

 

We have shown that there exists an objective basis for the relative strength of social-chauvinism – the existence of a labour bureaucracy and aristocracy which are tied to the bourgeoisie via numerous institutions and privileges, the long and unchallenged political tradition of patriotism within the workers movement in imperialist countries, the weakness of revolutionary forces, etc.

 

However, it is important to recognise that there exist also counter-veiling tendencies rooted in the objective contradictions of capitalist societies in the early 21^st century. By this we do not talk about the inevitable emergence of tensions and explosions in the course of a major war as we saw in the two world wars or during the Vietnam War. We rather think about current social and political developments which objectively undermine the efforts of the ruling class to mobilise the society for support or for participation in reactionary wars.

 

As we already noted in our book on Great Power rivalry, Western imperialist societies are characterised by a deep moral crisis reflecting the decline and the degeneration of capitalism. Victor Serge, a communist writer in the 1920s and 1930s who became a militant of Trotsky’s Left Opposition in the USSR (for which he was persecuted by the Stalin regime), once pointed out: “You cannot lead the masses to commit murder without justifying it by great ideas.” [61] However, Western societies don’t have any “great ideas” which seize the masses and instil them with enthusiasm to make sacrifices for their country. This is, we note in passing, obviously in deep contrast to oppressed peoples engaged in liberation struggles as the heroic Palestinian resistance demonstrates since many years! We have seen similar developments in national liberation struggles in Europe in the past three decades (see Bosnia, Kosova, Chechnya and, currently, in Ukraine).

 

According to a recently published poll, only 17% of all Germans are committed to defend their country with arms in case of an attack. 60% would “definitely” or “probably” refuse to do so. [62] Things are not much better in other Western European countries. Add to this the fact that an increasing number of citizens are physically or mentally unfit to serve in the army. According to a Pentagon study, 80% of Americans between the ages of 17 to 24 are unfit for military service because of overweight, drug use, or physical and mental health. [63] Clearly, bad food and an individualist and consumerist culture take a toll!

 

Another example of the weakness of Western societies is Israel and how its population deals with the genocidal war in Gaza. Despite the fact that the Zionist state can slaughter the Palestinians without many risks – only 829 soldiers and hardly any civilians have been killed after 7 October 2023 – the Israeli society is traumatized. According to a recently published article of ynet (the online outlet for Yedioth Ahronoth, one of the major newspapers in Israel), up to 3 million people suffer from PTSD (out of 7.2 Jews living in Israel). [64]

 

Such lack of patriotic support is not limited to Western societies. It is telling that until now Putin has not dared to order full mobilization of military reservists for his Ukraine War out of fear that this could provoke domestic unrest. In the first year of the war, nearly one million Russian men fled the country in order to avoid conscription. True, there also exists a camp of fanatical chauvinist Zniks but they are rather a small minority among the population.

 

 

 

Growing gap between the ruling class and sectors of society

 

 

 

Such developments have to be seen in a broader context. The decay of capitalism has resulted to an increasing gap between the ruling class and their “public opinion”, on one hand, and significant sectors of the popular masses, on the other hand. Elected institutions and media become less and less representative of the views of the population.

 

This became evident during the COVID Counterrevolution in 2020/21 when significant sectors of the population didn’t believe anymore the announcements of their governments or broke the draconic rules imposed on them. We leave aside at this point that the consciousness of these sectors of the masses was often confused and combined progressive as well as reactionary ideas. In fact, the experience of people with bonapartist police-state measures during this time has deepened the process of alienation.

 

Another related process is the demographic decline of Western white societies and the increasing share of migrants and national/racial minorities. As we did show somewhere else, the share of migrants of the population in the rich countries has tripled since 1960. Today, migrants constitute a substantial share of the population in many countries – for example in Austria (19.4%), Germany (16%), Britain (13.8%) or France (12.5%). ^[65] This is even more the case among the labour force in large cities. In Austria, according to figures for 2021, migrants represent 40.8% of blue-colour workers and 20% of white-colour workers in 2021 and in Vienna this share is even 79.3% resp. 41.4%. [66]

 

Bourgeois media often bemoan that migrants do not “integrate themselves” and create “parallel societies”. Naturally, they don’t mention that this is the result of the systematic discrimination by the racist state and its institutions. Anyway, an important consequence of this development is that a growing sector of the masses is much less prone to assimilate chauvinism from the very state which nationally oppresses them. One can symbolically observe this development when Germany, France or Austria plays a home fixture against the Algerian or Turkish national football team. Usually, there are no less supporters for the Algerian or Turkish team than for the home side, but these fans don’t come from abroad but are migrants living in these countries for years and decades.

 

Naturally, those people detached from the “public opinion” don’t have necessarily a progressive consciousness. We saw this partly during the protests against the Lockdown policy. Another example for “reactionary defeatism” is minority sectors of Europe’s population which have sympathies with Russian imperialism since the beginning of the Ukraine War. Such people support another imperialist state out of hatred for “their” imperialist government. We saw a similar development in France in 1939/40 where sectors of the population had no desire to defend “their” state and sympathized with the Nazi invaders.

 

It is evident that those sectors of the working class which have already developed mistrust towards “public opinion” or which face national oppression (migrants) are an important milieu for Marxists who strive to build an anti-imperialist, defeatist opposition against militarization drive of the ruling class. The task is to pick up raw, politically not developed “defeatist” sentiments, to combine these with conscious political opposition against the chauvinism and imperialist wars and to link these with a class struggle perspective against the capitalist state.

 

Finally, it is also important to observe frictions between the chauvinists. This is important not only in order to recognize possible weaknesses in the enemy camp but also to see if there are sectors of the masses which are moving to the left and which can be broken away. In Israel, for example, we currently see developments among Zionists who are becoming opponents of the genocidal war against Gaza. Initially, most protesters against Netanyahu just wanted a break in the war in order to get their hostages back so that they can continue the genocide after such a break. However, now there exists a minority which wants to end war without ifs and buts. Naturally, our comrades in the ISL (the RCIT section in Israel / Occupied Palestine) have been prepared to collaborate with such forces on the basis of the united front tactic and strive to push them towards a break with Zionism. [67]

 

 

 

7. Revolutionary defeatism and agitation

 

 

 

Revolutionaries which take a defeatist position against “their” ruling class, its chauvinism and its wars, must be prepared to swim against the stream, at least in the early phase of war. A Marxist who is not ready to do this should better leave political work altogether because there can be no advance towards liberation without struggles and sacrifices. Anyway, it is certainly true that Marxists will face enormous difficulties to even win the workers vanguard for a program of revolutionary defeatism, not to speak about the masses. However, this does not mean that it would be impossible to make steps forward to weaken the patriotic attachment of sectors of the masses with the imperialist and reactionary state.

 

Of course, chauvinist consciousness will be overcome first and foremost not by the means of propaganda and agitation but by practical experience in the class struggle. However, in order to involve the masses in the struggle, the workers vanguard needs a clear understanding of chauvinism and how to combat it. For this Marxists need to seriously engage with politically advanced workers and to explain them the program of revolutionary defeatism by means of propaganda (“many ideas for a few”, as Grigory Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism, defined it). On the other hand, it is also necessary to address sectors of the masses by means of agitation (“few ideas for many“) and try to bring them closer to a defeatist point of view.

 

 

 

Fertile soil for anti-imperialist agitation

 

 

 

As we did show, the program of revolutionary defeatism includes by its very essence support for the liberation struggles of oppressed nations, even more so if such are directed against one’s own “ruling class” or against one of its close allies. Russia’s war against Ukraine and Israel’s genocide in Gaza are therefore huge tests for Marxists living in these countries (respectively in allied countries in Europe and the U.S. in the case of the Zionist settler state).

 

Such anti-imperialist solidarity activities have a popular base in Russia as well as in Western Europe. In Russia, one fifth of the population belong to national minorities and another 10% are migrants. Naturally, under the conditions of the nearly-totalitarian Putin regime, it is currently not possible for them to openly demonstrate their opposition publicly. In fact, the massive amount of repression forces defeatist opponents of Putin’s war – like our comrades in the Russian RCIT section as well as other activists – to operate in the political underground.

 

However, things are different in Western Europe where Muslim migrants constitute the core of pro-Palestine demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of participants. Naturally, such protests are an important opportunity not only to support the Palestinian liberations struggle but also to link these to political opposition against the imperialist state. Marxists need to explain that a state which supports Israel and, at the same, suppresses pro-Palestine activities at home, such a state is not “our state” but rather the state of the ruling elite; hence, that it is not worth supporting it against imperialist rivals, but that it should rather be replaced by a workers republic.

 

Even football matches can be used for anti-imperialist agitation as the pro-Palestine solidarity actions by supporters of Celtic Glasgow, Paris St. Germain, Osasuna and other clubs have shown since 7 October. It is, by the way, no accident that these three mentioned clubs have their base among discriminated national minorities. Celtic Glasgow and Osasuna are in Scotland respectively Basque country and Paris St. Germain has a sizeable share of Arab supporters from Maghreb.

 

Interventions in movements like that in solidarity with Palestine are also crucial because internationalist class consciousness can be built on a mass scale only in the class struggle, only via the practical experience when workers from different national origin fight side by side or if international solidarity actions decisively help the struggle of workers in one country. Hence, socialists must actively strive to build such international and multinational campaigns and struggles.

 

 

 

A dialogue with advocates of chauvinism

 

 

 

Agitation among the masses in the spirit of revolutionary defeatism must relate to the experience of the popular masses and draw on the inner contradictions of the capitalist system. The ruling class tries to rally support for chauvinist policy – sanctions and tariffs against imperialist rivals, military intervention (or support for such) in the Global South, entry restrictions for refugees, emergency measures against “Islamist extremists”, etc. Faced with such attacks, Marxists must challenge the national paradigm.

 

They must explain that “We” are not threatened by Palestinian resistance fighters. How do the Palestinians affect our lives negatively?! Would you not also defend your family and your homeland if a foreign power comes and tries to expel and kill you?! And why on earth do our rulers support the Israeli mass murders with arms and economic trade when the majority of the population here clearly rejects such? Does this not show that the class at the top of the state has completely separated interests which strongly differ from ours?!

 

Likewise, “We” are not threatened by smart mobiles from China. It is Western competitors on the market who are threatened to lose some profits (and who usually have close connections with various politicians and ministers). “But the Chinese communist state could collect our data!” Well, leaving aside the fact that these supposed “communists” are not so communist as they have many millionaires in their ranks, what could Beijing do with my data? You and I will probably never travel to this country. The much bigger danger is rather that “our” government and “our” tech corporations want to collect data about its citizens. This could do much more harm to us than capitalists and governments living thousands of kilometres far away because such data could provide my boss, my health insurance, our tax authority with information which they use against our interests.

 

“But cheap electric vehicles from China destroy our car industry!” Well, there were periods where U.S. carmakers dominated the world market, then came the Japanese and the Germans, and so on. They all tried to destroy their competitors. Now it is China which is rising. The purpose of a car is to bring me, my family, my friends from one point to another. For me, it doesn’t matter where the vehicle has been produced as long as it can serve this purpose and is not expensive. Most countries don’t have a significant domestic car industry which could be threatened by BYD, SAIC, BAIC or Dongfeng. In general, capitalists are a bunch of greedy people. Remember how large the industry was in our country and how many factories have been closed in the past decades! Why did this happen? It was because the owners thought they can make more profit if they transfer the factories to countries with lower wages and worse protection of labour. Many of them actually invested in China and helped creating the rivals of today. So, in the end, it is the fault of the greedy capitalists in our country. And now we shall again support the domestic bosses?! Definitely not! If they run the enterprises against our interests, we should stop them. Their corporations should be nationalised and put under the control of the workers.

 

And “We” are also not threatened by Muslims meeting in a mosque. Let them meet and pray as Christians and Jews can do likewise. Do Muslims force you to join them praying? No? So, what is your problem?! “Our culture is threatened?” This must be a very weak culture if it can be undermined by mosques and people speaking in a different language which you don’t understand!” And, anyway, where did your culture lead us to? Don’t you see how rotten the capitalist society has become?! Let people decide for themselves about religion, language, culture, and sexual orientation. Why do you want to interfere in such private issues? It is much more important is that we resist together against the attacks which we are facing: wage cuts, factory closures, higher taxes, attacks on democratic rights, etc.!

 

“Migrant workers and refugees threaten our jobs!“ No, it is not migrants who decide if we are sacked or not. It is the capitalists who are doing this – they are the problem. The capitalists must be forced to pay equal wages for all – irrespective of their national origin or their passport. If there is such legislation or if we can force the owners of our enterprise to pay the same wages, we can undercut their attempts to divide us along national lines. Anyway, why do you curse migrants – do you want to do their jobs as cleaners or food delivery workers?!

 

“But we must increase expenses for our military as we need to prepare for an attack by foreign powers! Do you not want to defend your country so that it does not become occupied?!” today and since a number of years, we are not attacked by foreign powers but by our own government. These governments increase military spending but cut social and health expenditures – so this is an attack on us. The ruling elite in our countries has waged war against other peoples or supported such attacks (Russia against Ukraine; Israel and its Western allies against Palestine; Western powers against Afghanistan and Iraq) This elite will use more powerful weapons to threaten and attack other countries. Why should we renounce our social and health benefits so that they can wage war? Of course, I am against foreign occupation of my country. But currently, my people are under attack by our own government. We are occupied by an evil elite which wants to squeeze us. If, one day, we are occupied by another power, we will equally fight them as we fight our elite today. So essentially, we defend always our people against the ruling class – the domestic as well as the foreign one. And, importantly, we defend our people – not “our” state which, in reality, is their state, the state of the ruling class!

 

Of course, we do not have the illusion that one could easily convince chauvinist workers with such arguments. But there exist not only internationalists and hardened chauvinists – there are also many shades in between. Furthermore, such anti-chauvinist agitation must be conducted repeatedly, and one must look for results in the long run. This is even more the case as attacks of governments and bosses on the domestic working class will increase conflicts, tensions and struggles and, hence, automatically undermine the chauvinist unity.

 

In the end, it is inevitable that chauvinism, militarism and war will accelerate the inner contradictions of the capitalist system resulting in political explosions, mass struggles and revolutionary crises. The key task of Marxists today is to advance the creation of a revolutionary party – nationally and internationally – in order to organise the workers vanguard on the basis of a consistent internationalist and anti-imperialist program.

 

This is even more important given the fact that the strength of social-chauvinism rests to an important part on the organisational weight of reformist parties and their domination of the labour movement. The struggle against social-chauvinism is therefore, by its very nature, not only a struggle against wrong ideas but also, and in particular, against organised forces which advocate such ideas, and which link the masses to the ruling class. Ideas don’t exist without being and social-chauvinist ideas don’t exist without social-chauvinist parties. Neither one nor the other can be defeated without the organised forces of authentic Marxism!

 

The RCIT calls all those who share our perspective of fighting for an internationalist and anti-imperialist program to join forces in order to advance the construction of a revolutionary world party!