Prises de position - Prese di posizione - Toma de posición - Statements - Prohlášení - Заявления

“Revolutionary Communist International”: Neither Communist, Nor Revolutionary!

A year ago, the “Revolutionary Communist International” was founded in Italy, presenting itself as the “world party of revolutionary communism.” This founding was preceded in various countries where the organisation is active by a marketing campaign titled “Are you a communist?” One of its leaders declared in the closing speech at the founding conference of the RCI: “We are a revolutionary organisation, we have always been one and we will always remain one” (1).

We will show that behind these bombastic declarations hides a thoroughly deceptive product…

The RCI is a reincarnation of the “International Marxist Tendency” (IMT), itself a continuation of the “Militant Tendency” (MT), a Trotskyist organisation based in the UK that practised “entryism” in the British Labour Party. Entryism was a tactic recommended by Trotsky in the 1930s to rapidly grow the ranks of revolutionary militants: it consisted of entering socialist parties to recruit from their left wings, taking advantage of internal rules that allowed for factional activity. After the war, entryism became a defining practice of Trotskyists – they did not hesitate to disguise themselves as social-democratic reformists or Stalinists, as long as the tactic served its purpose.

This practice is, in reality, a sign of the opportunist degeneration of the Trotskyist movement: if someone dresses as a reformist and acts like a reformist, he becomes a reformist — regardless of what reservations or ideas he may privately hold. Proletarian politics cannot be conducted through unprincipled manoeuvres, pretence, and concealment: proletarians, who must struggle against a world of lies and confusion, need above all clarity. Trotsky himself aptly formulated the question of tactical manoeuvres: “The most important, best established, and most unalterable rule to apply in every maneuver reads: you must never dare to merge, mix, or combine your own party organization with an alien one, even though the latter be most ‘sympathetic’ today. Undertake no such steps as lead directly or indirectly, openly or maskedly, to the subordination of your party to other parties, or to organizations of other classes, or constrict the freedom of your own agitation, or your responsibility, even if only in part, for the political line of other parties. You shall not mix up the banners, let alone kneel before another banner.”

“It was not flexibility that served (nor should it serve today) as the basic trait of Bolshevism but rather granite hardness. It was precisely of this quality, for which its enemies and opponents reproached it, that Bolshevism was always justly proud. Not blissful “optimism” but intransigence, vigilance, revolutionary distrust, and the struggle for every hand’s breadth of independence’ these are the essential traits of Bolshevism” (2) This is a condemnation of the “flexible” manoeuvres that the Communist International imposed on the communist parties — and all the more so of entryism… (even if Trotsky himself later forgot it few years later).

The IMT and MT were undisputed champions of entryism — not only into the British Labour Party, but also into other reformist parties at the international level (such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, La France Insoumise in France, Rifondazione Comunista in Italy, etc.), including outright bourgeois parties like the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of the Bhutto family clan. Decades of unwavering attachment to the Labour Party — one of the two main parties of British imperialism alongside the Conservative (Tory) Party — could not help but leave their mark on the political orientation of this group. For example, during the Falklands War waged by Britain against Argentina in the summer of 1982, with the support of the Labour Party, they supported British imperialism and criticised the alleged incompetence of Margaret Thatcher’s government, stating: “Using socialist methods, a Labour government could rapidly defeat the [Argentine, editor’s note] dictatorship.” (3)

On the theoretical-programmatic level, the group openly professed its belief in democratism, stating for example: “(…) The Conservative Party (Tory) should have more rights in a socialist Great Britain than the Labour Party has today (…). The Conservative Party should have the full right to exist in a socialist Great Britain.” And after declaring that “it has always been the capitalists — not the working class or the Marxists — who have tried to overthrow election results by force when their position was threatened,” they concluded: “Nevertheless, all the intrigues and conspiracies of the capitalists cannot succeed in the face of a bold socialist policy backed by the mass mobilisation of the workers’ movement. A completely peaceful socialist transformation of society is possible in Britain.” (4)

Out of the hundreds of possible Marxist quotations, one will suffice – from Lenin, in The State and Revolution: “The necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely this view of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. The betrayal of their theory by the now prevailing social-chauvinist and Kautskyite trends expresses itself strikingly in both these trends ignoring such propaganda and agitation. The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution” (5). By spreading the idea of a “transformation” (sic! – a word that sounds more palatable than “revolution”) of society by peaceful means, the Militant Tendency merely revealed its betrayal of the entire Marxist doctrine – its opportunist, reformist, and non-revolutionary character.

In 1994, when the majority of the Militant Tendency (MT) decided to leave the Labour Party (and form the Socialist Party), the remaining members created the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) and continued their activity within the Labour Party – without, of course, changing their political orientation. Alan Woods, the leader of the IMT (and now of the RCI), wrote at the time: “A peaceful transformation of society would be entirely possible if the trade union and reformist leaders were prepared to use the colossal power in their hands to change society. (…) Against the bourgeois and the reformists who always try to frighten the workers with the spectre of violence and civil war, and the sects who lose no opportunity to advertise their enthusiasm for ‘bloody revolution’, thereby rendering a great service to the bourgeois and the reformists, we insist that we stand for a peaceful transformation of society (…). We make it absolutely clear that we are in favour of a peaceful transformation of society, that we are prepared to fight for such a transformation” (6).

Of course, he admits that this is not what Lenin wrote in The State and Revolution; while Lenin was correct at the time, his stance was supposedly “concrete and dialectical, not formalistic and abstract”. In fact, Lenin and Trotsky themselves supposedly wanted a peaceful revolution in Russia! There are no fixed rules; the concrete forms and phases of the revolution – and even more so the specific tactics to be followed – allegedly cannot be memorised like a revolutionary cookbook: “Such a manual does not exist, and, if it did, would do more harm than good to those who attempted to use it. The conditions in which the revolution unfolds will differ from one country to another, and from one period to another.” (7) One might well wonder why the Communist International ever issued binding tactical guidelines and conditions for its parties – when, among other things, it stated that “the class struggle (…) which inevitably turns into a civil war” (8)!

In reality, the leader of the IMT adopts the classic argumentation not only of the Stalinists with their “national roads to socialism” – which allowed them to completely renounce the lessons of the Russian Revolution – but also of the entire reformist current, labelled “opportunist” precisely because it abandoned Marxist principles in an effort to adapt to bourgeois pressure. This line begins with the German socialist Bernstein, who at the end of the 19th century claimed that the positions of Marx and Engels were outdated: according to him, their so-called anti-democratic stance regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat and the violent seizure of power had to be abandoned, as these positions allegedly corresponded to a historical stage already left behind.

Similarly, Woods explains that the term “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which Marx used to refer to the transitional state between capitalism and socialism, “has led to a serious misunderstanding (…). For Marx the word dictatorship came from the Roman Republic, where it meant a situation where in time of war, the normal rules were set aside for a temporary period (…). In reality Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” is merely another term for the political rule of the working class or a workers’ democracy” (9).

Although Woods cannot openly claim kinship with the “revisionist” Bernstein – whose theses were rejected by all Marxists – nor with Stalinism (as he identifies as a Trotskyist), his organisation fits fully within this same line. It is therefore no surprise that it had no problem enthusiastically supporting the so-called “Bolivarian Revolution” in Venezuela – and that Alan Woods even aspired to act as Chávez’s advisor (10).

For decades, the Militant Tendency (MT) and later the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) repeated their criticism of so-called “sectarians”, who allegedly have “the inability to understand that the mass of the working class moves through its traditional mass organisations. (…) Despite the bankruptcy of the Labour leadership, the British working class does not throw away its organizations like a man changing his shirt. These organisations have been painfully built up over generations and will not be abandoned at the drop of a hat. The working class is not stupid and understands it is far easier to change an existing mass organisation, however bureaucratised, than to create a new one. Such have been the lessons of history ‑ for those who are prepared to learn ‑ of the last 100 years and more. (…) The Labour Party was fundamentally created by the trade unions to represent the interests of organized Labour in Parliament. In effect, despite its reformist leadership and programme, it was the political voice of the British trade unions” (11).

Incidentally, according to this logic, Lenin would have to be counted among those “sectarians” — although he supported temporary affiliation with the Labour Party, he also explicitly rejected the claim that the party was “the political expression” of the trade union movement”. In his view, it was “a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation or the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers” (12). For MT and IMT, on the contrary, it is precisely the working class that can transform its mass organisations and push them to the left when the class struggle intensifies: “When the working class enters into motion, it inevitably turns to its traditional organisations. This has been the historical experience of the last two hundred years in Britain — and elsewhere” (13). And it is precisely this, they argue, that justifies remaining and struggling within these organisations.

The IMT, however, eventually decided to abandon this supposed historical experience, put an end to its entryism, and transform itself into the Revolutionary Communist International. According to the Manifesto of the Revolutionary Communist International (14), there has been a “change in consciousness” of masses — and the proof offered is a public opinion poll in Britain (!). “The change is most clearly expressed in the trend towards communist ideas among the youth. These young people call themselves communists, although many have never read the Communist Manifesto and have no knowledge of scientific socialism. (…) The best [of them] say, ‘we want communism. Only that and nothing less than that.’ ”

Some even speak of a supposed “turn to the left”. The language has apparently changed — while the word “communist” used to be taboo in their publications, today it is said to appear everywhere. We are even told that more and more communists are emerging spontaneously. It all sounds impressive — but what does it actually mean? In their “Manifesto…” we read:

“We are genuine communists – Bolshevik-Leninists – who were bureaucratically excluded from the ranks of the communist movement by Stalin. We have always fought to maintain the red banner of October and genuine Leninism, and now we must reclaim our rightful place as an integral part of the world communist movement. The time has come to open an honest discussion in the movement about the past (…)”

For the RCI, the heirs of Stalinism — that is, the defenders of the capitalist order whose counterrevolutionary role is historically proven — are supposedly real communists!!! To claim membership in the same "movement" as these parties is, in reality, nothing more than an admission that one is just as far removed from genuine communism as they are.

The change in vocabulary and the abandonment (temporary?) of entryism is not accompanied by any change in the political orientation that has characterised this current from its inception; there is not the slightest hint of critical re-evaluation to be found. The Manifesto, the so-called "founding document" of the RCI, remains silent on this point. What stands out when reading this text is the fact that it says absolutely nothing about their conception of revolution — and the word revolution itself appears only a few times in the non-historical sections, and only in passing.

This silence is not innocent — especially not for an organisation that, until recently, defended the idea of a non-violent revolution. Although the Manifesto emphasises the “expropriation of the bankers and capitalists”, it offers no explanation as to whether this expropriation is the decisive factor in changing society — as MT and IMT used to claim — nor whether it could be achieved through electoral victory, as they also asserted. The failure to clarify this crucial point is nothing but a hypocritical way to reaffirm their thoroughly reformist perspective, which they have never abandoned despite their new “communist” rhetoric. The RCI may pretend to “return to Lenin” — but only in order to trample all the more thoroughly on everything Lenin taught!

In reality — as we have shown with several examples — these people are neither communists nor revolutionaries, they never were, and they never will be!

(1) The Revolutionary Communist International has arrived! Available at: https://communism.ie/the-revolutionary-communist-international-has-arrived/.

(2) TROTSKY, Leon. The Third International After Lenin (1929), US edition. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm

(3) Militant International Review, June 1982. Available at: https://socialismtoday.org/archive/108/falklands.html

(5) Lenin, V. I. State and Revolution (1917), in Collected Works, vol. 25, p. 405. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974.

(6) Woods, Alan. Marxism and the State (2008). Emphasis in the original. He explains in detail that such a peaceful revolution began in France in 1968, but was betrayed by the Stalinists who refused to take power. Available at: https://marxist.com/marxism-and-the-state-part-one.htm

(8) Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution, adopted by the Second Congress of the Communist International, 1920. Available at: https://pcint.org/15_Textes_Theses/07_03_en/1920-theses-role-party-com-international.htm

(9) Woods, Alan. The Role of the State and Social Democracy, July 2017. Emphasis in the original. Available at: https://marxist.com/role-state-and-social-democracy.htm. Marx wrote: “What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.” See Letter to J. Weydemeyer, 5 March 1852.

(10) Woods, Alan. Where is the Venezuelan Revolution Going? A Contribution to the Debate on Property and the Tasks of the Revolution, October 2010. Available at: https://marxist.com/where-is-the-venezuelan-revolution-going.htm

(11) Sectarianism is not the way forward for the British left, May 2007. Available at: https://communist.red/sectarianism-british-left-socialism-local-elections-campaign-new-workers-party-workers-movement

(12) Lenin, V. I. Speech on Affiliation to the British Labour Party, 6 August 1920, in Collected Works, vol. 31, p. 258. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974.

(14) Manifesto of the Revolutionary Communist International. Available at: https://marxist.com/manifesto-of-the-revolutionary-communist-international.htm

Il comunista - le prolétaire - el proletario - proletarian - programme communiste - el programa comunista - Communist Program