Programme of the International¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter presents a comprehensive Marxist critique of the international workers' movement from the First International through to the mid-twentieth century, arguing that successive internationals degenerated as they lost their revolutionary moorings. The First International, organised by Marx, united advanced workers but dissolved in 1876 after the Paris Commune. The Second International grew during capitalism's organic upswing but collapsed in 1914 when its leadership supported their national states in imperialist war. The Third International, founded after the Russian Revolution, was soon corrupted by Stalin's bureaucracy, which introduced 'socialism in one country' as the ideology of the privileged officialdom. The Left Opposition under Trotsky fought this degeneration but was expelled, and Stalinist policies—including the 'third period' theory of social fascism—split the German working class, preparing Hitler's victory.
The Fourth International was founded in 1938 on principles established by the first four congresses of the Communist International. Trotsky predicted that war would provoke revolution and that within ten years the Fourth International would become decisive. This prognosis proved conditional; the weakness of revolutionary forces became decisive in world politics. Post-war developments confounded expectations. Stalinism emerged strengthened, with imperialism on the defensive. The alliance between Anglo-American imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy was dictated by mutual fear of socialist revolution. The International Secretariat's 1946 resolution declared that "diplomatic pressure alone" could "restore capitalism in the Soviet Union", while misanalysing Eastern Europe as state capitalist while maintaining Russia was a degenerated workers' state—a position incompatible with Marxist analysis.
Over the subsequent quarter century, this tendency lost its theoretical bearings, reacting empirically to events. It misanalysed the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, failed to grasp the bureaucratic character of Mao's cultural revolution, and subordinated itself to the FLN in Algeria. On Cuba, it falsely presented Castro's revolution as Marxist, ignoring that US pressure pushed him towards expropriation and that Cuba remains a Bonapartist one-party state without workers' democracy. The text condemns guerrillaism and urban warfare in Latin America as anarchist methods, insisting that national liberation must come from mass proletarian action. The Russian Revolution of 1917, not the Chinese or Cuban models, must be the guide.
The degeneration of successive internationals, while explicable by objective factors, was not thereby justified. The United Secretariat is characterised as organically incapable of transformation towards Marxism, having abandoned the Bolshevik tradition of correcting theoretical errors. A new historical epoch, opened by events like May 1968, will test Stalinist and reformist organisations. The task is to build a viable tendency in Britain with resources and authority to reach advanced elements internationally, on the basis that events will create mass centrist groupings receptive to Marxist ideas.