Chauvinism and revolutionary defeatism¶
Core Argument¶
Chauvinism and revolutionary defeatism
The central error of the Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL) lies in its fundamental misreading of the Marxist attitude towards imperialist war. By accusing the Workers’ International League (WIL) of social chauvinism, the RSL reveals a profound theoretical confusion. Lenin defined social chauvinism precisely as support for “defending the fatherland” in an imperialist war — a position that repudiates class struggle and aligns the worker with his own bourgeoisie. The WIL’s actual politics bear no relation to this definition. Trotsky’s formula — “the chief enemy of the people is in its own country” — remains the correct proletarian policy. To pose the problem otherwise is to become an inverted chauvinist, objectively supporting the enemy bourgeoisie by directing the main fire elsewhere.
The RSL further errs by demanding that the WIL agitate for turning the imperialist war into civil war. Lenin’s own writings demolish this complaint. He argued that raising such a slogan at the wrong moment is “lunacy” and “Blanquism” — it can only be advanced when the masses already recognise its necessity. Lenin warned that advanced parties often repeat slogans that were correct yesterday but become meaningless after a sharp historical turn. At a certain revolutionary stage, he explicitly denied “fanning civil war,” insisting instead that the main task was “patient explaining” of proletarian policy against petty-bourgeois defencism. The responsibility for civil war, he insisted, lay with the bourgeoisie, not the revolutionary party.
Trotsky explained that during the last war, the Bolsheviks’ refusal to defend the bourgeois fatherland could not by itself win the masses, who did not want a foreign conqueror. The decisive slogan was “All power to the soviets.” The RSL mistakes the necessary propaganda and cadre-training phase for the entire strategy. Lenin’s pamphlet The Threatening Catastrophe, written on the eve of the seizure of power, explicitly argued for transforming the imperialist war into a just, revolutionary war. The RSL’s charge that the WIL’s slogan is “turn the imperialist war into a workers’ anti-fascist war” applies far more to Lenin himself. The WIL’s main attack is not directed against fascist regimes but against the British bourgeoisie, as their press demonstrates. The RSL’s position is thus not revolutionary intransigence but sectarian inversion — a chauvinism of the left that objectively serves the enemy.