[Note: this letter from the ICL Comrades is in reply the Letter from LCFI to ICL(FI) (‘new Spartacists’) which we sent to them on 1st October 2024. Its an interesting response, obviously critical, which we will respond to as soon as possible.
In the interest of furthering this debate, and allowing easy access to the materials, we have added a new Debates and Discussions item to the menu for this site, containing a new page for the debate with the ICL comrades.]
Letter to the LCFI on Key Questions for Revolutionaries
By Vincent David, 7 March 2025
Dear comrades of the LCFI,
Thank you for your lengthy letter. We were quite impressed by how closely you have studied the trajectory of our tendency and its recent reorientation and we appreciate very much the thought and seriousness you have put into it. We too strongly believe in the need for more debates and discussions among tendencies with the aim of either regroupment or clarifying disagreements over key political questions.
We are glad that our change of position regarding Palestine and the anti-imperialist united front has brought us closer. We note that many points quoted in your letter from your draft program regarding the Shachtmanite baggage of our founding cadre is correct. We do, however, disagree with your assessment that Shachtmanism was the “basis for the cultist evolution/degeneration of the Spartacists under Robertson’s leadership from the 1970s onwards.” The Spartacist tendency did face serious political deformation at birth partly because of its Shachtmanite baggage. And the Spartacist tendency did face important political problems in the 1980s, which included, at times, a harsh internal regime and demagogic fights. But to understand why, we must look at the changing world situation at the time of the “New Cold War,” and our difficulty in orienting ourselves in it. And despite all these problems, our tendency threw everything it had into the struggle against capitalist counterrevolution in the DDR and the USSR while almost the entire left capitulated to this. Thus, to merely brand our tendency a “cult” does not explain anything, and is an equally apolitical and superficial explanation as that offered by the BT.
That said, this is not the subject on which we want to focus this letter or future discussions. Rather, we would like to focus on our disagreements over some key questions facing the revolutionary movement today which you raise in your letter. Thus, we will not respond to everything and will seek to center our debate over the role of Trotskyists today. We believe our central disagreement determining all the others is over the role of Marxists in the current period and the need for a revolutionary party. I will first try to lay this out and then respond to some of the specific issues you raise.
The Fundamental Issue
A reading of the LCFI program, your recent articles and your letters to us reveal not only differences in program and positions but also a difference in approach and method toward politics. The essence of our reorientation consisted in reasserting that the fundamental role of Marxists is to guide the working class in its struggles and provide it with a Marxist strategy for victory—from the most minimal struggles in the workplace all the way to the fight for power. In the words of the Communist Manifesto:
“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.”
The duty of Marxists is to clarify to the workers what needs to be done, what is the “line of march” and, crucially, what stands in the way of it. In all struggles the main obstacle to pushing forward the class is its non-revolutionary leaders—be they social democrats, nationalists, liberals, etc.—whose embrace of various bourgeois ideologies sabotages and leads to defeat the movements of workers and oppressed peoples. Thus, it is only in the struggle against the nonrevolutionary tendencies at the helm of the oppressed that the communists can really be the “most advanced and resolute section” of the proletariat, “which pushes forward all others.” And it is only in counterposing a Marxist strategy based on a clear understanding of the conditions of struggle that the communists can win the leadership of large masses and conduct the struggle against the bourgeoisie to success.
This contrasts with the LCFI, which, in our opinion, views the role of Marxists as defending orthodoxy and abstract formulas divorced from the concrete conditions of struggles. For example, the Draft Programme of the LCFI, aside from the “historical background” section, consists of a long commentary on the application (or non-application) of specific demands of the Transitional Program to today. It does not aim at developing an understanding of the world situation now, of the leaders and forces standing in the way of the working class or what are the tasks of Marxists in the current period. Rather, it compares in a literary fashion certain demands crafted in 1938 and reflects on their potential application 87 years later.
As a result, the LCFI views its role not as building an authentic Marxist wing in the existing movement but rather as pushing other forces considered to be “progressive” at a given juncture. Thus, your critical or military support to various forces—whether they be the Russian army, the Axis of Resistance, Corbyn, etc.—ends up being your “line” rather than being a component partsubordinated to the broader aim of achieving communist leadership in the movement. In other words, it appears to us that the subjective factor—the intervention of the communists fighting for a different strategy than that offered by non-revolutionary forces—plays no decisive role in your politics, which necessarily leads you to adapt and capitulate to existing non-revolutionary forces.
In your letter, you note in passing the following:
“We consider your point about the domination of the post-Soviet world by imperialist liberalism under an enhanced US imperialist world hegemony, and of there being a failure of the international left to oppose this liberalism, looking instead for inter-imperialist rivalry (which did not materialise after the collapse of the USSR) to be a worthwhile insight.”
More than a “worthwhile insight,” this is the key to explaining the current turmoil on the world stage as well as the crisis of the left in the post-Soviet period. The expansion of U.S. capital over virtually the entire globe following the destruction of the USSR proceeded in the name of liberalism, an ideology which penetrated the left and the upper layers of the workers movement. In Britain, this was best expressed with Blairism. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s up until recently, while the working class was being pummeled by the rulers in the name of liberal principles and values, the Marxist left, far from opposing liberalism, positioned itself as its most radical and “consistent” wing. In many ways, the historic crisis of the left, and of the Trotskyist movement more specifically, amounts to a capitulation to U.S. imperialism.
Now, we are entering a new historical era characterized by the decline of U.S. hegemony. Growing layers of the imperialist ruling classes represented by Trump, Farage, Le Pen and Co. are breaking with liberal values and institutions, which they see as a hindrance to shoring up their declining position. Since the radical left has become indistinguishable from the liberal middle and upper class, workers have turned their backs on the left and are looking to right-wing reaction and “anti-woke” demagogy as the alternative to the unbearable status quo. Meanwhile, many on the left continue to cling to these discredited liberal politics and institutions.
And this is precisely the political content of large parts of the LCFI letter to us. A substantial part of it is dedicated to denouncing our opposition to the European Union and to lockdowns during the pandemic—two causes célèbres of all liberals which the working class hates. Another part is essentially a defense of the liquidation of the Marxist left into Corbynism—which played a huge role in pushing masses of workers into the arms of Boris Johnson and Reform UK. What we will demonstrate in more depth is that, in our view, the central problem of the LCFI is that it capitulates to liberal ideology in the West, and capitulates to nationalist and Islamist forces and regimes in countries oppressed by imperialism. While these two things might appear mutually exclusive, in fact their common denominator is the rejection of the subjective factor—the need to build a communist pole in the various movements of the oppressed—in favor of a policy of tailing non-communist forces who are supposedly playing a “progressive” role. But let us flesh this out by going through some of the questions you raise.
Palestine/Israel and 7 October
As already mentioned, we are glad that our change of line has gotten us closer politically over the nature of the Israel/Palestine war and we are happy to leave to the BT and the IG the historic heritage of Spartacism on this question. While our tendency now places itself completely on the side of the liberation of the Palestinian people against the Zionist state, our main axis of intervention in the West has been to fight against the pro-imperialist leaders and trade union bureaucrats who are sabotaging the movement. You are already aware of the slogan we raised in the pro-Palestinian movement in Britain: “Dump Starmer to defend Palestine.” Regarding our perspectives in Palestine itself, our aim is to build a communist pole from within the Palestinian resistance movement in opposition to the nationalist strategy and current leaders. However, the criticism in your letter seems to be directed against this very aim.
You attack our 10 October 2023 leaflet, particularly its opening sentences which say:
“Let’s get two things straight. First, Palestinians face brutal national oppression and indiscriminate murder by the state of Israel—they have every right to defend themselves, including through force. Second, the targeted murder of Israeli civilians by Hamas and its allies is a despicable crime which is totally counterproductive for Palestinian liberation.”
You believe the second point to be “inaccurate, wrong” and “reads like a reactionary attack” on Hamas. Furthermore, you disagree with our explanation that:
“The entire Hamas strategy is to provoke a strong Israeli reaction, effectively strapping a suicide vest on all of Gaza. It is necessary to unequivocally stand in defense of Gaza against the bloody retaliation by Israel while at the same time opposing this disastrous strategy….”
And that:
“…If socialists do not fight for a revolutionary solution to the conflict, the growing desperation of the Palestinian people will be channelled once more into the arms of Islamist reaction while Jews are pushed deeper into the arms of Zionism. This carnival of reaction will not stay within the borders of Israel and Palestine but will spread far and wide over the Middle East and the world. It is the urgent task of socialists to break this cycle.”
You argue that “this is not an accurate rendition of the strategy of Hamas at all and is predicated on the view that their objective on 7 October was a mass slaughter of Israelis,” that we “slipped into demonisation” and that we are equating “oppressor and oppressed.” In counterposition, you quote the BT’s analysis of 7 October, which we found to be conciliatory to Hamas, as their main criticism is that they should have done more to prevent non-combatants from leaving Gaza and committing atrocities. For the LCFI, Hamas’s goal on 7 October “was to seize hostages to be traded for the many Palestinians Israel has been arbitrarily holding, torturing and abusing for many years,” as stated in Communist Fight.
In our view, the above statements in our 10 October leaflet are unobjectionable from the standpoint of Marxists. It is undeniable that the Al-Qassam brigade, while engaging the IDF on 7 October, also carried out indiscriminate murders of civilians in kibbutzim, at the Nova festival and elsewhere. We will not go into detail on what exactly happened on that day. But while it is true that the IDF did murder many civilians with the Hannibal directive, and while it is also true that many Gazans who followed Hamas’s fighters committed murders, there are countless accounts, video footage and analyses which do show that Hamas fighters did carry out large numbers of killings against unarmed civilians, numbering in the hundreds. We have never said that this was the explicit goal of 7 October. Yet, it did happen, and the BT’s analysis, as well as yours, is bending the truth and ends up covering for Hamas’s actions, many of which are indefensible for Marxists. The fact that the BT’s lengthy analysis of 7 October contains only one small mention of the Nova festival (in passing, and in a quote from someone else) says a lot.
It is not true that the goal of 7 October was only the capture of hostages. The operation was carefully planned to shock the entire Israeli society, send a message of strength in counterposition to the Palestinian Authority and shatter the status quo in the region after the Abraham accords. They did aim to take hostages, but this was subordinated to broader goals. Hamas knew full well that the Al-Aqsa Flood was not going to defeat the IDF, and they knew very well that Israel’s response would be brutal against the entire Gaza strip (although they did underestimate the genocidal frenzy which followed). Their strategy consisted in sending a shock wave which they knew would provoke a war, hoping that Israel’s retaliation would force the Arab and Muslim regimes (Iran, notably) and the international community to intervene, and, in this way, place the Palestinian question back on the international agenda. It is quite obvious that this is not a Marxist strategy, but a variation of the classic nationalist strategy pursued before by the PLO, which aims at confronting Israeli society as a whole—army and civilians alike—while placing its hopes on treacherous Muslim regimes and the international community.
Marxists have always denounced the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Not out of some pacifist or humanist stance, but because it undermines the liberation struggle. The indiscriminate killing of civilians hampers the building of unity with workers in the oppressor nation and, whatever military gains might be won through such acts, its results always end up turning against the movement. Indeed, the consequence of 7 October has been to weld the Israeli population together with its fanatic leaders, making it easier for them to present themselves as the defenders of Jews and to whip up the genocidal frenzy which followed.
Of course, the responsibility for this is on the Israeli ruling class and its brutal oppression of the Palestinians. And of course, the onus for building unity with the oppressed falls first and foremost onto workers in the oppressor nation and their duty to unconditionally defend the Palestinians against the Zionist war machine. Yet, the oppressed also have a duty to conduct the struggle in a manner which always seeks to build unity with workers of the oppressor nation— something alien to Hamas’s strategy and which 7 October obviously rendered much more difficult. Not to speak of the fact that the massacres of civilians also hampered the unity among the oppressed themselves, making the mobilization in defense of Palestine more difficult particularly (but not only) among Jews. So, while on 7 October Hamas did break the despicable Gaza fence and did deliver solid blows to the IDF—surely progressive acts—they also carried out actions which were completely indefensible and counterproductive to the Palestinian cause.
I am sure you are familiar with the saying that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” This applies to Hamas, just like any other armed force. Hamas is an Islamic resistance movement allied with the Iranian regime. Its frame of reference is Islam, and its method of struggle is the unity of Muslims against Israel. This is not a mere abstract point. It means that the military strategy of Hamas—that is, how they organize and lead the war against Israel—will necessarily reflect this outlook. While Hamas does claim to oppose the killing of civilians, and does say that their fight is against Zionism, not Judaism, Hamas remains a religious and nationalist movement, which means they will necessarily organize the struggle along religious and national lines, not along revolutionary and class struggle ones. It is impossible to divorce Operation Al-Aqsa Flood from this broader understanding.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means” also applies to the IDF. The main ideological pillar of the Zionists is to present the Israeli state as the only force which will defend Jewish lives and prevent another holocaust. The lesson Zionists drew from WWII is that European Jews let themselves be massacred without a fight and Israel now exists to prevent this from happening again—and if it means wiping out another people in the process, so be it. It is this, together with U.S. imperialism’s support, which gives to the Zionist state such an aggressive and murderous character, as well as a formidable ability to weld its working class to its rulers in the face of external threat. This is why any strategy which seeks to militarily confront Israeli society as a whole will face an entire people in arms, ready to die fighting.
Rather, to defeat the Zionist state, it is necessary to first seek to undermine its key ideological and economic pillars, aiming at breaking the largest possible section of Israelis, particularly Israeli workers, from Zionism. This does not negate the armed struggle. But it means that the armed struggle must be waged as part of an anti-imperialist and class struggle strategy, extending not only to Israel but to the entire region. This is obviously not the program of Hamas and is a path which has always been rejected by the official leadership of the Palestinian forces. Whether it is Hamas today or the PLO yesterday, their strategy always ends up putting their alliance with treacherous Arab and Muslim regimes above the interests of the masses of the region, while their methods of struggle only reinforce the Zionists’ strongest claims.
Therefore, it is ridiculous for the BT to write (and for you to endorse) that the only mistake of Hamas on 7 October was to have failed to properly guard the breached Gaza fence! The entire operation was prepared and carried out along the lines of a nationalist strategy. The role of Marxists is not to make vague and timeless criticisms of Hamas while justifying every single one of their concrete actions. Of course, Marxists must take an unconditional side with the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli state. It would be the worst treachery to refuse to do so because we disagree with Hamas. However, as we wrote, it is necessary to take part in the struggle while at the same time opposing the strategy of the Islamists. We must seek every opportunity to demonstrate to the masses how their strategy hampers the struggle in countless ways and show concretely how a Marxist one is superior. How else are Marxists going to break Palestinian fighters from Hamas, or any other existing forces? How is Marxism supposed to become a force in the Palestinian liberation movement if the Marxists keep lawyering for the strategy of the nationalists? This is essentially what the BT article and the LCFI end up doing.
As for the argument comparing 7 October to Nat Turner’s slave uprising in the U.S., it might be useful against arrogant Zionists who blame Hamas for everything, but it is less useful in a serious discussion over what strategy to free Palestine. Despite the undeniable heroism of Nat Turner and the slave uprising, slavery in the U.S. was abolished as a result of the Civil War, a social revolution led by the (then progressive) Northern bourgeoisie and the Union army—in which 200,000 black soldiers fought—which crushed the slavocracy. The comparison with Nat Turner (or the Jewish uprising in Warsaw in 1943, which is also often raised in a similar way) aims to argue that our sympathies must go to the oppressed. Yes, of course. But the oppressed also need a strategy to actually win their liberation. And those analogies are of little help for this purpose.
We are open to discussing whether our 10 October leaflet made tactical mistakes. However, for us, this is a tactical discussion over how best to put forward our opposition to Hamas’s political strategy from within the liberation movement. But your criticisms are not on this terrain, but rather attack the very idea that Marxists must oppose Hamas’s political and military strategy, which is, for us, simply a liquidation of the communist banner.
We certainly have broader disagreements on the Palestine/Israel question, which would be worth elaborating on. In particular, we must note that we disagree with your analysis that the support of Israel by Western powers is supposedly due to a disproportionate representation of Jews in the ruling classes of the West. Many have accused you of anti-Semitism because of this. While we do not share this conclusion, it is obvious why it would generate such a reaction, particularly among Jewish people who support Palestine. This “theory,” which is nothing new and has been heard countless times before on the left (and the right) draws an equal sign between Zionism and Judaism. Furthermore, while there is some truth that, in the U.S. for example, Jewish people are over-represented in the middle and upper classes (in proportion to their numbers in the general population), to believe that this is the driving factor behind U.S. support to Israel is completely false and disorienting. It downplays the strategic importance of Israel for the U.S. imperialist rulers, who remain overwhelmingly Protestant and, quite often, anti-Semitic. Such theory also offers a “Marxist” cover for anti-Semitic appetites which do exist in the pro-Palestinian movement, and it appears to us that, in the name of drawing a hard line against Zionism, it has led you in certain instances to conciliate such backwardness.
On the European Union and Brexit
Surely, our approach to the European Union (EU) and Brexit is one of our most fundamental disagreements. You believe that our support for Brexit is the result of a capitulation on our part to the right-wing bourgeoisie and reactionary elements (what you label “imperialist separatism”). We believe this is wrong and we found your entire argumentation to be a capitulation to the liberal, pro-EU wing of the ruling class.
It is true that, as you say, “imperialist-nationalist hostility to pan-national imperialist blocs, such as the European Union, is not progressive in the least.” Indeed, the small wing of the British bourgeoisie who wanted out of the EU did so for its own reactionary and predatory interests. However, this is only one aspect of the question. The majority of the British bourgeoisie supported “remain” also for its own reactionary interests.
But if “leave” or “remain” were tied to two wings of the ruling class, why should Marxists support “leave”? Why not abstain? The EU is an imperialist trade bloc whose purpose is to squeeze Eastern and Southern Europe as well as all workers of the continent for the benefit mainly of German, French and British imperialism—and crucially the U.S., who is the main imperialist master behind this cartel. So, in 2016, when the British public was asked “Do you want to remain part of this imperialist cartel or not?”, the only principled position for revolutionaries was to vote “leave,” while at the same time opposing the reactionary interests of the wing of the ruling class backing this option. Voting “remain” meant direct support to the status quo, i.e. to the imperialist EU. Abstaining also meant capitulating to the EU, since what was posed in the referendum was support or opposition to this imperialist cartel. But the LCFI, in the name of opposing UKIP and reactionary pro-Brexit forces, denounces voting “leave,” which only amounts to a capitulation to the majority of the liberal imperialist ruling class in Britain and Europe.
To understand this better, it is important to look at the context. The 2016 Brexit referendum and its aftermath deeply polarized British society on reactionary lines, and a central task of Marxists was to cut through this polarization. On the one hand, support for the EU was associated by the liberal upper and middle class with “anti-racism,” “internationalism,” “social justice” and other so-called progressive values. In this way, the bulk of the left, starting with Jeremy Corbyn, as well as many trade union leaders and large layers of immigrant-derived workers, were dragged into a campaign to support the imperialist EU, together with the majority of the British ruling class and the City of London, the Blairites, the Lib Dems and a wing of the Tories.
On the other hand, the campaign to leave the EU was indeed led by reactionaries, mainly on an anti-immigrant basis. But they were able to tap into and channel the anger and resentment of large layers of the working class, particularly in the North of England and other areas that had been devastated by globalization, deindustrialization and austerity—attacks carried out in the name of lofty liberal principles and “European integration.” For millions of working people, the EU was rightly associated with Blairism, privatization, factory closures and, yes, mass immigration, which was brought in in increasing numbers starting under Blair for the purpose of further depressing living standards. So, for millions, the 2016 referendum became a referendum on the status quo. The surprise victory of “leave” saw the liberals unleash one of the most disgusting campaigns of demonization, slandering working-class communities who had voted “leave” as a bunch of “backward” and “ignorant” idiots for not following the advice of the “enlightened” liberal bourgeoisie. This was the basis for the campaign for a second referendum, i.e. “you did not get it right in the first one.”
Unsurprisingly, none of this is mentioned in your argumentation. Rather, you go so far as to argue that “there is no way to give such a campaign [against the EU] a ‘class axis’, and attempting to do so led the SL/B to confessedly give political support to the Conservative Party and to sound like UKIP.” This is false and demagogic. We did subsequently correct certain formulations around the debate over the exit deals, which tended to imply that our comrades would support a reactionary Tory exit deal. But what you are arguing here is that opposing the EU is against the interests of the working class and that doing so inherently makes you a racist. This is literally the dominant ideology of the European ruling classes, and the very same liberal poison which was thrown at millions of working-class people who voted “leave.”
The task of Marxists around Brexit was surely to combat Farage, Johnson and the “little England” British imperialists. But the only way to do this was to take a strong stance against the EU (i.e. for “leave”) and against the pro-EU liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. While Farage, Johnson and Co. were pursuing their own reactionary interests, the working class in Britain had (and still has) its own interests in opposing the EU, as part of opposing the entire trans-Atlantic imperialist framework. The task was to build a “leave” campaign on an internationalist and antiimperialist basis. Contrary to your claim, this was perfectly possible, and it could have changed the trajectory of this country in a fundamental manner. Rather, it was a complete betrayal for Corbyn to support “remain” and then campaign for a second referendum (despite his lifelong opposition to the EU), something he did only to please the Blairites in the Labour Party. This, more than anything else, contributed to his downfall and pushed millions of working people away from Labour and the left more generally and into the arms of Farage and Johnson, who were given a golden opportunity to present themselves as the only ones opposing the London establishment and the status quo.
Your entire argumentation, at the time and also in your letter to us, amounts to a capitulation to the liberal wing of the ruling class in the name of fighting the right. A 2017 editorial in Socialist Fight goes so far as to argue:
“Brexit essentially won by its appeal to national chauvinism and blaming immigrants. And even though those who wanted a left exit, the Lexiteers, were totally opposed to this outcome the victory of Trump reinforced those reactionary sentiments in sections of the working class. We must fight this reaction before it engulfs the whole class, via parliament or a second referendum or whatever. This may enrage the right wing but we must make our political stance against this by all means.” [our emphasis]
The call for a “second referendum” was precisely that of the Blairites, the liberals and all sorts of reactionaries like Alastair Campbell’s “People’s vote” campaign who wanted to nullify the first referendum and keep Britain in the EU. Far from stopping the right wing, such openly antidemocratic calls gave it even more momentum. It is a complete betrayal on the part of the LCFI to have supported this and an open capitulation to the EU.
Opposition to the EU (or its predecessor, the EEC) used to be a given among Marxists until the 1990s. Yes, Tony Benn and Co. did oppose the EU on a “little England” nationalist basis. But you are wrong to say that this was marginal. There existed a broad understanding in the working class movement of Britain and Europe that the EEC was an anti-Soviet, anti-working-class club of bankers. What changed in the 1990s is precisely that the left and upper echelons of the trade union movement embraced liberal ideology. This can even be precisely dated, with the 1988 speech of French Socialist Party leader and President of the European Commission Jacques Delors at the TUC Congress. In this speech, Delors was able to sell the EU to the trade union bureaucracy by giving it the veneer of a “social Europe” which would defend workers’ rights, a lie which has since been used to co-opt the leadership of the workers movement and the left into supporting a reactionary imperialist trade bloc. Opposition to the EU was ceded to right-wing elements, which were able to attract growing numbers of workers throughout Europe. This explains in large part why in Italy, Germany, France and other countries, historic bastions of support to communist and socialist parties have shifted toward the far right.
Your attempt at using Trotsky’s text on the “United States of Europe” to oppose Brexit is of the same nature as Jacques Delors’s use of “social Europe” to defend the EU, i.e. providing a left cover for imperialism. This text has been used before by other leftists to justify support to the EU. Trotsky wrote it in 1923, a few years after the October Revolution and when the European continent was being torn apart by inter-imperialist rivalries, the Versailles treaty, balkanized by war and tariff barriers and not yet under U.S. domination. At the time, the struggle for the United States of Europe, which Trotsky always coupled with the demand for “workers and peasants governments,” meant a fight against all the imperialist ruling classes of the continent. Since 1923, however, WWII has devastated Europe, and the U.S. has asserted hegemony over its Western part with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. The EEC was set up explicitly under the aegis of the U.S. as a bloc to confront the USSR, i.e. as the economic wing of NATO.
Particularly as regards the Cold War, your assertion that there has never been anything progressive in opposing the EEC is totally reactionary. As is your assertion that Jim Robertson’s opposition to the EEC was driven by some “American chauvinism.” The masters of Western Europe were and remain to this day the American imperialists. Our tendency’s historic opposition to the EEC was always driven first and foremost by our defense of the USSR against imperialism.
In fact, Lenin himself predicted the founding of the EEC/EU in his 1915 text “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe” when he explained:
“Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists…but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America.”
This is an accurate description of what took place after WWII, with the caveat that the EEC was set up not against the U.S. but under its leadership.
After the destruction of the Soviet Union, the EEC, now rebranded EU, was used to push through privatizations, destroy working-class gains and trade unions and squeeze oppressed countries (Greece being the most famous example) while expanding German, French, British (and U.S.!) capital and influence over the former Soviet republics in the Baltic and Eastern Europe, all the way to the borders of Russia. The EU, together with NATO, have always functioned and still function in tandem and are a crucial pillar of U.S. hegemony in Europe. The entire working class of the continent, in the oppressed countries like Greece, but also in the imperialist centers, has a direct interest in opposing the EU—including by using referendums over the membership of particular countries.
All to say that it is absurd to quote Trotsky in 1923 and his call for a United States of Europe as some sort of argument to oppose Brexit! Your use of Trotsky fraudulently presents the EU as some sort of step toward a Socialist Europe. Today, the slogan for the United States of Europe is progressive only if it is coupled with a clear opposition to the European Union and coupled with a call for social revolutions. Otherwise, it is nothing but a defense of the imperialist status quo.
Your argumentation on this question is quite striking. In the year 2025, many liberals are themselves realizing how their own positions paved the way for the right. Even radical-liberal commentator Ash Sarkar now admits she got it wrong on Brexit. We find the LCFI’s doubling down on this to be a complete capitulation to liberalism and to U.S. imperialism.
Corbyn and the Labour Party
Before moving on to the pandemic, it is worth addressing your criticism of our 2021 SL/B conference document regarding Corbyn and the Labour Party.
To get something off the table, while our 2021 document did not explicitly codify it, we have ever rejected entryism in the Labour Party. At the time, the SL/B did have members in Labour, and it is obvious that entryism inside Labour was absolutely needed during the Corbyn period. But this was not our central problem. Rather, it was our entire political orientation and program. You describe our attitude back then as “sectarian abstentionism.” Our approach was rather a balancing act between a lot of sectarianism, yes, but also opportunism toward Corbyn. Like many others on the left, we started by being quite jubilant over Corbyn, to then turn our back on him, declaring that Labourism could only betray, incapable of drawing any lessons. This is not so different from the RCP, whose recent turn is essentially the same type of flip-flop.
You make a great deal about the fact that most of our internal discussions have centered on combatting adaptations to Corbynism and not what you perceived to be our supposed softness towards Farage and the Tories. The problem of the SL/B was not that our comrades wanted to support racist reactionary politicians. Rather, our problem, like the rest of the left, was rooted in an incapacity to combat Corbynism and expose it in a Marxist manner. This is what was at the root of our initial opportunism, but also our sectarian abstentionism. Capitulating to Corbynism and drawing no lesson from this experience is also what has plagued the whole British Marxist left, all the way to today. So, yes, our conference focused on this crucial question. The fact that you find this odd and surprising tells us much more about the LCFI than about our supposed deviations.
The task of revolutionaries during the Corbyn period was to join and build a united front with Corbyn against the Blairites. But what was crucial—and missed by all so-called Marxists—wasthe need to demonstrate, through the united front, that Corbyn and the politics of left Labourism more generally were the obstacle to the struggle against the Blairites. It was Corbyn’s constant crawling to the right wing which was the central factor paralyzing his millions of supporters. Instead, the far left liquidated into the united front, leaving the fight against the Blairites entirely in the hands of the Corbynistas with the disastrous result we all know. And it is because no one on the left has drawn this lesson that Corbyn is still viewed as the spiritual leader of the left, even though his complete failure is obvious to all. But it appears that it is precisely this conclusion you attack.
This is most clearly seen in your defense of a point which repeatedly appeared in Workers Hammer at the time (and which our conference criticized): “driving the Blairites out [of Labour] would mean a step toward the proletariat no longer being subordinated politically to the bourgeoisie.” We repudiated this formulation because it is simply false from a Marxist standpoint. The Labour Party without the right wing would not be a revolutionary party. This does not mean that revolutionaries do not advocate throwing the Blairites out of Labour (as we did and as our conference document reasserts, contrary to your claim). However, revolutionaries raise such calls in order to expose the left Labourites’ spinelessness. Here is what our conference document actually explains:
“It is inherent in Labour that the left wing conciliates the right, and it is perfectly appropriate to expose the left when it chooses unity over its ‘principles’. The point of revolutionaries raising calls such as ‘Drive the Blairites out’ and ‘Drive out the SDP fifth column’ (Spartacist Britain no 52, September 1983) is to show concretely how the programme of left Labourism necessarily leads to conciliation and capitulation. Our aim is to expose the left Labourites, not pressure them to have better politics (‘make the lefts fight’). In 1982-83 we wanted to ‘put the Benn/Meacher Labour “lefts” in power where they can best be exposed before the workers!’” (Spartacist Britain no 52, our emphasis)
Again, the point here is quite similar to the one we made earlier in this letter regarding the Palestinian question and Hamas. Revolutionaries had to put forward their own strategy to defeat the right wing of Labour in order to demonstrate to all how Corbynism and left Labourism are completely impotent in leading the struggle for the most burning issues of the day. The task of Marxists was not to make abstract and timeless criticisms of Corbyn’s reformism. Everyone can do this. It was to demonstrate how his reformism was an obstacle in the struggle at hand.
Furthermore, you are entirely wrong to equate Brexit with the right-wing shift that followed. What united all the Blairites was support to the EU. While it is true that most Corbyn supporters were Remainers, the central reason for this is that Corbyn himself, despite opposing the EU all his life, campaigned for “remain” in order to avoid a split with the Blairites. Matters would have been different if Corbyn had stood up to the Blairites from the beginning and led a left-wing “leave” campaign. In fact, doing so would have been much more efficient toward kicking the Blairites out. It would have forced a confrontation with them when they were weak, and pushed them to openly side with David Cameron, Tony Blair, the Lib Dems and the rest of the hated and discredited establishment. This would also have contributed to boosting Corbyn’s popularity among large layers of workers, undercut the appeal of UKIP among them and might have convinced many young people at the base of Labour that it was perfectly possible to oppose the EU on a progressive basis. Instead, Corbyn’s support for “remain” was his first act of conciliation toward the Blairites, and the first step in paralyzing the movement behind him.
Indeed, the “chicken coup” was sparked by the Blairite right after the Brexit referendum because Corbyn had not campaigned with enough enthusiasm for the EU, and because he had declared that popular will had to be respected and that Article 50 had to be triggered, i.e. Brexit had to happen. This is what drove the Blairites insane and led to the coup. Campaigning for the EU only compromised Corbyn and made the fight against the Blairites much harder. As the Blairites were lifting their heads in 2018-19, they successfully imposed their position on Corbyn who had nowbecome utterly paralyzed and impotent, standing in the 2019 general election as the candidate for a second referendum. This is what contributed more than anything to the downfall of Corbyn and gave a resounding victory to Boris Johnson, who was able to present himself as the anti establishment candidate to millions of working-class voters. The right-wing shift was not caused by the victory of “leave.” Corbyn’s conciliation of the Blairites, best shown in his support to the EU, is what contributed the most to delivering many working-class voters to Farage and the Tories.
Our 2021 conference document was written early on in our reorientation process, and there is at times a certain rigidity to it. We have had more internal discussions on it, and it has become clear to us that it was necessary to support Corbyn against the “chicken coup” and also during the 2017 general election when Corbyn was still defending the Brexit referendum results (2019 is a different matter). We are open to discussing what was tactically necessary at these various junctures. But the starting point for any discussion has to be the correct tasks for revolutionaries. The task was not merely to side with Corbyn. This is what the far left did and it is essentially the only point you make against us. Rather, the task was to forge a Marxist pole in the Labour Party, which would defend Corbyn against the right when necessary while at the same time fighting for a break with his program (and the man himself). For this, Marxists had to put forward an alternative strategy to that of the Corbynistas to fight the Blairites and the British ruling class. This is the whole point of critical support and the united front: to build communist leadership against the reformists.
But this is obviously not what the LCFI did. You yourself describe your intervention in this period: the expulsion of Gerry Downing from the Labour Party after being accused of defending the 9/11 terrorists, followed by your witchhunt from Labour Against the Witchhunts over accusations of anti-Semitism, then leading Downing to split from your group and denounce you. And you conclude: “this is what principled entry-work looks like.” No, it isn’t. The fact that you “left Labour in good order when Starmer ousted Corbyn” also does not speak in your favor. It shows that our purpose when entering was to promote Corbyn, i.e. when Corbyn left, you did too. The truth is that the entire British far left failed miserably throughout the Corbyn period because everyone refused to build a Marxist pole counterposed to left Labourism. Rather, thousands of so-called communists merged with Corbynism and ended up sinking with it.
On the Pandemic, Lockdowns and Vaccines
We found your polemic against us on the pandemic to be another adaptation to liberalism. Obviously, Covid-19 was a new and dangerous disease which required that the working class defend its health. And of course, Johnson and Co. who wanted to “let the bodies pile high” were utterly reactionary. But, in a similar manner as with the EU, your criticism against us ends up simply siding with the liberal wing of the ruling class in the name of fighting the right.
Your entire argumentation avoids the central question and the task of revolutionaries. A Marxist stance in the pandemic does not consist in repeating how dangerous Covid-19 was. More than just the outbreak of a disease, the pandemic was characterized by a powerful wave of national unity. In the name of “science” and “saving lives,” the bourgeoisie marshalled everyone behind its method of fighting the disease, which consisted in shutting down society and locking up everyone in their homes, while blue-collar and health care workers were squeezed and forced to work in unsafe conditions. Trade union bureaucrats cancelled strikes, disappeared from workplaces (to work remotely) and simply relayed the dictates of the ruling class, abandoning workers to the slaughter.
Lockdowns, more than just a temporary remedy, became the central tool the ruling class was willing to use, refusing to take obvious (but costly) measures like building new health care infrastructure, massively training health care professionals and reorienting production to respond to burning needs. In most capitalist countries, not a single new hospital was built during the pandemic. Furthermore, the lockdowns you hold so dear also proved to be a complete social disaster for millions, with deep repercussions which are still being felt. Millions lost their livelihoods. Domestic violence exploded. A generation of children was cut out of social contact.
It was an utter betrayal for most of the left to support this. Instead, the duty of revolutionaries was to oppose the response of the bourgeoisie to the pandemic and organize the struggle of workers in defense of their health and livelihood. But this required opposing the national unity pushed by the ruling class and relayed by the leaders of the labor movement. This was the central axis of our intervention—not merely “Down with the lockdowns,” and it is the crucial point your letter ignores. It should be obvious for anyone who calls himself a Marxist that any struggle for safer workplaces, for massive investment in health care or to take over existing infrastructure for socially useful needs would run up against the Covid-19 guidelines and lockdown measures, among other things. For months on end, strikes, demonstrations, picket lines and any form of gathering were made illegal by the state. And the liberals, joined by the“Marxist” left, were the staunchest cheerleaders for these measures, labelling as “anti-science” and even “fascist” anyone opposing this.
This is basically the LCFI position. Rather than combatting national unity, the statement you quote in your letter simply echoes it, totally prettifying the policies of the government while only opposing one wing of the ruling class who wanted to lift the lockdowns sooner for their own reactionary reasons. All this is justified in the name of “saving lives”—the watchword of the ruling class. Of course, lives had to be saved. But many more died precisely because there was no struggle from the working class to guarantee decent health care and safer working conditions.
And also because all those who claim to represent the working class supported the government. Here is what most leftists, LCFI included, forgot during the pandemic: the government and the bosses do not defend the health and safety of working people. Safety has to be fought for by the workers. And to do this, revolutionaries had to oppose the lockdowns, and understand that “saving lives,” in the mouth of the bourgeoisie, was moral blackmail paralyzing any sort of fightback. So, our position was not “absurd” or “anti-union.” What is absurd is your declaration saying, “we must seize on the weapon of quarantine [??] to protect ourselves, and fight for the nationalization of health provisions and its supply chain.” How are you going to fight if everyone is in quarantine? The LCFI statement demands many good things, all the way to “world revolution.” But with all due respect, this is totally meaningless. Communists can demand “world revolution” on Zoom meetings and blog posts. But it means nothing when they support the shutting down of society by the bourgeois state. How do you think the ruling class would concede anything if not forced by the struggle of workers? And how do you think such struggles would happen if the communist vanguard locks itself at home, supporting lockdowns and demanding longer and harsher ones?
You take particular issue with our opposition to the teachers’ unions demanding that schools remain shut. Your claim that we sided with the government against the unions is just false. Of course, we unconditionally defend every trade union against government attacks. And we are for trade union control of safety, which also includes the power to shut down unsafe workplaces. However, the position of many teachers’ unions—that is, the position of the union bureaucracy—was totally rotten. Many simply advocated leaving schools shut indefinitely while doing nothing fundamental to make them better and safer.
It was totally possible for the trade union leaders to demand and mobilize for schools to be safer, with improved ventilation and smaller classrooms, and even demanding the building of new schools, using the crisis of the ruling class to demand real change. But in almost every case, they did nothing but oppose the reopening. Furthermore, closing schools for months on end meant that, overwhelmingly, it was millions of women who had to stay home and quit their jobs to care for children. Not even speaking of the effects this had on a whole generation of youth. So, yes, we wanted the reopening of schools, but we wanted this to be on the unions’ terms, which meant a fight against the government and against the trade union bureaucracy. But, for you, this is “anti-scientific, and objectively anti-worker, anti-union nonsense.” What is your alternative? Stay home indefinitely??
Lastly, on vaccines, your position makes no sense. Vaccines, despite their rapid development, reduced the risk of serious symptoms, complications and death from Covid-19. So, yes, we supported mandatory vaccination, i.e. coercion by the state. Is this a contradiction with our opposition to lockdowns? No. Our guide in the pandemic, as any other time, is what advances the class struggle against the bourgeoisie. Months of lockdowns hampered the ability of the working class to fight and defend itself. Mandatory vaccination, i.e. a law demanding that everyone be vaccinated, does not hamper working-class struggles. And with overwhelming proof that vaccinated people had a much reduced chance to end up in intensive care, this is something we support. What we did oppose were vaccine mandates imposed on certain professions (like in the NHS) with the threat of the sack. Marxists oppose the mass sacking of workers, whatever the reason. Such implementation of mandatory vaccination did hamper the class struggle.
The confidence of the LCFI on this question does not strike us as a good sign. Almost the entire far left, together with the official leadership of the workers movement, completely capitulated to the ruling class during the pandemic. As a result, millions whose lives were devastated were driven into the arms of the right wing and conspiracy nutters. Yet, the LCFI seems to be proud of its stance in the pandemic. You “did not collapse” as you proudly say. Yet, in our view, you simply echoed the bourgeoisie, while proclaiming “world revolution” online.
The Ukraine War
We will leave a more thorough response to your points on Solidarność in Poland as well as China for future exchanges. Regarding China or Russia, we find ourselves in disagreement over their class character, but in agreement over the need to defend these countries against imperialism. We would only note in passing that our correction over Solidarność does not imply any sort of support to it but is in fact made from the standpoint of how best to defeat it. Solidarność organized the vast majority of Polish workers. Simply spitting at it, supporting Stalinist crackdowns and labelling as reactionary through and through any expression of Polish nationalism only hampered the struggle for a political revolution against Stalinism and helped in pushing workers further into the arms of counterrevolutionary leaders.
But let’s turn to the last question this letter will deal with in depth: the Ukraine war. While we are in agreement with you that Russia is not an imperialist country, we completely disagree with your conclusion that Marxists must support Russia. For us, this is a reactionary war on both sides, and we have called since the beginning on Russian and Ukrainian soldiers and workers to turn their guns against their own leaders. Recent developments with Trump opening negotiations with Putin have only confirmed this analysis and have showed quite clearly that Russia is not waging a progressive war of defense against imperialism but is waging a reactionary campaign to pull Ukraine back into its sphere of influence.
To start with, you are simply wrong when you say: “your contention that this is a national conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the imperialists are not decisively involved is a complete travesty of the facts.” We have never said this. The headline of our first article, published right after the opening shots of the war was “NATO/EU Aggression Provokes War in Ukraine” (Spartacist supplement, 27 February 2022). Our 2023 international conference document states: “The two decisive actors in the Ukraine war are Russia and the U.S.” It is obvious for anyone who has eyes and ears that this is a proxy war between Russia and the U.S.
You claim that our refusal to side with Russia is thus “incoherent.” This only reveals the formalistic method and scholasticism of the LCFI. All the so-called Marxists who support Russia in the West (e.g. the LCFI, the BT, the LFI and more) have looked at this conflict not with a materialist method guided by advancing the class struggle against imperialism, but rather with a sterile prewritten equation: Russia (a non-imperialist country) + Ukraine receiving backing from the imperialists = side with Russia. Rather than understanding reality with the Marxist method, reality is forced into rigid schemas. The need to actually think, to consider the situation concretely through the dynamics of the class struggle, disappears into a simplistic and frankly stupid equation.
First, one must be willfully blind to think, as you do, that the current war is about “regime change in Russia and its dismemberment.” No. The one country that is being dismembered is Ukraine, not Russia. Russia is conquering Ukrainian land, not defending its national sovereignty. Of course, Russia attacked Ukraine as a reaction to NATO overextending itself to the very borders of Russia. It is entirely correct to say that this war was provoked by NATO. We do maintain that Crimea is Russian, and that majority Russian-speaking regions of the Donbass should have a right to join Russia if they wish to do so. But in the current war, Russia is conquering Ukrainian territory far beyond majority Russian-speaking regions. To say this is not a capitulation to U.S. imperialism. It is just a fact.
Second, it is absurd to believe that the current war is the same thing as a war between NATO and Russia. You yourself recognize that “NATO powers have not dared to openly send their troops as an expeditionary force to fight Russia in Ukraine.” Isn’t this a bizarre war, where one of the two contenders does not send forces to fight? There is a fundamental difference between NATO declaring war on Russia and the ongoing conflict, where Ukraine is at war with Russia and receiving backing from the imperialists.
Third, you argue:
“Your call for workers in Russia and Ukraine to ‘turn the guns around’ and jointly overthrow their capitalist rulers in this context is a capitulation to imperialism. Just as much as it would have been if some pseudo-left tendency in the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003 had called on Iraqi workers, Kuwaiti workers, American and British workers, to ‘turn the guns around’ and jointly overthrow their ‘capitalist rulers’ (they are all capitalist rulers, right?).”
Again, one has to be completely detached from reality to not see that there is a world of difference between the Iraq and the Ukraine wars. Iraq, a neo-colony, was invaded by the world’s biggest imperialist power. Ukraine, a small, oppressed nation, is fighting Russia while receiving arms and money from the imperialists. How can one argue with a straight face that Ukraine is today playing the same role as the U.S. invading Iraq?? This is absurd. Yet, you double down: “This phrase, ‘capitalist rulers’ hides the fact that one side in this war is imperialist, and one side is not.” Again, this is yet another example of formalism which makes you blind to reality. While the Russian Federation is not an imperialist great power, it is not the same thing as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And while Ukraine receives arms from NATO, it is not the same thing as the United States of America.
Fourth, you declare “there is no suggestion from Russia that Ukraine will not be allowed to exist as a nation once the Nazi regime is destroyed.” How is this not “blind faith in the Kremlin”? Putin himself declared on the eve of the SMO that Ukraine was an artificial fabrication and a mistake of Lenin. Countless pro-Russian commentators have declared a thousand times that Ukraine is not a nation, and that Ukrainians are simply Russians. You constantly note the Nazis in Ukraine and their oppression of Russian-speaking minorities. Of course, there is truth here and Marxists must staunchly defend Russian-speaking minorities and oppose the many Nazis in the ranks of the Ukrainian forces. But here is what all so-called Marxists who support Russia disappear: the national question in this war does not only concern Russian minorities, but also Ukrainians. You dismiss this as “(irrelevant) bits of verbiage you insert about the terrible oppression of Ukraine by Putin.” Well, large parts of Ukraine are being conquered by Russia, way beyond majority Russian-speaking regions, and many Ukrainians have been forced to flee. And the Russian army is not led by some progressive “anti-fascists,” but Great Russian chauvinists. To note this is not a capitulation to NATO or an expression of “Russophobia.” It is a fact, and one which is far from “irrelevant” for most Ukrainians.
We could go on about the number of obvious mistakes made over the nature of this war. But what is behind such a distorted view of reality is that the LCFI approaches this war with a formalistic equation, not by seeking to advance the unity of the working class against imperialism. It is true that the issue posed with this war is opposition to Western imperialism. They are the ones responsible for the state of things, and this is why those Marxists who support the Ukrainian side are simply capitulating to the greatest enemy of all working people. The pre-condition to unite the working class of Russia and Eastern Europe is opposition to the U.S., to NATO and to the EU (we do note that it is a flagrant contradiction that you support Russia, while at the same time implicitly defending the EU as some sort of step toward socialism). The task of revolutionaries is precisely to build an anti-imperialist united front in Eastern Europe.
But this is impossible to do if revolutionaries support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s SMO, far from advancing the struggle against imperialism, has deepened national divisions in Eastern Europe. It is impossible to unite Ukrainian workers with their Russian counterparts if revolutionaries support the invasion of their country. Revolutionaries cannot fight for the unity of workers in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, etc. against imperialism if, at the same time, they defend Russia’s so-called “right” to attack small nations and remove their government—even if those are pro-imperialist puppets.
Ukraine being oppressed by Russia is not a “lesser evil” to it being oppressed by the U.S. In both cases, it is national oppression which only creates new obstacles to the fighting unity of the working class. The unity of workers in Eastern Europe can only be based on an unconditional opposition to imperialism, but also on a defense of the right of self-determination for oppressed nations. This is why Russia’s war is reactionary: in the name of fighting Western imperialism, they are attacking another nation, and it is a complete betrayal for Marxists to support this. If one understands that the struggle against U.S. imperialism requires the unity of the working class in the region, then it becomes obvious that support to Russia’s war undermines this aim. Finally, the strongest argument against your support to Russia is the recent developments. At this point, it should be obvious to all that this war was not about the defense of Russia’s national integrity against an imperialist assault. Trump is shifting the U.S. position and seems ready to end the war on Russia’s terms. We will see what the exact content of their agreement is. But it is already obvious that anything which will come out from a Russia-U.S. deal will not be a progressive development nor a step forward in the struggle against imperialism.
Conclusion
We hope that this letter, while often criticizing you quite strongly, will serve political clarity onn both sides. As we have laid out at the beginning, the connecting issue with the LCFI’s positions on Palestine, the EU, Corbyn, the pandemic or the Ukraine war is that your starting point is never the class struggle and how communists can advance it and play a decisive role in the struggles of oday. Rather, on Palestine, Russia or the Labour Party, you lend your support to whatever force appears to be “progressive,” liquidating the independent banner of Trotskyism. While on the issues of the pandemic and Brexit, you openly side with the liberal wing of the ruling class against the right.
But these issues are far from being unique to the LCFI. What we hope we have made clear here is that your approach and method are also shared by most of the Marxist left today—and breaking with those has been at the core of our reorientation. We hope that our points can serve as the basis for a productive discussion between our two tendencies, and in the left more broadly.
Communist greetings,
Vincent David
