The outbreak of the war in Ukraine undeniably marked a rupture and the opening of a dynamic towards World War 3, which only the international proletariat, as both exploited and revolutionary class, can oppose. Proletarian internationalism has thus once again become a central issue: theoretical and principled for revolutionaries; political and practical for the international proletariat. Since then, this dynamic towards generalized war, the development of “war economy” and the ideological, political and military preparation for imperialist war determines, and will continue to determine, the scale, content and timing of the attacks that each national bourgeoisie is led to make against “its” proletariat. The conditions of class confrontation are increasingly dictated by the needs and demands of the march to war – and no longer simply by the economic defense of each national capital, in the face of economic contradictions alone.

The experience of the First Imperialist World War is essential for the best possible orientation in the coming turmoil of war. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were undoubtedly the clearest, most determined and consistent defenders of proletarian internationalism from 1914 onward. The conditions of the time, in particular the betrayal of the mass social-democratic parties who, despite their position of principle adopted at the congresses of the Socialist International, [1] adhered to national unity and defense, largely determined the concrete application of the internationalist principle: in addition to the slogan addressed to the proletarian masses for “the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war”, the fight against opportunism, i.e. against the betrayal of the majority of social-democratic parties, but also against all forms of pacifism and inconsistent internationalism, i.e. against “centrism”, demanded and involved the organizational break with the Socialist International and the fight for the establishment of a new international. This is what Lenin’s quote in the preamble reminds us.

Today, the concrete conditions for fighting in defense of proletarian internationalism are no longer exactly the same. On the one hand, the war is not yet generalized and the proletarian masses are not mobilized on the front or in the rear. In itself, the slogan of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war does not correspond to the present moment as a “direct call to action by the masses”. [2] Refusal to make any further sacrifices in preparation for war, against all national and class unity in the name of defending democracy, would be more appropriate to the present situation and the reality of the balance of forces between bourgeoisie and proletariat.

On the other hand, there are no longer any proletarian mass organizations – whether parties or unions – and the development of mass workers’ strikes in the face of the march to war will take place, not without “them”, but against the unions and left-wing parties, all of which have become fully-fledged organs of the capitalist state. The fight against opportunism no longer concerns the Socialist, Stalinist, Trotskyist and even Anarchist currents that have supported capital and national defense since their betrayal in 1914, the 1930s or 1939-45. They are now definitively in the camp of the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution, and communists must denounce and fight them as such. Opportunism in relation to proletarian internationalism is expressed today among revolutionary minorities and within the proletarian camp itself. The different “understandings” of internationalism that have emerged in the wake of the outbreak of war in Ukraine and the Middle East are clear for all to see. We have listed three in particular: the appeal to the Prague anti-war congress of May 2024 [3]; the Joint Statement of groups of the Communist Left, [4] in fact signed only by the ICC, Internationalist Voice and the Istituto Damen; and, most recently, the so-called Arezzo Internationalist Statement, [5] to which we must add a so-called Milan Internationalist Conference of July 2023.

We do not mention here the Internationalist Communist Tendency’s call for the formation of a No War But Class War committee, which we supported and responded to to the best of our ability. This call, dated April 6, 2022, is of a different nature. These committees are nothing more than struggle committees aimed at bringing together the most combative minorities of proletarians to develop workers’ responses to the intensification of labor exploitation demanded by the march to war. In this sense, and as with any unitary organ for struggle – general assembly, strike committee, strike itself, etc. – the criterion for participation is the willingness of each individual to commit to such and such a mobilization or struggle, regardless of the political positions they may hold, whether revolutionary or not. It is an “action” slogan, “call to fight for the wider working class.” [6] In this sense, the call to the NWBCW is not an alternative to any internationalist grouping or conference. It does not exclude it, but represents another dimension of communist intervention and struggle in the situation that has opened up since 2022.

The Milan So-called Internationalist Conference

First, let us take a look at the cycle of so-called internationalist meetings in Milan. The first took place in July 2023, the second in February 2024. Readers can refer to the Internationalist Correspondence Bulletin, which gathers together the various contributions of the participating organizations. [7] The vast majority were Trotskyists and anarchists. The conference was initiated by Lotta comunista, which took charge of the practical organization. Rivoluzione comunista, a group that emerged from the Left of Italy and more specifically from the PCI-Programa comunista in 1964, was also present. [8] Already, and from the point of view of the Communist Left, the class and non-internationalist nature of most of the participants annihilates any internationalist and class pretensions to these meetings, whatever their precise position on the war in Ukraine may have been.

Formally, the positions put forward are not on the terrain of overt bourgeois pacifism, for a ceasefire and democratic peace or otherwise. As a Trotskyist blog points out, « the central political issue that prompted the call for this meeting was the war in Ukraine. There was a discussion among the organisers as to whether only those forces of the anti-capitalist left who took an independent, class, internationalist position (i.e. against both NATO and the Russian and Ukrainian ruling classes) should be invited to the meeting, or whether all views should be invited. In the end, the second view prevailed, which in the course of events proved to be correct. » [9] In other words, from the outset, this supposedly internationalist meeting included organizations with a "no to Nato, no to Russia" stance, which may appear formally internationalist, and others defending one imperialist camp against the other, some supporting the Ukrainian camp and others the Russian camp: “On the nature of the war underway in Ukraine, there were, to put it simply, three different positions: one characterizing the conflict as inter-imperialist, implying defeatism on both sides of the warring forces; another as a war of aggression and U.S. expansion, to which Russia would respond defensively; and, finally, an analysis of the conflict as the potential start of a generalized war, but one in which several conflicts were superimposed, and in which the Ukrainian national question remained essential.” [10]

However, what interests us here is not so much the fact that Trotskyist and anarchist groups can support one imperialist camp against the other, but the political significance of the seemingly “internationalist”, formally “internationalist” positions taken by the majority of the leftist, and therefore bourgeois, participants at the meeting. They define the war in Ukraine as imperialist, and reject any participation in or support for either imperialist camp. « Now the confrontation is among imperialist powers of all sides. Russia and China are full participants in the imperialist order », according to the International Trotskyist Opposition, to name just one of the contributions. The reality of this “internationalism” is quickly exposed. Without going into the analysis and denunciation of the arguments accompanying the “internationalist” position on the war in Ukraine, it is enough to take a look at the positions taken by this organization and most of the other Trotskyist participant groups on the war, also imperialist, in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and more widely in the region. They all support Palestinian nationalism. Their “internationalism” is of variable geometry, and stops at the limits of their defense of national liberation struggles and other “support for oppressed peoples”.

This type of internationalist conference, bringing together mainly, not exclusively, leftist groups, is intended to complement the occupation of the ideological and political terrain by bourgeois, mostly left-wing, pacifist forces. These initiatives are therefore openly anti-worker and anti-internationalist. They are all the more dangerous – and we ask the reader to bear this in mind – as leftist, counter-revolutionary groups may well adopt a formally internationalist stance on this or that imperialist war on the occasion of these events.

The Antiwar Congress of Prague

Several revolutionary groups around Tridni Valka [11] called for and “organized”, together with anarchist groups, the Prague anti-war congress held at the end of May. As soon as we received the call for the congress, we took a position on it and strongly criticized its approach. [12] Strongly imbued with the individualist and rebellious ideology of anarchist kind, the appeal, in itself “internationalist”, rejected the choice of one imperialist camp against the other in both Ukraine and the Middle East, and called for “the struggle against the bourgeoisie of all warring sides.” Our criticism focused on the political content and orientation of the congress: “sabotaging the war machine by coordinating individual direct actions”, ignoring the reality of the balance of forces between classes, the dynamics of the current class struggle, and the proletariat as such.

“Consequently it is the absolute duty of the socialists of all belligerent countries immediately and resolutely to carry out the Basle resolution, viz.: (…) a call to the workers of all the belligerent countries to wage an energetic class struggle, both economic and political, against the bourgeoisie of their country (…) [and] that an international committee be set up, together with them, for the conduct of agitation for the cessation of the war, not in the spirit of the pacifists, the Christians, and the petty-bourgeois democrats, but in inseparable connection with the propaganda and organisation of mass revolutionary action by the proletarians of each country...” (Lenin, emphasis added) [13].

While our public statement on this congress met with a certain, generally positive response, some comrades and groups did not understand or share our approach. For one comrade, “refusing to take part in this meeting and considering it as pacifist-bourgeois was a mistake on the part of the IGCL.” Yet we did not refuse to participate: on the one hand, the organizers excluded so-called pro-party groups; on the other, and despite this ban, we did take part – unless one considers that without a physical presence it is impossible to intervene. Our document was addressed “to all participants”, and proposes an alternative to the political orientation contained in the Call to the Congress. The choice not to “make the effort of a physical presence”, essentially due to our numerical weakness and the need to make the best use of our real capacities, seems to us to have been validated – in terms of our priorities in relation to our strengths – by the unfolding of the congress itself. We hesitated to go and could have made a mistake. Yet the reports we received or read – the ICC’s in particular – clearly show how “very poorly organised and indeed chaotic” the congress was. [14] Nevertheless, the fact that organizations from the Communist Left, the Internationalist Communist Tendency, the International Communist Current and Programa Comunista sent delegations is to be welcomed and supported, whatever secondary differences we may have with the content of their interventions.

In fact, as we announced in our Address to the Antiwar Congress Participants, [15] the congress itself was a failure, at least from a proletarian and internationalist point of view. “We do not believe that the call for the congress constitutes a step forward in the current situation. [16] At best, it can only be a source of political confusion and leftist, activist adventurism. We call on political groups and individuals wishing to position themselves on the real terrain of proletarian internationalism to break with the content and spirit of the Appeal, while proposing a new one based unequivocally on class struggle. We know that our proposal can only lead to a very clear delimitation and separation from most of the anarchist groups present.”

According to the ICC report and other information, a relative polarization tended to emerge during the “action week” itself: faced with the chaos and the inability of the organizers to materially – and politically – assume the congress, a minority of participants, under the influence of the ICT and Programa delegations, it seems, and other comrades, attempted to hold a “parallel congress”, which enabled contacts to be established between consistent internationalists. Unfortunately, this minority was unable to adopt even a document or resolution around which consistent proletarian internationalism could have rallied.

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for this relative political impotence is due to political hesitation and confusion as to what proletarian internationalism actually means today. Indeed, we maintain that the direct action slogans that the congress intended to organize and launch, however radical they may appear to the most inexperienced, were not on the terrain of proletarian internationalism: “the only way out of the nightmare of capitalist wars and capitalist peace is a collective awakening: we must see and sabotage the whole machinery of war, overthrow its representatives and reclaim our power as creators of the world”, concludes the call to the congress. [17] The first sentence does not call for proletarian struggle, it is not based on class struggle, but on awakening consciences. And for what purpose? To call for class struggles, the insurrection and the dictatorship of the proletariat? Not at all, but to sabotage and “reclaim our creative power”! The first sentence turns its back on proletarian internationalism, which can only be in connection – that is, “extended” – to the slogans of class struggle, insurrection and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Preceded by the first, the second sentence is nothing more than a petty-bourgeois radical phrase...

Joint Statement of Groups of the Communist Left

Also dated April 6, 2022, this declaration, initiated by the ICC, was signed by Internationalist Voice, the Istituto Damen and the Korean group Internationalist Communist Perspectives. [18] The position taken is undeniably internationalist in form. In denouncing the imperialist war and calling for revolutionary mass struggle by the proletariat and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the declaration is situated on the terrain of proletarian internationalism: “The war in Ukraine is being fought according to the conflicting interests of all the different imperialist powers, large and small – not in the interests of the working class, which is a class of international unity. (…) The latest war, the biggest in Europe since 1945, warns of capitalism’s future for the world if the working class struggle doesn’t lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and its replacement by the political power of the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

It therefore distances itself from the Prague anti-war congress, to the extent that any consistent internationalist can identify with the principles put forward. It is, however, largely inadequate. And this for a very simple reason: it opportunistically leaves aside the fundamental historical challenge facing the proletariat, namely the dynamic towards generalized imperialist war that has opened up with the war in Ukraine. In so doing, “the proposed statement contains several flaws (...) and is inadequate as a political guide for the working class as to how we can fight against the war. In the first place it does not address itself to the actual significance of this war at this point in time. It also lacks a coherent analysis of what is actually going on. As such it provides no guide. It is a purely paper declaration and we need to offer more than this”, rightly writes the ICT in one letter, March 21st 2022. [19] In another letter, April 30th 2022, it refers explicitly to the divergence over the prospect of generalized imperialist war: “we do not think you really share our concern about the gravity of the current situation. We note that there is an article on your site which states that there will be no general imperialist war as ‘the blocs have not been formed’.”

As a result, the Statement displays an abstract, general internationalism, valid in all circumstances, the very one Lenin defined as “internationalism in words.” In fact, the ICC has found itself in a theoretical and political impasse ever since it rejected any possibility of generalized imperialist war at its 15th International Congress in 2003. Since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, and in the face of the evidence, it has contorted itself as best it can to try to mention and take into account the reality of imperialist war, while denying any dynamic towards generalized war. The result is articles and positions that are either contradictory, or... general and abstract in the face of the real situation at hand, of which this statement is an expression.

As soon as it is pushed to its limits, the contradiction between historical reality and its theory of Decomposition explodes violently: “For a world war to take place, two imperialist blocs would have to be formed, which is not currently on the agenda and probably never will be. On the other hand, irreversible decomposition is a much more tangible threat, in the making, and just as catastrophic but probably even more terrible than world war” [20], it wrote in June 2024. How can we arm the proletariat and take part in its struggles, the conditions of which are and will be determined by the march to generalized war, if we deny the latter? Worse still, if we present the real threat as the idea of Decomposition, which is not brought about by any class, unlike generalized war, which is brought about and embodied by the bourgeois class? We have here a typical case of internationalism in words, abstract internationalism, which ultimately disarms the proletariat by letting it believe that war is not the current reality, nor the danger – as the ultimate expression of the crisis of capital – nor even the factor, today the main factor, in the worsening of the conditions of exploitation.

However, we could have signed this declaration, just as Lenin and the Zimmerwald Left had signed the conference Manifesto, insofar as it would have represented “a step forward...”, while maintaining our criticism and our struggle, and while promoting our intervention in the NWBCW committees. However, for this declaration to represent such a step forward, the ICC should not have excluded a good part of the proletarian camp, if not the majority, in the name of “the struggle against the parasitic groups” and by decreeing, in a totally biased or subjective way, who is and who is not “internationalist.” [21] Another contradiction for the ICC, because of its theory of parasitism this time, which reduces the participants in its Declaration to the Istituto Damen alone, knowing that Internationalist Voice has become its satellite and clone in “its fight against parasites”.

What is the outcome of this “Joint Statement of Groups of the Communist Left, which in the meantime has become “of the Communist Left”? Let us read the ICC itself: “these internationalist initiatives of the ICC don’t seem to have been a success since they didn’t lead to a united response of the entire or even majority of the Communist Left currents...” [22]

The Internationalist Statement of the Arezzo Meeting

We have read about an Internationalist Statement [23] on several “councilist” websites, which had been adopted at a meeting in Arezzo in Italy last June. “In early June, on the last day of the anti-war congress in Prague, we agreed on the need of a short statement on capitalism and war that expresses our common positions and can serve as a base for further networking and common action. This statement was drafted after the congress ended. It was discussed, amended and approved at the internationalist meeting in Arezzo (Italy) where the hope was expressed that it will be further discussed by the participants of the Prague congress and those who will gather in Poznan later this month.”

The text, which has a councilist political tone, if only because of what it does not say, is nonetheless internationalist. It has the merit of making the link between the dynamics of imperialist world war and the class struggle: “in fighting against [austerity], workers fight against the war, consciously or not.” The proclamation should have confined itself to this last sentence and the framework it delineates for defining the political orientations to be put forward. Instead, it ventures to repeat some of the orientations of the Prague anti-war congress which, in the absence of clarification, can only lead to impasse and impotence: “We support proletarians on both sides of any war who refuse to fight, who desert, who fraternize instead of killing each other. We support sabotage of the war machine and collective resistance against conscription, mobilization and the militarization of society.”

In reality, the conditions for internationalist conferences or declarations common to the Communist Left as a whole, for a Zimmerwald adapted to 2024, are not present today. Firstly, such a conference or gathering would not encounter the same historical conditions as Zimmerwald and Kienthal in 1915 and 1916. One, the war has not yet become generalized; secondly, there are no longer any mass organizations of the proletariat, trade unions or parties, which would betray us again, as we pointed out in our introduction.

On the other hand, the divided and minoritarian reality of the proletarian camp and the historical weaknesses, particularly sectarianism, of its components do not enable today to envisage the formation of a consistent internationalist initiative by the camp as a whole, if not by the entire camp, i.e. its communist organizations and groups. Before this can happen, the proletariat in massive struggle will have to push, if not force, its political minorities to break with sectarianism and rise to the stakes and their historical responsibilities – if only by reopening the question of the party, of which any internationalist conference or initiative should be the prelude, as Zimmerwald was for the Communist International. A decantation within the proletarian camp, particularly on the question of proletarian internationalism, is also required. In the final analysis, and to be consistent, proletarian internationalism is “in words alone” if it does not extend to the principles of class struggle, proletarian insurrection and the exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The unity of these principles is the first condition for the principle of proletarian internationalism to be articulated, applied to concrete situations and to the real dynamics of the relationship of forces between the classes.

The so-called internationalist leftists in Milan reject these principles and base the conference, among others, on the principles of democracy, anti-fascism and national liberation struggles. The result is that, despite certain positions on the war in Ukraine, the conference is on the bourgeois terrain. The initiators of the Prague anti-war congress ignored the proletariat’s struggle, substituting it with the direct actions of agitating minorities. Prague was, at best, a modern variant of opportunism vis-à-vis internationalism, substituting it with “radical idealism”. The Arezzo Internationalist Proclamation is on the centrist terrain in vis-a-vis radical idealism, making concessions to the anarchists and the Prague Congress on “direct actions” – not forgetting that it “does not extend” its recognition of class struggle to that of workers’ insurrection and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Declaration of the ICC and the Istituto Damen, by ignoring generalized imperialist war as a central factor of the situation, remains abstract and general, valid at all times, and is largely insufficient in the face of the race towards generalized imperialist war that the bourgeoisie is seeking to impose today, concretely, in the material reality of the class struggle. Nevertheless, it could have represented a step forward, but the sectarianism and opportunism of the ICC, its main initiator, completely sabotaged its political value and interest by excluding the majority of the revolutionary camp.

For the moment, this is the “sad” reality of the internationalist camp. However, capital’s headlong rush into generalized war will directly challenge the international proletariat on its living conditions, and international forces on the meaning and function of proletarian internationalism. The struggle to defend proletarian internationalism has only just begun. Insofar as proletarian internationalism can only be consistently carried forward by the communist movement, the fight for its affirmation is fully part of the struggle for the world proletarian party. Is that not the main lesson of Zimmerwald?

“It becomes the duty of the proletarian party all the more urgently, therefore, to clearly, precisely and definitely counterpoise internationalism in deed to internationalism in word.” (Lenin) [24]