History

How the Fourth International fought World War Two

Montage by Diego Rivera to commemorate founding of Fourth International

As the anniversary of the end of World War Two is celebrated, the world’s leaders are again recruiting soldiers and arming them with horrific new weapons in preparation for new conflicts, and possibly yet another, even more brutal world war.
This article examines how Trotskyists worldwide struggled, ‘despite all hazards’, to build the slender forces of the Fourth International (FI), intended to assist the working class to overthrow capitalism, and the bureaucratic, Stalinist elite in the USSR and replace them by genuinely democratic, international socialism to end poverty and war forever.

How the Fourth International fought World War Two Read More »

Speech delivered at the Grave of Karl Marx by Frederick Engels

Karl Marx's grave in Highgate Cemetery

To mark the anniversary of the death of Karl Marx, we republish the Speech delivered at his grave by Frederick Engels March 17 1883. From the archive, 14 March 2025 On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep — but for ever. An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt. Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case. But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark. Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated — and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially — in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries. Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general. For example, he followed closely the development of the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez. For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival. His work on the first Rheinische Zeitung (1842), the Paris Vorwarts (1844), the Deutsche Brusseler Zeitung (1847), the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-49), the New York Tribune (1852-61), and, in addition to these, a host of militant pamphlets, work in organisations in Paris, Brussels and London, and finally, crowning all, the formation of the great International Working Men’s Association — this was indeed an achievement of which its founder might well have been proud even if he had done nothing else. And, consequently, Marx was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. And he died beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow workers — from the mines of Siberia to California, in all parts of Europe and America — and I make bold to say that, though he may have had many opponents, he had hardly one personal enemy. His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work. An introduction to the Work of Karl Marx can be found here.

Speech delivered at the Grave of Karl Marx by Frederick Engels Read More »

Karl Marx’s revolutionary ideas: The working class and struggle

Marx and Engels at work

14 March 1883 Karl Marx died. In truth, the validity of Marx’s theory of class struggle has been borne out by the history of the working-class movement. Eddie McCabe Socialist Party Ireland first published in 2018, 14 March 2025 Without the labour power of workers, capitalists can’t make profits. The system can’t function. Of all the things a capitalist can buy to build their business, only labour power adds value; meaning the business can produce something worth more than the original cost of the components that went into the finished product. The time, thought and energy applied by workers in the production process — whose efforts are only partially compensated by the employer who keeps the output — is the ultimate source of profit (or surplus value) in a capitalist economy. Put simply, all profits come from the unpaid work of workers. And, of course, the drive for profit is the beating heart of capitalism.1 This revolutionary discovery by Karl Marx paved the way for a comprehensive explanation of the workings of the capitalist system — identifying exploitation, and therefore injustice, at its core. It underlies the socialist understanding of the world’s economies and societies today; the contradictions and antagonisms in social relations and the inherent instability and conflict arising from the fundamental division of the world into those who own capital and exploit others, and those who own little or nothing and are exploited; namely, capitalists and workers. Workers and capitalists Workers are those who have none of the necessary premises, equipment, materials, or the money to acquire these things, that are needed to engage in production or exchange. To make a living on the market, they and can trade only their ability to work (labour power). Capitalists do have the above, but to put them to use efficiently enough to make a profit they need other people to work them. So, they offer wages to workers that will (a) allow the workers to subsist, and (b) allow the capitalist to profit from everything made after this subsistence is paid for. The lower the wage and the more hours worked for that wage, the more the capitalist is exploiting the worker, i.e. the more money they’re making at the worker’s expense. It’s true that this arrangement is one that both the employer and the employee enter into freely, and centuries of ideological sugarcoating have created the impression that this is a fair deal for both parties. From a certain point of view, with a narrow focus on individuals, this can seem reasonable — both worker and capitalist get paid at the end of the day. The problem is that they both get paid from the work that only one of them engages in. This reality becomes clearer when looked at from the perspective not of individuals but classes. When the above scenario is generalised across the whole economy we find two main classes: (1) a majority-class of labourers who do virtually all of the work and create all of the wealth, but own very little, and (2) a minority-class who do very little work and create none of the wealth, but own virtually all of it. Competition in the market and their insatiable need to make more profits compels the capitalists to expand their enterprises by intensifying the exploitation and amassing greater numbers of — increasingly restless — employees. They, who in order to defend and extend their rights and conditions, are likewise compelled to organise together. This instinctive desire on the part of both capitalist and worker to push the rate of exploitation in opposite directions creates a constant tension in capitalist society: the class struggle (with all its social manifestations in conflicting ideas, organisations, institutions). The very existence of class struggle is denied by right-wing ideologues: but it, with its ups, downs, swings and roundabouts over time, in the last analysis, decisively influences all social and historical change. Recognising this ingrained friction (which heightens significantly in times of crises) and their central role in production (which gives them huge potential power), Marx identified the working class as key to challenging the rule of the exploiters; and moreover, establishing a society where the wealth that’s produced collectively would be enjoyed collectively. Backlash and confusion For socialists, this analysis remains valid in its essentials. It has withstood not just the test of time and the innumerable challenges from economic and political theorists from across the spectrum, but has been reaffirmed by the history of the working-class movement in the century and a half since Marx worked out his ideas. Conservative ideologues have always disputed the validity of Marxism, fearing most of all its revolutionary conclusions. But over time and increasingly — in the face of the failure to as yet achieve the aims of the socialist movement — even those who are critical of the system and recognise its deep-rooted and insoluble problems, deny the potential for revolutionary change and in particular the revolutionary capability of the working class. The weakening of the traditional working-class organisations (the trade unions and the social democratic parties), both numerically and ideologically in the wake of the collapse of Stalinism and the rise of neo-liberalism, has left a major political vacuum. In the years since then the leaderships of these organisations in almost every country have made a wholesale accommodation to the system, dumping even their nominal support for an alternative to capitalism. As a result, the workers’ movement, which was a clear point of reference for millions of workers and young people in the past, is now seen as a mere auxiliary to social struggles, not its base and leadership. On top of this the capitalist establishment, sensing this weakness, has gone on an offensive against the ideas of socialism. Their aim has been to disguise the existence of a class divide at all, but especially the existence of a potentially powerful class that can act independently, and in the interests of all of those who struggle against the system. And

Karl Marx’s revolutionary ideas: The working class and struggle Read More »

Lumumba: why popular hero of Congolese independence was assassinated

Patrice Lumumba occupies a very important place in popular consciousness in Congo. His legacy still resounds throughout the country, Africa and the world. By Michel Munanga PSL/LSP – Belgium. This article was first published 17 January 2021 Patrice Lumumba was initially drawn from that stratum of the Congolese population on which the Belgian colonizer relied to maintain its rule. He was one of the Africans whom the colonial administration called the “evolved”. This was a kind of “elite” who received an education and behaved more like the population of the colonial metropolis. Like many others, all over the continent, Lumumba was radicalized on the basis of the mass movement that challenged the colonial order. Many of these “relays” of the colonial administration were won over by the ideas of independence, won over to ideas that went beyond their own immediate interests. In 1957, Lumumba was behind the creation of the Congolese National Movement (MNC), whose aim, like other parties, was to liberate the Congo from imperialism and colonial domination. Under the pressure of mobilisation, strikes and demonstrations in Congo itself, but also elsewhere, and influenced by the growing popularity of pan-Africanism, the Belgian government had to commit itself to organising elections. It hoped to preempt the radicalisation of the population and legitimise their stranglehold. In May 1960, the MNC won the first legislative elections. The party then formed a government. Among Lumumba’s demands was the refusal to pay the colonial debt that Leopold II had transferred to Belgium. The First Days of Independence It was finally agreed that the Congo would gain independence on 30 June 1960, the year in which 17 African states gained sovereignty. On that day, King Baudouin made a pro-colonial speech and President Kasa-Vubu responded with an agreed statement of allegiance. The celebration’s protocol did not allocate time for the prime minister to speak. But Lumumba created a surprise by imposing a historic speech on the agenda. “Men and women of the Congo, Victorious independence fighters, I salute you in the name of the Congolese Government. (…) No Congolese will ever forget that independence was won in struggle, a persevering and inspired struggle carried on from day to day, a struggle, in which we were undaunted by privation or suffering and stinted neither strength nor blood. (…) We are deeply proud of our struggle, because it was just and noble and indispensable in putting an end to the humiliating bondage forced upon us. (…) Morning, noon and night we were subjected to jeers, insults and blows because we were “Negroes”. (…) Who will ever forget the shootings which killed so many of our brothers, or the cells into which were mercilessly thrown those who no longer wished to submit to the regime of injustice, oppression and exploitation used by the colonialists as a tool of their domination? (…) Together we shall establish social justice and ensure for every man a fair remuneration for his labour.” The “Congolese crisis” After 30 June, General Janssens, head of the Force Publique (the colonial military force), declared: “Before independence = after independence.” He thus meant that even if political independence had had to be granted, this was not the case with economic independence. The exploitation of Congo should remain in the hands of Belgian capitalists and their allies. The attitude of Janssens and other remaining ex-colonial military cadres provoked a revolt in the Force Publique, where Congolese soldiers refused to allow the hierarchy to remain in the hands of the conservative ex-colonists loyal to the monarchy. Subsequently, the policy of “Africanisation” of the public force led to what would be called the “Congolese crisis”. The Role of the Belgian and American Imperialist Powers This period is to be seen in the international context of the confrontation between the two great ideological blocs which were completely opposed: the Western imperialist pro-free market bloc and the “Eastern” bloc that was pro-planned economy around the USSR. Although the USSR was a bureaucratic caricature of communism, it nevertheless presented an ideology favourable to the interests of the workers, the oppressed and the exploited. The US feared that Lumumba would end up like Fidel Castro in Cuba, that the colonial revolution would move him from a liberal to a communist position. The Africanisation of the public force, as well as the Belgian military defeat, loosened the grip of the former colonial power, leading to the decision of the Western powers, Belgium, the CIA, the UN — and their accomplices in Leopoldville, Kasai and Katanga — to bring Lumumba down. The colonial stranglehold was entrenched in the rich province of Katanga, in order to keep control of the natural wealth controlled by the Belgian mine company Union Minière. The Belgian authorities fomented plots to set the young state on fire, with secession wars and coups d’état. Katanga seceded in July, with the support of NATO-allied imperialist states. Lumumba posed a threat to the interests of the former colonial elite. He could no be controlled by the Belgian and US imperialist powers. In September, they pushed President Kasa-Vubu to dismiss Lumumba and his government despite the fact that he did not have the constitutional power to do so. Lumumba’s assassination In his turn, Lumumba responded by asking Kasa-Vubu to resign. The imperialist powers pushed the army to take power by supporting a coup led by the chief of staff, Mobutu, ten days after Lumumba’s ouster. This may have been illegal, but the absence of a grassroots organization in society to prevent such a coup proved fatal. At the end of 1960, the Belgian and American authorities gave the green light for Lumumba’s assassination. He was tortured and transported to Katanga, where Patrice Lumumba, the popular hero of Congolese independence was shot. In 1999, author Ludo De Witte published a revealing book, “The Assassination of Lumumba”, in which he demonstrates the responsibility of the Belgian state in these events. Although pressure built up to demand a Belgian parliamentary commission of enquiry, only in 2002, the Belgian government

Lumumba: why popular hero of Congolese independence was assassinated Read More »

Towards a history of revolutionary Marxism 

Leaders of the Left Opposition in 1927

Part 1: Origins of the Left Opposition In coming weeks, PRMI will be publishing a series of articles on the history of the revolutionary movement following the victory of the Russian Revolution, covering the formation of the Fourth International and its post WW2 degeneration, leading up to our recent history. By Walter Chambers, 6 February 2025 From the point of view of the international working class, the Russian revolution which began with the overthrow of Tsarism in February 1917, leading in October 1917 to the socialist revolution when the working class led by the Bolsheviks came to power, was one of the greatest events in history.  In the new Soviet state, the Bolsheviks had introduced a whole range of radical socialist measures. After withdrawing from World War 1, Russia refused to recognise secret agreements previously agreed between the imperialist powers, granted land to the peasantry, introduced workers’ control, the right to vote for all citizens men, women and youth, equal rights for women, decriminalised same sex relations, granted the right of self-determination to those nations that wanted it as well as radically transforming the education and health systems in favour of working people and the poor. They established the Communist International, with the aim of building a world revolutionary party capable of spreading the socialist revolution.  International capital however was determined to strangle the revolution. Tsarist and other reactionary forces set up armies to oppose the revolution, they were soon joined by the armies of twenty other countries including large contingents of British, Japanese, Czech, German, Turkish, French and US troops, whilst elsewhere other revolutionary movements were brutally suppressed – with, for example the assassination of the heroic anti-war German revolutionaries Luxemburg and Liebknecht. The imperialist intervention which led to a brutal civil war almost destroyed the new Soviet republic.  Isolation of the revolution Lenin who, with Trotsky, led the Russian Revolution, died in January 1924. In his last year he suffered one stroke after another, most likely caused by the failed assassination attempt by the social-revolutionary Fanny Kaplan in 1918. It is, though, no coincidence that his last major speech in November 1922 was to the 4th Congress of the Communist International discussing the prospects for world revolution. This was followed by a series of letters expressing his concern at the growing influence of Stalin. He formed a block with Trotsky to defend the monopoly of foreign trade, and requested the Soviet Congress to find a way of removing Stalin from the post of General Secretary.  Lenin understood very well, and indeed the principle was enshrined in the DNA of the Bolshevik party, that if the new Soviet State in Russia was to survive and develop in a genuinely socialist direction, the extension of the revolution across Europe and the world was necessary. Lenin’s insistence that the new USSR should be a union of independent socialist states was with the aim of accepting a future socialist Germany as an equal partner.  The four year long civil war waged by reactionary and imperialist armies which sought to overturn the revolution took the lives of many of the best class fighters, left much of the country in ruins, and the Russian economy in tatters. The new Soviet state desperately needed the spread of the revolution to the more developed countries. This was not a false hope – the German revolution saw the Kaiser overthrown before it was betrayed by the Social-democrats, in Hungary a revolutionary government came to power but quickly collapsed, whilst major revolutionary waves spread across Turkey, Italy, Mexico, India, Egypt, Ireland and elsewhere.  What was lacking in these countries were revolutionary parties such as the Bolsheviks, and as a consequence, Soviet Russia was left isolated, laying the basis for the future degeneration of the revolution, a process that did not take place in one leap, but over time in line with a series of international and national developments, resisted all the way by the supporters of what became the International Left Opposition, and then Fourth International, led by Trotsky. Destruction caused by the civil war The Civil War was not just hugely destructive, it had demanded political measures that would not normally be expected in a democratic socialist society. The economy was over-centralised, rather than the peasantry being allowed to develop their newly gained land, they found their grain requisitioned by the state, and the very nature of war demanded strict military discipline.  Even in this situation though, debates over policies raged within the Bolshevik party. Only in 1921, was it thought necessary to introduce a temporary ban on factions – a ban, which Lenin stressed in his resolution was intended at a time of severe crisis to maintain party unity when it was under attack on many fronts. In no way, he stressed, was any genuine criticism or argument to be restricted, but rather than used for factional purposes, should be discussed by the whole party.   Lenin was also recognising another process undermining the new Soviet state. It had, in many ways, inherited the state apparatus from the old Tsarist system. Only the most widespread democratic control, primarily by the working class, could break this down, but this was increasingly impossible because the most conscious class fighters had been taken into the army, or their time was devoured by  multitudinous administrative tasks needed to run society.  For this reason, in one of his last contributions Lenin proposed to strengthen the political role of the Central Committee and sharpen the effectiveness of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate intended to combat bureaucracy.   By 1920 a debate had opened within the new state on how best to develop the economy. Trotsky, who was not only leader of the Red Army, but had also been involved in directing economic work and the railways in the Urals had seen the problems caused by over-centralisation. He proposed in February 1920 to replace grain requisitioning by a progressive tax on the peasantry. Lenin initially rejected this idea. But with the delay of the

Towards a history of revolutionary Marxism  Read More »