Editor's note: We, in general, endorse this critique of democratic “socialism.” That being said, we think that the notion that revolutionary defeatism is, in itself, proletarian internationalist, is slightly mistaken. For Lenin, proletarian internationalism and revolutionary defeatism was always a tactical issue. Lenin believed that national wars and national liberation was also possible, and in those cases, the proletariat should ally with the “oppressed” nation. In the context of the war with Iran, Lenin’s theory of imperialism could justify proletarian internationalism (revolutionary defeatism) or bourgeois nationalism (revolutionary defencism). We, by contrast, argue that the division of the world at the end of the period of colonial  expansion created an era where  imperialism the policy of every state. Our proletarian internationalism is not tactical: when the world-bourgeoisie stands united against the world proletariat, class struggle is by material necessity internationalist.

Preface: With the current crises unfolding as a direct result of the US and Israel’s attack upon Iran earlier this month, the question of what we as socialists and workers within America must do in response is of most vital importance. It is with familiar but still bitter disappointment that I find the “Iran Statement” by the St. Louis Democratic Socialists of America (St. Louis DSA) short of what is necessary for the current moment.  You can find the statement posted on their website. 

“Late Friday night, the United States initiated an unprovoked campaign of aggression against the people of Iran.”

Iran and the US have been in conflict with one another for decades, especially with Iran’s support of several organizations that make up the so-called “Axis of Resistance” (including Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups that threaten both American and Israeli dominance in the region to varying degrees). This is something that the St. Louis DSA  openly acknowledges later on, making their opening framing about an “unprovoked campaign of aggression” all the more strange. Although unexpected in its sudden scale, such conflict between the two powers was bound to escalate beyond throwing a few handfuls of missiles at select targets. 

Wars like these shouldn’t be condemned on moral grounds with phrases like “campaign of aggression” or on whether it is “provoked” beforehand. The issue of war should not at its core be only a moral issue for the socialist movement. Wars like these  are instead inevitable due to the nature of capitalist imperialism and competition between ever-growing and competing sets of nations. If we wish to have the horrors of imperialist war end, then we need to combat the roots of why such wars occur in the first place. 

This use of the phrase “campaign against the people of Iran” muddies the conflict between Iran and America and hides the classes that rule both of these countries. This war will impact the working class of Iran much more than the ruling class (those that own for a living, rather than sell their labour for a wage), as all wars do. In the statement, no mention is made within this statement about the working class within either Iran or America: the only group in Iran named is  “the people.” In what way can a socialist organization claim to support the working class in its fight to end capitalism without mentioning once in its statement the class that it should be backing? 

“This brazen use of force is illegal and threatens the peace and stability of the millions of people faced with yet another imperialist war. In its obsessive pursuit of this conflict, the Trump administration has dragged the American people into yet another conflict that we do not support.”

By what metric is this action that the US and Israel committed “illegal?” Would such an action be somehow better if it were within the bounds of the laws set by the ruling classes itself? The ruling class all over the world has flaunted such arbitrary rules for decades! This is not a socialist framing of why one must be opposed to this conflict. Without critiquing the social basis of the world's institutions, exposing capitalist's hypocrisy  merely endorses their institutions.

“This war is a grim and familiar chapter in the imperialist project to install a compliant regime in Iran and ensure American dominance over the region’s people and resources. This war serves the interests of corporations and oligarchs rather than working people.”

This is true. American workers don’t have anything to gain from choosing sides in the conflict between the Iranian and American bourgeoisie. The start of this conflict will only fill the coffers of the ruling class and fill the coffins of those that choose to fight in it.

Thankfully, this is not a new observation within the socialist movement. Over a century ago, the socialist movement was in an intense moment of crisis. After the start of the First World War, socialist parties and organizations all over the world decided that this conflict was somehow an exception to the rule of opposing war and supporting international class struggle. Instead, many of these parties called for a “defense of their own homelands” or declared themselves neutral on the topic to avoid repression (as the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World did when America joined the conflict in 1918).

There were many, however, that didn’t take this situation lying down. There were many across Europe and later the world who stood up against defending such horrors in the name of defending their ‘homeland.’ Instead, they called for the defeat of their own country’s ruling class by means of class struggle. As a former member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Anton Pannekoek, put it:

“These representatives of the party now think that by their prudence they saved the party organization. Superficially considered, they appear to be in the right, for the party is now treated from above more favorably than ever before; but the socialist soul has thereby been sacrificed.”

There were those who were on the “Revolutionary Left” around the world that took action to oppose their own governments, honing in on the popular slogan that “The Main Enemy Is At Home!” Although it seemed impossible at the start of the conflict, the Left was in fact prudent in their convictions. As the horrors of the war dragged on, anti-war sentiment among the working class across Europe started to rise. This led to the Russian Revolution, causing the overthrow of first the Romanov dynasty and then the bourgeois provisional government. Revolts and revolutions soon followed all across Europe in response to the economic hardships that the war had accumulated, following the example of Russia’s relatively small working class.

Although the revolutions that occurred as a result of World War One were unsuccessful in the goal of international socialism, they proposed a very real foresight that the socialists within the “center” and “right” camps of the movement simply refused to see, even if such positions were at first unpopular. Such a distinction would ultimately lead to a massive break from the mainstream socialist parties by the Revolutionary Left with the formation of the Third International (also known as the Communist International).

This foresight of what would be later termed ‘revolutionary defeatism’ came from a clear understanding of war between capitalist powers. It comes from understanding war not as a voluntary action between “aggressor” or “defending peoples,” but as an inevitable consequence of competing blocs of capitalists using the violence of the state to expand their own means of extracting profit. This insight developed from the fundamental understanding that there is no common cause between those that own for a living and those that work for a living, and that the capitalist class will always use the workers under their “domain” to inflict whatever force necessary to protect their class interests. 

The St. Louis DSA has the correct understanding that we must oppose the interests of our local bourgeoisie, exemplified by the American government and its war between itself and Iran. This, however, is diluted by a clear lack of class analysis that comes from revolutionary defeatism. They clearly point at the group that we must oppose, but do not clearly articulate which class they support in such a fight against them. They also do not articulate any clear way in which one can oppose the ruling class for such a class, which for the revolutionary left of the last century was the building of revolutionary workers’ councils, committees and parties. This involved enacting the class action necessary to bring society to a halt. It was these actions that brought the ruling classes of nations like Russia and Germany to their knees, and kicked off revolutions that are still being studied to this day.

“The Trump administration seeks to remove the strongest anti-Zionist, anti-genocide power in the region and to secure the country’s oil resources, allowing the US to control the global supply in blatant disregard of Iran’s sovereignty.”

The use of “sovereignty” as something that socialists should defend only solidifies this organization’s commitment to protecting what already exists rather than fight for something entirely new. Defending a nation's sovereignty against another’s advance is the rhetoric of those that seek to dismiss international class struggle and replace it with the fight between nations.

“Given the examples of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, what we will doubtless see in an American ‘victory’ is an occupation of the country’s oil infrastructure, while the rest of the country descends into chaos, putting the lives of millions in danger, and dooming the future of the people that we profess to want to liberate.”

What does the “liberation” of people in these regions look like? There is still no mention of the working classes within any of these countries and their interests.

“The objectives of this war have been presented in the vaguest terms to ensure that there are no limits on American actions and that victory can be declared swiftly and with the fewest short-term domestic consequences. No number of hollow claims regarding national security or even humanitarianism can possibly justify such a foolish endeavor.”

Agreed. The American State, executive committee of the bourgeoisie, will do whatever it determines as necessary to maintain its hegemony over the region.

“St. Louis DSA condemns our country’s continued war crimes, and expresses solidarity with the victims of American Empire.”

Who are these “victims of American empire?” As elaborated before, this statement seems almost allergic to mentioning the class that has any chance of stopping this carnival of violence by the bourgeoisie. This conflating of class by using vague terms like “victims of American empire” starts from the same premise that the ruling class seek to project onto the workers: to conflate the Iranian state (commanded by its bourgeoisie) with that of the Iranian working class. They are, by starting from this same premise, doing the work of the American capitalists that they rightfully despise! It is this exact framing of governments that obscures the real nature of all governments around the world: mechanisms of class rule.

The only opposition to the war the American can offer is the denial of labor to the capitalists. Through organized struggle, this war can be ended in the same way the wars in Russia and Germany were: the mass action of the proletariat. Should we truly wish to work towards socialism, the immediate task of workers in every nation should be an independent struggle against the bourgeoisie. 

“We call for an immediate cease to the fighting, a lasting peace agreement respecting the sovereignty of all involved, and for Congress to reassume the powers they have surrendered all too often.”

The above statement,  Marx said in his Critique of the Gotha Program, is “tainted through and through by … servile belief in the state or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles.” Calling for a ceasefire and for congress to “reassume the powers they have surrendered so often” simply puppets the rhetoric of the Democratic party that this organization grows from like a mole or skin tag. Worse, the demands put forward are almost the same as those of the Libertarian Party! Consider these excerpts:

“The Libertarian Party is calling for immediate cessation of the unconstitutional U.S. / Israel joint military operations in Iran, initiated February 28th, under “Operation Epic Fury.” President Donald Trump has explicitly stated that the operation is intended to instill regime change in Iran. 

Congress has been derelict in its duty to protect its status as arbiter of War Powers, repetitively refusing to constrain Presidential privilege to attack sovereign nations without congressional consent. This latest attack is the most recent abuse of the Authorization to Use Military Force, initiated under the Patriot Act, which has been used as a catch-all for military adventurism.”

… 

“What is clear is that the actions taken today have no meaningful constituency among the American people. They will destabilize the region further. They will make Americans poorer through inflation, deficit spending, and energy shocks. They will enrich the military-industrial complex. And they risk not only a protracted greater war in the Middle East, but the ignition of a far more dangerous global powder keg.”

This tame set of demands calls for nothing revolutionary, mentions nothing about the class interests of those that don't own for a living, and leaves out the most impactful thing that the working class can do to stop this war: turning a nationalist war between national powers into a war between the workers and the bourgeoisie. On the whole, the St. Louis DSA’s statement is, as Marx again characterized the Gotha Program, “remote from socialism.”

Let us remember the words of IWW member Frank little who, in response to the same nationalist slogans we hear repeated today, stated in 1918: 

“I don’t care what country your country’s fighting, I’m fighting for the emancipation of labor!”

To the workers of the US and Iran, the same applies:

The main enemy is at home! 

No War But Class War!

Elisha Moon Williams