Interview with the Barikád Collective on Revolutionary Defeatism
The Barikád collective sent some questions to different groups with internationalist positions on revolutionary defeatism. These were read at a public meeting in Hungary by the larger group in which they participate: PEK (Péntek esti kísértetjárás – Haunting on Friday Evening). Here are our responses.
1. According to you, what is the relevance of revolutionary defeatism today?
The first thing that needs to be clarified is that revolutionary defeatism is always relevant. By this, we mean that defeatism is an essential programmatic principle, and its defence is an unbreachable class line that separates revolutionaries from the left of capital.
On the other hand, in the current situation with the wars in Ukraine and Palestine and the possible formation of imperialist blocs around China and the United States, the defence of revolutionary defeatism takes on primary importance. It is in times of war where the unwavering defence of internationalism and the denunciation of war as an inter-imperialist conflict place us in the proletarian camp. Doing the opposite, whether we want it or not, will always lead us to prioritize the interests of one of the national bourgeoisies in the dispute over the interests of the global proletariat. There is no turning back once you position yourself with one of the imperialist sides in a conflict.
2. How can we apply it in the countries of capitalist war and peace?
As we mentioned in the previous question, revolutionary defeatism is a programmatic principle, meaning it is not a tactical issue that we carry out or not depending on the immediate situation. Our task as revolutionaries is the unwavering defence of communist positions at a time when counter- revolution has made it necessary to recover the true revolutionary positions in the face of the distortion carried out by Stalinism.
By this, we mean that the defence of revolutionary defeatism is the same everywhere in the world, and the task of communists right now is to clarify revolutionary positions and defend them unwaveringly everywhere.
3. How can it get out from the “bubble” of the milieu of the movement groups? How can it be a common practice of the proletariat today?
We place central importance on contact and discussion among revolutionary minorities because, as we mentioned earlier, one of the main tasks we revolutionaries have in times of social peace is to recover the true communist program that the counter-revolution has falsified by presenting the defence of the state and capitalism as communism.
We believe our historical moment is characterised by its ambivalence. On the one hand, the counter- revolution that has crushed the proletariat for almost 100 years no longer has the same strength as before, and the crisis of capitalism is becoming increasingly deep, making it more difficult for the bourgeoisie to maintain social peace. On the other hand, we still live in times of social peace, where the proletariat is not acting as a class. It is from this analysis that we place so much importance on the work of clarification among the minorities so that when a class movement erupts, we can be a point of convergence for the revolutionary proletariat.
4. Shall we deliver the message to the proletariat as something “coming from the outside”? Or shall we instead map and investigate ourselves as part of the proletariat, this way creating mutual relationships and organizing ourselves?
From our understanding, it is not a question of whether consciousness comes from the outside or the class itself. It is rather a question of the relationship that exists between the class and revolutionary minorities. The revolution is not a product of consciousness; it is not about whether we can convince the majority of the class through the correct tactics and strategy. For us, the revolution emerges as a product of an immediate and material struggle that erupts spontaneously and, through a process of generalisation and extension, transforms the consciousness of those who participate in it.
It is very important to clarify that we do not understand the class from a sociological point of view, as a set of workers with common characteristics. In moments of social peace, the individual consciousness of each proletarian is subjected to the dominant ideology, which is the ideology of the ruling class. The proletariat begins to transform into a class – that is, a concrete expression of antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie – only when it fights by extending the conflict, by generalising the contents of its struggle. And in this same process, it in turn generates its own revolutionary minorities, its own party, which are the ones that defend with the greatest determination the general and international interests of the proletariat and, in doing so, act as a factor of programmatic clarification within the class in struggle itself.
5. Can we speak about revolutionary defeatism without communism?
Revolutionary defeatism is the synthesis of proletarian autonomy and internationalism, which are the basic foundations of the communist program. For us, revolutionary defeatism is the expression of the proletariat’s antagonism toward all the bourgeoisies of the world and all current and possible capitalist states. It implies understanding that all current wars, except for the proletariat’s war for communism, express inter-imperialist conflicts that the proletariat must confront if it wants to affirm itself as a class. In that sense, and contrary to the dominant logic within the left of capital, defeatism is not just against this or that bourgeoisie, or only against one’s own bourgeoisie, but is part of a program of affirmation of the world proletariat against all bourgeoisies.
It makes no sense to talk about revolutionary defeatism without communism, just as we cannot say we are communists if we do not defend revolutionary defeatism. There must be coherence between communist theory, the communist program, and tactics; without this coherence, we are doomed to fall into opportunism.