The Workers' Bomb: A Dangerous Illusion in the Fight Against Imperialism
On Spartacist’s mistaken call to arm Iran’s clerical regime with nuclear weapons
Recently, the Spartacist’s International Communist League (ICL) argued that the weak state of the left currently “leaves the mullahs’ regime as the only anti-imperialist force” in Iran. They argue:
”Whether or not the victory of Iran would strengthen the regime would depend on the Marxist left itself. What most strengthens Iran’s rulers is for leftists to stand by when the country is under attack and do nothing—this leaves the mullahs’ regime as the only anti-imperialist force. For leftists to drop their banners and cheer on the regime would indeed strengthen it. To truly undermine the regime, the Marxist left needed to advance its own strategy to defend the country, showing at every step how the reactionary character of the regime was an obstacle to this task.”
From this, they conclude that socialists must defend "Iran’s right to nuclear weapons, a basic measure of self-defence for oppressed countries":
“In the current war, standing for the victory of Iran and the defeat of the US and Israel was the basic and necessary starting point. This includes defending Iran’s right to nuclear weapons, a basic measure of self-defence for oppressed countries.”
This perspective, which essentially argues that if imperialist powers have nukes, then oppressed nations should too, is a mistaken and dangerous take. It resurrects the deeply flawed idea of the "workers' bomb"—a concept revolutionary socialists have overwhelmingly rejected for very good reasons.
The ‘workers’ bomb’
The notion of a "workers' bomb" is not new. It gained traction in some Trotskyist circles during the Cold War, notably from organisations like the Socialist Labour League (SLL), later the Workers' Revolutionary Party (WRP). Their argument was that the Soviet Union, despite its bureaucratic degeneration, remained a "workers' state" because its industry was nationalised and planned. Therefore, they contended that the Russian hydrogen bomb was a necessary instrument for the defence of this "degenerated workers' state" against imperialist powers. This instrument was, to them, the "workers' bomb".
Brian Grogan, a co-thinker of the US SWP writing in Socialist Challenge, exemplified this stance, arguing that socialists in the USSR "should not oppose the 'Russian bomb'" as doing so would "prepare for a massive victory for imperialism" and "further aid attempts at capitalist restoration". Writing in opposition to anti-nuclear socialist George Kerevan (a member of the Red Mole board) asserted that the Kremlin's possession of nuclear weapons was "overwhelmingly defensive".
However, this argument was, and remains, a profound analytical error. As Duncan Hallas powerfully retorted, "it must be obvious to an intelligent child of ten that nuclear weapons cannot be used to defend working class interests, since their use would involve the destruction of most of the world’s cities and the annihilation of most of the working class internationally". He incisively pointed out that Russian nuclear weapons, like US, British, French, and Chinese ones, are "essentially weapons for the mass vaporisation of working people". Hallas logically concluded that "no real workers’ state can be defended by means which involve the liquidation of the whole world working class" and, indeed, that "the international nuclear weaponry of the USSR constitutes yet further proof, if any were needed, that it is not in any sense, a workers’ state". The idea of a "workers' bomb" is an "idiocy" and a form of "'workers' barbarism'".
The Stalinist bomb was a substitute for world revolution
While it is true that the Soviet Union's rapid development of nuclear capabilities (atomic bomb in 1949, H-bomb in 1953) served as a deterrent, compelling "Wall Street to renounce absolute global hegemony" and share power with Moscow, this reliance on nuclear weapons for defence came at the expense of mobilising the world struggle for socialism. The bureaucratic dictatorship of the USSR subordinated global Communist Parties to its own interests, turning them into "border guards" of the USSR. This approach fundamentally contradicted the ultimate socialist vision, which posits that only world socialist revolution and the establishment of a global socialist federation can transform atomic energy from a threat into a benefit for humanity. The power to prevent the production and use of nuclear weapons lies in the "hands of workers" through "strikes and revolutionary action".
The mainstream of the world socialist movement has consistently and unequivocally opposed nuclear weapons, and for good reasons.
Universal Opposition to Nuclear Weapons
Socialists are explicitly against nuclear weapons and wish for them all to be scrapped. These weapons are seen as aggressive instruments and are intrinsically linked to the destructive nature of capitalism and imperialism. They are monstrous creations of an arms economy, designed for mass destruction and pose an existential threat to all humanity.
Militarism as a Capitalist Symptom
Military spending is viewed as an artificial outlet for surplus capital within the capitalist system, diverting vast resources from human welfare to instruments of destruction. This leads to a warfare state where social welfare is cut to fund arms races. The problem lies not with the technology itself, but its application by capital and the given social order (better: disorder).
No Nuclear Weapons for Any State, Including Oppressed Nations
While socialists staunchly defend the right of oppressed nations to defend themselves and acquire necessary conventional arms to resist aggression, this does not extend to nuclear weapons. Providing nuclear weapons to nations, even if they have a full moral right to retaliate, is deemed completely foolish and excessively dangerous, risking a major crime against humanity. The threat posed by nuclear arms transcends the class character of the state possessing them.
Primacy of Mass Struggle
A core socialist tenet is that the mobilisation of the power of the organised working class is superior to all other methods of struggle—including armed struggle. True security and liberation for the working class and oppressed nations come through demilitarisation, neutrality, and the collective power of mass movements, not through nuclear deterrence or participation in the global arms race. The ultimate aim is a radically demilitarized society where the state and its instruments of violence wither away or are dismantled.
Rejection of Campism and False Pacifism
Socialists condemn false pacifism or campism which, while appearing anti-imperialist, tolerate or acquiesce to an aggressor's demands or actions. This can lead to objectively aiding aggressors or sacrificing genuine solidarity by prioritising avoiding conflict repercussions for Western working classes over supporting oppressed peoples. The socialist stance is to oppose all imperialism—Western or non-Western—and provide unconditional solidarity to oppressed peoples while maintaining political independence from all powers.
In conclusion, the idea of a workers' bomb, whether for a degenerated workers' state like the historical USSR or for an oppressed nation like present-day Iran, is a dangerous fantasy. It not only risks catastrophic global annihilation but also diverts attention and resources from the real path to liberation: the international class struggle, the overthrow of capitalism, and the establishment of a democratic socialist world federation where weapons of mass destruction are globally abolished. True security and peace are found not in the accumulation of instruments of human destruction, but in the collective power of the organised working class fighting for universal disarmament and a world free from exploitation and war.
To hear more, check out our podcast.