Vilifying Mandel to Validate Yeltsin: AWL's Slanders, 'Socialism in One Country', and Our Living Marxism

Part 3: Responding to the AWL's Distortions of Ernest Mandel

Sean Matgamna's systematic distortion of Ernest Mandel's positions was never merely about settling theoretical accounts with a ‘rival’ who was barely aware of the AWL. By painting Mandel—the most prominent theorist of post-war Trotskyism—as an "adapter" who betrayed revolutionary principles, the AWL created the ideological space necessary to justify their own far more profound betrayals. Every false accusation hurled at Mandel served to normalise the AWL's accommodation to "democratic" capitalism: if authentic Trotskyism was "wrong" about everything, then supporting Yeltsin's restoration, Ireland's institutionalised sectarian division, and Zionist solutions could appear not as capitulation, but as theoretical progress. The slander was the method; social-democratic drift was the goal.

---

Note: As part of our five-party response to the AWL’s open letter to Ernest Mandel, we have published two background notes to outline some of Ernest Mandel’s views on the topics addressed by the AWL: Ernest Mandel's Evolving Perspectives on 20th Century Socialism and Capitalism and Ernest Mandel: Some of his Contributions to Marxist Theory and Revolutionary Practice. The whole series of articles is available here.

---

In this third installment of our response to Sean Matgamna's open letter to Ernest Mandel, we address one of the most fundamental questions in revolutionary theory: the relationship between world revolution and national isolation. Matgamna's letter attempts to characterize the Fourth International's theoretical development as an abandonment of internationalism in favor of adaptation to various "socialist" regimes. This represents not merely a misunderstanding of the FI's actual positions, but a complete inversion of the historical record that reveals the AWL's own trajectory away from revolutionary internationalism toward social-democratic accommodation.

The Fourth International's Unwavering Opposition to "Socialism in One Country"

The documentary evidence is unambiguous: Ernest Mandel and the Fourth International consistently and vehemently rejected Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country" throughout their entire political existence. The very foundation of the Fourth International in 1938 was a direct response to the perceived failures of social democracy and the rise of Stalinism, particularly Stalin's reactionary utopia of 'socialism in one country'.

As the "Declaration of the Four" (1933), a precursor to the FI's founding, made clear, the fundamental principles included recognition of the international and permanent character of the proletarian revolution and explicit rejection of the theory of socialism in a single country. The Fourth International's founding programme consistently emphasised that internationalism was inseparable from genuine socialism and that Stalin's abandonment of world revolution represented a fundamental betrayal of Marxist principles.

For Mandel and the FI, the theoretical foundation was crystal clear: the international character of the socialist revolution flows from the present state of economy and the social structure of humanity. Internationalism is no abstract principle but a theoretical and political reflection of the character of world economy, of the world development of productive forces and the world scale of the class struggle. The socialist revolution begins on national foundations — but it cannot be completed within these foundations.

The dissolution of the Comintern in 1943 was seen as Stalin putting the final point to his work of liquidation of the International, buried in 1934 under the auspices of 'socialism in one country'. This act broke the last formal link which united the USSR to the world proletarian revolution, by making national-socialism the official doctrine of the Soviet state.

Critical Solidarity vs. Sectarian Abstentionism

When Matgamna accuses the Fourth International of "adaptation" to various revolutionary movements, he fundamentally misrepresents the sophisticated methodology that Mandel developed for analyzing complex revolutionary processes. The FI's approach was not uncritical support, but rather what they termed "critical solidarity" - unconditional support for anti-imperialist struggles combined with consistent criticism of bureaucratic methods and advocacy for genuine workers' democracy.

Mandel's analysis recognised that the Third World Congress in 1951 formally adopted this view that Stalinist communist parties could, under immense pressure from the masses in crisis situations, 'project a revolutionary orientation'. This was not an acceptance of "national socialism" as a desirable outcome, but an empirical observation that these parties, breaking from Moscow's direct control, could be driven to expropriate capitalism and establish "deformed workers' states."

Crucially, the FI maintained that the Yugoslav, Chinese, and Vietnamese communist parties came into direct conflict with Moscow to take power, and their victories were in no way the result of Moscow's policy. They characterised the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as having a 'centrist-bureaucratic character' capable of leading a revolution but 'not a Stalinist party in the strict sense,' distinguishing it from the Kremlin's monolithic control.

This approach represents what Mandel called the "living tradition" of Marxism - the ability to analyze new phenomena concretely rather than dismissing them based on preconceived formulas. As Mandel wrote in a powerful passage defending dialectical analysis:

"Each one of us is against 'overinvestment', against 'gigantism', against Stalinist and post-Stalinist 'superindustrialisation', most of which represent a total loss of expenditure in material resources. But we are not against accelerated industrialisation as such in these countries or in Russia, which was the first to opt for it, after the October revolution. To turn one's back on this industrialisation would mean not just rejecting the whole short and medium term trend in economic policy elaborated by Lenin, Trotsky and the Left Opposition after 1923. Above all it would mean condemning those countries to flounder in barbarism while they wait for the victory of the world revolution. But when would that come about? After five years? After ten years? After 20 years? After 30 years? Who knows? Must we in the meantime fold our arms and tolerate the intolerable?"

This dialectical approach stood in sharp contrast to the sectarian abstentionism that characterizes much of the ultra-left, including the AWL's current positions on liberation struggles.

The AWL's Dangerous Support for Capitalist Restoration

While the Fourth International maintained its principled internationalism throughout the Cold War period, the AWL's trajectory during the collapse of the Soviet Union reveals how far they had drifted from revolutionary principles. The period 1989-1991 represents a watershed moment that exposes the AWL's fundamental abandonment of anti-capitalist politics in favor of abstract "democratic" principles.

The AWL will likely claim they supported 'democracy against totalitarianism' rather than capitalist restoration per se. But this defense only confirms our critique: their theoretical framework had evolved to a point where supporting bourgeois democracy against workers' states became not just acceptable, but principled. This represents precisely the kind of social-democratic drift that revolutionary Marxists must oppose.

During the August 1991 coup attempt, when hardline elements of the Soviet bureaucracy moved against Gorbachev, the AWL adopted a position of 'critical support' for Boris Yeltsin. As documented in their own theoretical evolution, the AWL had by this point abandoned the traditional Trotskyist analysis of the USSR as a 'degenerated workers' state' in favor of the theory of 'bureaucratic collectivism' - treating the Soviet Union as a new form of class society with the bureaucracy as an exploiting class.

This theoretical shift provided the justification for supporting capitalist restoration. If the USSR was indeed a new exploiting class society, then its overthrow, even by bourgeois forces, could be seen as a necessary step to dismantle totalitarianism and open up democratic space for future class struggle. The choice for AWL, informed by 'bureaucratic collectivism,' was to prioritise the overthrow of the totalitarian bureaucracy as a prerequisite for any genuine workers' movement, even if the immediate outcome was capitalism.

The AWL may protest that they only gave 'critical support' to Yeltsin, not to capitalist restoration itself. But this misses the fundamental point: by 1991, their theoretical framework had evolved to make such 'critical support' not only possible but seemingly principled. When revolutionaries find themselves offering 'critical support' to figures implementing shock therapy and mass privatization, it is time to question the theoretical premises that led to such a position.

Yeltsin subsequently oversaw the implementation of neoliberal shock therapy, rapid privatisation, and the systematic destruction of the social gains of the October Revolution. As one analysis noted, this horrific product of mafia oligarchs working hand in hand with their imperialist patrons inflicted economic and social hardships so profound on the Russian people that, it is estimated, they were responsible for the deaths of at least three million people, along with a drop in the standard of living of the working class to a quarter of what it was in Soviet times.

A Pattern of Accommodation to Imperialism

The AWL's support for Yeltsin was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of accommodation to "democratic" imperialism that continues to this day. Their trajectory demonstrates how the prioritization of abstract democratic principles over concrete class analysis leads inevitably to support for bourgeois solutions and ultimately imperialist interests.

In Ireland, the AWL moved from early 'pioneering critiques of the Catholic-nationalist assumptions that had seeped into Irish left politics' to advocating for a 'federal united Ireland with regional autonomy for the mainly-Protestant north-east.' By 1998, the AWL's National Committee voted by a 'sizeable majority' for a 'yes' vote in the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement.

They acknowledged that the GFA 'erects institutions of power-sharing above the existing partition of Ireland' and 'tries to bury the basic question of two conflicting identities under a structure of balanced and weighted bureaucratic sectarianism.' Despite these criticisms and the GFA's entrenchment of partition, AWL considered it a 'lesser evil' if it 'holds and restrains armed communal conflict,' as it would 'create easier conditions for working-class politics there.'

This represents a fundamental departure from the Fourth International's approach, which would view British rule in any part of Ireland as inherently illegitimate and prioritise a unified, independent Ireland achieved through revolutionary means rather than a negotiated settlement that entrenches partition through "power-sharing."

The AWL will likely defend their position by arguing that they were being 'realistic' about the existence of 'two communities' in Northern Ireland. But this 'realism' represents precisely the kind of accommodation to existing power structures that characterises social-democratic politics. Revolutionary organisations must certainly understand complex realities, but they cannot allow this understanding to lead them into supporting settlements that institutionalise imperialist partition.

Palestine: The Clearest Expression of AWL's Drift

On Palestine, the AWL's positions reveal most clearly their abandonment of anti-imperialist solidarity in favor of false 'evenhandedness' between oppressor and oppressed. The AWL adopted a 'two-state position on Israel-Palestine' in 1988 and advocates for 'two states and equal rights.'

More revealing still is their slogan 'No to Netanyahu, No to Hamas!' which creates a false equivalence between the forces of colonial oppression and those of anti-colonial resistance. This approach fundamentally abandons the principled internationalist position that would provide unequivocal solidarity with the Palestinian liberation struggle while maintaining criticism of particular tactical or strategic approaches.

The AWL may argue that their position is more 'nuanced' and takes account of the complexity of the situation. But revolutionary internationalism is not about appearing balanced or nuanced - it is about taking the side of the oppressed against their oppressors, regardless of the political character of the oppressed's current leadership. The AWL's 'evenhandedness' between an imperialist state and a resistance movement reflects the same methodological error that led them to support Yeltsin: the subordination of class analysis to abstract democratic principles.

The Fourth International's current position on Palestine demonstrates the contrast: "Building a global movement against genocide in Palestine" represents unconditional solidarity with the oppressed against their oppressors, while maintaining the right to criticise particular leaderships or strategies.

The Method Behind the Deviation

The AWL's consistent pattern of deviation across multiple international questions reveals a underlying methodological problem: the subordination of concrete class analysis to abstract democratic principles. This 'Third Camp' methodology, which emerged from their analysis of Stalinism as a totalitarian, anti-democratic regime, has led them to prioritize the fight against 'totalitarianism' and for 'democratic rights' over the fundamental class struggle for socialism.

As their program explicitly states, they are committed to 'democracy at every level of society, from the smallest workplace or community to global social organisation.' While this might sound progressive in abstract terms, in practice it leads to supporting bourgeois-democratic forces or outcomes, even when they entrench capitalism or imperialism, as seen in their stance on Yeltsin and the Good Friday Agreement.

The AWL's likely defense—that they are fighting for 'genuine democracy' rather than bourgeois democracy—only reveals the idealist character of their politics. They have developed an abstract concept of democracy divorced from its class content, allowing them to support 'democratic' solutions that serve imperialist interests while appearing to maintain revolutionary credentials.

This represents a fundamental departure from the Marxist understanding that views democracy not as an abstract principle but as a form of state power, ultimately serving the interests of the ruling class under capitalism. For revolutionary Marxists, genuine democracy for the working class is achieved through class struggle, the overthrow of capitalism, and the establishment of workers' power based on workers' self-organization.

Internationalism vs. Social-Democratic Pragmatism

The contrast between the Fourth International's approach and that of the AWL illuminates two fundamentally different conceptions of internationalism. For the FI, internationalism means unwavering solidarity with all struggles against imperialism and exploitation, combined with principled criticism aimed at advancing the revolutionary potential of these movements.

For the AWL, 'internationalism' has been redefined to mean support for 'democratic' solutions that often align with imperialist interests when they come packaged in sufficiently liberal rhetoric. Their 'global solidarity against global capital' is filtered through a methodology that subordinates class struggle to abstract democratic principles.

This transformation represents precisely the kind of social-democratic drift that Trotsky warned against when founding the Fourth International. The accommodation to "realistic" solutions, the prioritisation of parliamentary democracy over workers' power, and the abandonment of revolutionary internationalism in favour of pragmatic reformism - all of these characteristics mark the AWL's evolution away from revolutionary Marxism.

Contemporary Relevance

The theoretical and political questions raised by the AWL's trajectory have profound contemporary relevance. In an era marked by renewed inter-imperialist conflict, rising movements for national liberation, and deepening capitalist crisis, the choice between revolutionary internationalism and social-democratic accommodation has never been more stark.

The AWL's method leads consistently to supporting the 'lesser evil' of bourgeois democracy against more authoritarian forms of capitalism, even when this means accommodating imperialism. This approach renders revolutionary organisations incapable of providing principled leadership to the struggles that will define the coming period.

The Fourth International's approach, by contrast, maintains the possibility of revolutionary transformation precisely because it refuses to subordinate class struggle to the false choices imposed by bourgeois politics. By maintaining principled solidarity with all anti-imperialist struggles while advocating for genuine workers' democracy, the FI preserves the revolutionary potential that the AWL has systematically abandoned.

Conclusion: The Living Tradition vs. Sectarian Adaptation

Sean Matgamna's accusation that the Fourth International "adapted" to various revolutionary movements represents a complete inversion of the actual historical record. It was the AWL that adapted - not to revolutionary movements, but to bourgeois-democratic imperialism dressed up in the language of human rights and democracy.

The AWL may protest that this characterisation is unfair, that they maintain their commitment to socialism and workers' power. But political organisations must be judged by their concrete positions on key international questions, not by their abstract commitments. When an organisation consistently finds itself supporting 'democratic' solutions that align with imperialist interests—from Yeltsin's Russia to partitioned Ireland to a two-state solution in Palestine—the pattern reveals more than the sum of its parts.

The Fourth International's theoretical development under Mandel's leadership represented the "living tradition" of Marxism in action: the ability to analyze new phenomena concretely while maintaining fidelity to fundamental revolutionary principles. This approach allowed them to support anti-imperialist struggles without illusions about their leaderships, to defend the gains of post-capitalist societies while criticizing their bureaucratic deformations, and to maintain revolutionary internationalism while adapting tactics to changing conditions.

The AWL's trajectory, by contrast, shows how the abandonment of dialectical analysis in favor of abstract principles leads inevitably toward accommodation with the existing order. Their 'orthodoxy' became a rigid schema that could only be maintained by systematically distorting the positions of more sophisticated revolutionaries.

Some may argue that this critique is too harsh, that the AWL simply made errors in judgment while maintaining their revolutionary intent. But the consistency of their deviations across multiple international questions suggests something deeper than tactical mistakes. When theoretical errors lead systematically to positions that accommodate imperialism and capitalism, they cease to be merely errors and become a pattern that demands explanation.

In our next article, we will examine how this methodological problem manifests in the AWL's approach to democratic questions, showing how their retreat from revolutionary solutions in Ireland and Palestine represents part of a broader idealist deviation that prioritizes bourgeois-democratic forms over the material interests of the working class.

The choice facing revolutionary socialists today remains the same as it was when Trotsky founded the Fourth International: between the living tradition of revolutionary Marxism and the various forms of accommodation to the existing order. The AWL's trajectory serves as a warning of how even organizations that claim revolutionary credentials can drift toward social-democratic pragmatism when they abandon the concrete analysis of concrete conditions in favor of abstract principles divorced from class struggle.

Critics may argue that this analysis is sectarian, that it fails to acknowledge the genuine difficulties facing revolutionary organizations in complex political situations. But there is nothing sectarian about insisting that revolutionary organizations maintain revolutionary positions. The 'complexity' that leads to supporting Yeltsin, the Good Friday Agreement, and two-state solutions is not the complexity of revolutionary dialectics—it is the complexity of trying to maintain socialist rhetoric while accommodating capitalist reality.

Ernest Mandel's legacy stands as a beacon for all those committed to the difficult but necessary work of developing revolutionary theory for contemporary conditions while maintaining unwavering solidarity with all those who struggle against imperialism and exploitation.

Postscript: On the AWL's Irish "Solution"

It would be easy to characterise the AWL's federal Irish solution as mere repartition, since it would leave the internal arrangements within Ulster largely unchanged—the same sectarian institutions, the same communal divisions, the same Protestant autonomy that partition originally created. However, it is more accurate to describe their approach as "institutionalised sectarian division" since defence and foreign policy would formally pass to Dublin, creating a single Irish state albeit one internally divided along communal lines.

This transition might indeed prove smoother than critics initially assumed. The Good Friday Agreement has already given Ireland decades of experience in oversight and consultation regarding Northern Ireland. While the GFA doesn't grant the Irish government direct executive authority over Northern Ireland's defence or foreign policy, it established formal structures and frameworks for consultation, cooperation, and input on issues concerning Northern Ireland. The AWL's federal proposal would simply formalise what has been evolving through practice—Irish involvement in Northern affairs, but within structures that permanently entrench the sectarian divisions that British imperialism originally imposed.

The fundamental critique remains: rather than challenging the legacy of divide-and-rule, the AWL's approach constitutionally enshrines it. This represents accommodation to imperialism's most enduring achievement—the successful division of the Irish working class along religious and national lines.