If you were suddenly transported from the aftermath of the fall of ‘communism’ in the early 1990s to 2023, you would be in for a rude shock. Going from a situation where even old-style communist parties accepted that the undemocratic nature of the USSR and its satellites was problematic, you would find hordes of net-warriors quoting Stalin’s works approvingly, defending the worst excesses of the Chinese klepto-capitalist regime and lauding Putin’s lumbering war machine as it slouches across Ukraine, raping, murdering and pillaging as it goes. How has it come to pass that there is nothing too reactionary, too anti-working class, too anti-human, for such so-called ‘leftists’ to justify?  The answer is largely to be found in the bizarre re-emergence of a version of Stalinism amongst western leftists.

WHAT IS STALINISM?

Traditional Stalinism can be conceived of as a theoretical position, a state ideology and an imaginary. In terms of theory, it posits that socialism is achieved through the agency of a vanguard party, which, on achieving state power through revolution, uses the instrument of a one-party state to build a socialist, and eventually communist society. This is sometimes varied by a belief in ‘stages theory’ whereby, based on the social/political structure existent in a particular territory, it may be necessary to pass through certain stages, usually involving alliances with bourgeois democratic or nationalist forces before there can be a transition to socialism. 

Secondly Stalinism is the ideology of the ruling class in a certain type of authoritarian socio-economic system, be it state capitalism, bureaucratic collectivism, klepto-capitalism, or a mixture of these. In this type of system, the ruling class, be they state bureaucrats, a patrimonial clique or state-adjacent capitalists, cannot maintain their rule purely by monopolisation of violence, so they need to achieve ideological hegemony. In the past the ruling class in ‘socialist’ states wielded some form of Stalinism (termed Marxism-Leninism) to justify and perpetuate their rule. This was often mixed with a strong dose of nationalism, sometimes drifting towards racism, often aimed at national minorities (see the treatment of the Turkish speaking minority in ‘socialist’ Bulgaria etc.). Ideological rhetoric was used to justify their exploitation of the workers and peasants, while also providing a link with left-wing movements world-wide. With the collapse of the ‘socialist states’ in Eastern Europe the role of Stalinism-nationalism as a state ideology is now largely confined to East Asia–China, Vietnam, North Korea and Laos.

But Stalinism is also a contemporary imaginary: a belief in the past existence of ‘socialism’ in the USSR that provides positive lessons for today. For some, China is the more successful version of a supposedly socialist state, a version that has managed to avoid collapse by incorporating and subordinating capitalism, a state-system that is superior to bourgeois democracy. Whether by reference to the Soviet past or to twenty-first century China, some leftists still console themselves by believing in the existence of a socialist reality.

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH THE REBIRTH OF STALINISM?

Some on the left acknowledge the revival of Stalinism but minimise the seriousness of it. Why, they ask, get worked up about what is largely the domain of fringe groups?  Surely, we have much more serious issues to contend with. This response is fundamentally flawed.

The fundamental meaning of socialism, not ideological nit-picking, is at stake. Either socialism means a free society based on workers control of all aspects of their lives or it means authoritarian one-party state ruled by bureaucrats, where anything, including mass-murder and genocide is permissible. Modern Stalinism is a fundamentally anti-working-class ideology: actively supporting and promoting the crushing of working-class struggle across much of the world; cheering on the exploitation and oppression of people because of their ethnicity, sexuality and gender. This perverted form of anti-worker leftism is a real threat, gaining ground amongst the young, and influencing left discourse across organisational and generational boundaries.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF NEO-STALINISM While the Stalinist revival has some ‘on the ground’ manifestations, in the form of the renewal or emergence of new Stalinist youth organisations and some influence on left-reformist organisations, its most visible form is virtual – in a galaxy of websites and online discussion forums, many of which are not tied to any particular organisation – The Grayzone, that dictator fan-boy’s favourite, being a prime example. This is what makes it attractive for naïve young people whose first experience of the ‘left’ is interaction with these online spaces. Increasingly for many young (and some not so young) leftists, the internet and social media are the main terrain of struggle, rendering them isolated from the day-to-day struggles of working-class people and more vulnerable to the macho cod-leftism of the Red Guards of virtual reality. It’s almost like a game, though not entirely virtual. This kind of politics is more akin to cosplay: even the actual physical activities are performative and often without consequence: massing together; wearing red scarves and waving mini-red flags on demos; etc.

This primarily virtual world has its influencers, ‘maverick’ politicians and personalities such as George Galloway in the UK, MEPs Clare Daly and Mick Wallace in Ireland, or YouTube personalities such as the American Jimmy Dore. Their ‘celebrity’ status and penchant for the stunts and provocative outbursts, are well-suited to the social media spaces that many on the left inhabit. They also act as a gateway for conspiracist thinking which is also infecting parts of the left and channelling young leftists towards far-right views on immigration, vaccines etc.

The term neo-Stalinism might be more appropriate to use as, after the demise of the USSR, many orthodox communist parties toned down their explicit Stalinism, accepting that there had been problems with the ‘communist’ states, though still clinging to the view that these represented ‘actual existing socialism’. Many of these parties shrank to a cohort of old-timers; their politics largely confined to trade union activity and the anti-war movement, almost indistinguishable from mainstream left-reformism and sometimes even further to the right (as in the unprincipled alliance of Communist Party of Britain activists with Blairites in the university lecturers’ union, UCU). Some of these parties have experienced a renewal, with an influx of members into their youth sections but this has sometimes led to resentment or even splits, as the old-timers find the provocative uber-revolutionary posturing of the youngsters jarring to their staid left-reformist practice (not to mention a threat to the property assets that the old guard have garnered over the decades and which they are resolved will never be yielded to anyone else, regardless of party democracy). In the Communist Party of Ireland this has led to a full-scale split with its youth section, the Connolly Youth Movement.

State funding from countries like China and Russia is also a factor in the life-support system of some western Communist Parties. There are plenty of international conferences, journals and opportunities for paid appearances on channels like Russia TV for the right people.

In addition to this, neo-Stalinism is attractive to a cohort of trade union full-timers, who on the one hand are under pressure to oppose austerity, anti-trade union laws, right-wing government policies etc. but on the other hand are hostile to genuinely radical upsurge from below which would threaten their hold on the unions.  This leads to the bizarre situation of ‘left’ trade union officials supporting anti-worker regimes that ban independent trade unions and strikes and imprison labour activists.  Some even go further in supporting the most reactionary forces imaginable.

Neo-Stalinism is a broad church with many variations but there are some fundamentals that unite them:

Democracy: They see bourgeois democracy as inferior to past and current authoritarian regimes. Free and fair elections; basic social and political rights; the ability for the working class to organise; etc. are of no importance. ‘Liberalism’ by which they mean bourgeois democracy, is the main enemy. But it’s not that they posit radical or participatory democracy of a future socialism as being superior to bourgeois democracy, it’s that they see the non-democracy of ‘communism’ and authoritarianism as being the ideal.

My enemy’s enemy: For the neo-Stalinist, any regime or movement which is ‘anti-western’ is deserving of support or at least worthy of defending against ‘liberal’ accusations. For them the world is viewed in a geo-political manner–there are two camps, the West, and the Rest; and we always support the Rest. There is no other possibility–either you are anti-imperialist, or you are pro-imperialist.  This has taken a more specific form recently with the rise to power of Xi Jinping in China, with his veneer of occasional leftist sounding rhetoric–now China has become for many, the USSR of the 21^st century–they have a new Rome to look to. This outlook entirely ignores the agency of exploited classes and oppressed peoples–it sees the world only in terms of super-power conflict–therefore demonstrating Iranian women; Ukrainian resistance fighters; striking workers in China, can only be conceived of as pawns of American imperialism.

Anti-woke:  Much of the neo-Stalinist left displays hostility to struggles against oppression–sometimes characterised by homophobia, misogyny, and especially, transphobia. This is partly based on old-fashioned economism, where struggles which are not seen as class-based are characterised as ‘identity politics’, but it also arises from raw prejudices, fear of difference, the desire to appear macho etc. In parallel with the aIt-right, it seems to be primarily younger males who are attracted to neo-Stalinism and this ‘anti-wokeness’ plays an important role in that attraction. Left ‘anti-wokeness’ promotes and feeds off a reactionary agenda, infecting parts of the left. This leads to the sort of bizarre situation where members of the Communist Party of Britain demonstrate alongside Tories outside the Scottish Parliament against the passing of the Gender Recognition law; or the ‘leftist’ academic, Angela Nagle, laughs along with the far-right Tucker Carlson on his shit-stirring Fox News show.

WHY IS NEO-STALINISM ATTRACTIVE TO YOUNG PEOPLE?

 So, what is it about neo-Stalinism that makes it attractive to young leftists?

1. Like its ‘alt-right’ cousin, neo-Stalinism is a way of rebelling, of shocking the oldies.  It has the advantage of getting up the noses of just about everyone, from other radical leftists to liberals and conservatives.  It’s the sort of punk-rock of the left, with a new vocabulary of memes, symbols and in-group jokes etc. generating an outraged reaction, as desired. The extreme way in which neo-Stalinists express their views fits with a sort of Millwallesque sense of belonging. A classic example of this was the ‘protest’ involving two members of Workers Party Youth (Ireland) outside the Ukrainian embassy in Dublin against the arrest of two members of a Stalinist organisation in Ukraine. Such activities don’t even have a propaganda purpose in terms of winning others to their cause, it is purely for internal consumption–look at us, everyone else supports the Ukrainians but we are not afraid to take a really unpopular position–well-hard!
2. This, of course, could only emerge in a social media world which is ideally suited for and shapes this type of activity and mentality–online culture reinforces the small-group subcultures of neo-Stalinism. The traditional viscousness of Stalinist politics, with its witch-hunting, name-calling, denunciations, is ideally suited for modern social media forums where a quick take-down, not depth of analysis, is the required skill.
3. It might be an exaggeration to claim that reading has gone out of fashion, but for some young leftists their ideas are more likely to be influenced by what they watch on YouTube rather than what they read. This can often mean that, while very well versed in ‘facts’, they are woefully lacking in knowledge of theoretical and historical depth.
4. Many, though not all, young leftists who are attracted to neo-Stalinism are students or come from a middle-class background. This in itself, of course, is not a fault or flaw but for some of them, there’s a certain frisson that goes with engagement with a “dangerous” ideology and practice. In addition, it feeds a desire to appear tough, a trait which is linked to a stereotypical image of being working class. This reaches ever more absurd manifestations, epitomised by a specialist niche of warmed-over Maoism. There are, no doubt, lurking somewhere out there, newly minted fans of the Khmer Rouge!

WHY DO THE TROTKYSIST LEFT TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE REBIRTH OF STALINISM?

So why have so many on the left not only failed to recognise the dangers of resurgent Stalinism, but sometimes actively avoid criticism of the trend?

Ironically, given the historical resonance, one of the reasons for this reluctance to confront neo-Stalinism, is the change that has occurred in a large part of the Trotskyist left. Traditionally these groups strongly opposed Stalinism in the trade unions, in solidarity campaigns etc.  However, with the end of the Cold War, and the demise of many of the orthodox communist parties, and the evolution of many Trotskyist organisations to a post-Trotskyist position, they have turned their attention away from critiques of Stalinism and in some cases, such as the UK based Counterfire, they have adopted some positions very close to neo-Stalinism (campism, anti-woke etc.), as well as being happy to cooperate with those neo-Stalinists in campaigns such as the UK Stop The War campaign. Some more traditionalist Trotskyist groupings have also adopted some positions that are very close to those of the neo-Stalinists, especially in relation to the Russian imperialist invasion of Ukraine.

However, this ‘soft on Stalinism’ problem is not just confined to those individuals and organisations which come from the Trotskyist tradition, it has infected a much broader range of leftists. This is epitomised by the view that the ‘communist’ states were in some way socialist, though usually with acknowledgement that they were flawed: ‘the Stasi were awful, but the childcare was great etc.’ or a romantic view of the activities of the popular front era Communist Parties. This trend is marked in the Democratic Socialists of America, where a strange mixture of popular front nostalgia and neo-Kautskyism has led a whole section of left-reformists to develop a distinct softness on Stalinism, a softness that has had unfortunate practical effects such as the ‘campist’ position of the DSA international committee.

Unfortunately, even for those leftists who do not share that benign view of Stalinism, actively opposing neo-Stalinist positions or organisations is often viewed as sectarian and divisive.  The old cliché, ‘we should concentrate on the 90% of things we agree on, not the 10% of things we disagree on‘ is frequently wheeled out to justify this position. This reduces the struggle against Stalinism to a disagreement with comrades over details. It is premised on the view that Stalinism is just another tendency in the socialist family rather than an ideology and movement which is fundamentally opposed to the basic principles of socialism. If the 10% includes justification for mass murder, one party states, transphobia etc., then it is in clear opposition to the most fundamental principles of socialism.

The other issue is a sort of reductionism which has always been a problem on the left. Anti-Stalinists will be told that most ‘ordinary people’ don’t care about these nuances, this is peripheral to their everyday concerns. This is the same argument that was used in the past to deny the importance of women’s liberation, or the LGBT struggle, as fundamental to the socialist project; or the type of argument that could equally be deployed to oppose involvement with international solidarity campaigns. The fact is that ideological and practical struggles are not a zero-sum game, that all struggles against oppression and exploitation are important. Of course, at different times and in different places, one issue or another may take precedence, but these are questions of practical organisation. For example, raising opposition to Stalinism because an older member of your community organisation is a CP member is not really sensible; but opposing campism in the anti-war movement is a vital matter of principle.

HOW TO RESPOND TO THE REBIRTH OF STALINISM?

Stalinism is a virus that is spreading, infecting younger leftists, and turning many onto a reactionary road despite the positive ideals that they started with. Radical socialists must confront head-on this rotten ideology and practice. Though by no means exhaustive, here are some possible actions:

1. Explicit anti-Stalinist education should be encouraged in all non-Stalinist left organisations, including a clear Marxist analysis of Stalinism as a theory, a crash-course in the monstrous crimes of Stalinism in practice, and a detailed study of the exploitative and oppressive nature of ‘actually existing Stalinism’ in China.  This could be easily facilitated by the numerous Marxist studies of all these phenomena.

2. Rather than side-stepping key issues in the interests of ‘left-unity’, socialists should openly confront anti-trans, pro-dictatorship, pro-mass-murder views on the left, driving a wedge between neo-Stalinists and those who are superficially attracted to some of their rhetoric, and forcing non-Stalinists who tolerate and work with Stalinists off the fence.

3. While hardened Stalinists should be unceasingly fought and confronted, there are many, especially younger comrades, who may be superficially attracted, for reasons already enumerated. Their drift can sometimes be halted by careful persuasion based on accurate information that is contrary to the propaganda they have previously engaged with. Such persuasion is far more likely to succeed if those doing the persuading have a record of activism in struggles against exploitation and oppression, be it through political organisations, trade unions or campaigning groups.

Above all there is a need to carve out spaces where this struggle against Stalinism can be sustained: in democratically structured, revolutionary socialist organisations and non-dogmatic spaces of discussion. An alternative, truly revolutionary and democratic politics is the best way to win people over from the strange cul-de-sac of the Stalinist revival.

Socialists and the Syrian Revolution

The Syrian revolution 2011 was a genuine people’s uprising: one that was crushed by the al-Assad regime; a corrupt neo-liberal clique backed by Russian imperialism; and Iranian clerico-military oligarchy. The intervention of the US and its Saudi and Gulf allies also undermined the revolution and bolstered reactionary fundamentalist forces. Socialists support the Syrian masses in their struggle against all of these oppressive forces.

Timeline of the Syrian Revolution 2011

2000: Bashar al-Assad inherits family-run dictatorship from father, Hafez al-Assad.

2000-2011: Under Bashar, regime modifies the state-capitalist system with neo-liberal reforms – largely to benefit family and crony-capitalist class. Withdrawal of subsidies, drought etc. leads to exodus of impoverished peasants into cities.

March 2011: Inspired by Arab Spring revolutions, mass peaceful protests demanding democratic reform and end to repression sweep across Syria.

May 2011: Regime launches massive military attacks to crush peaceful protests.

July 2011: Defecting troops form Free Syrian Army to resist regime attacks. Local Coordinating Committees establish popular democratic control across Syria.

2012-2013: Conflict escalates into full scale civil war with rebels taking control of large parts of the country. Regime abandons north-east to left-wing Kurdish PYD and encourages sectarianisation of conflict. Foreign intervention begins with Iran and Hezbollah supporting regime, Saudi’s and Gulf states arming opposition jihadi groups.

2014: Creation of ISIS caliphate in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. US intervention focused on supporting Kurdish PYD to defeat ISIS.

2015: Russian military intervention turns tide of civil war in favour of regime. Secular rebels and democratic local councils squeezed between jihadis and regime.

2016-2021: Turkish military interventions creates buffer zone of pro-Turkish/jihad militias on northern border. Regime gradually restores control over much of Syria, displacement of half of Syria’s population.

What is the principled socialist position on the Syrian revolution?

To understand the Syrian revolution 2011, it is necessary to understand the al-Assad regime. It is based on a narrow ruling clique made up of the al-Assad family and its cronies, a section of the Sunni bourgeoisie, with a support base in the Alawite minority (the Alawites are a heterodox religious community based in the coastal regions of Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, regarded by fundamentalist Muslims as heretics).

Under the original dictator, Hafez al-Assad the regime could be characterised as state capitalist as it combined severe repression with some degree of social protection. Hafez’s son, Bashar al-Assad, opted for full-scale neo-liberal policies and basically since then Syria has experienced a corrupt carve-up of the country’s resources and assets by the family and its cronies, often working with multi-nationals (as long as there was a big cut for the cronies).

The regime, though formally secular, has always been at its core sectarian, with its base in the Alawite community: this made it inherently unstable since the majority of the Syrian population were Sunni Muslims. Far from being anti-imperialist, despite the rhetoric, the regime cooperated with American imperialism during the first Iraq war, was developing cooperation with Saudi Arabia before the revolution, and had a tacit non-aggression understanding with Israel.

Revolution or proxy war?

Rarely does one come across a full-on defence of the al-Assad regime from leftists, rather the argument is put thus: “Yes, the regime is bad, but they are fighting against worse, the jihadis and western imperialist intervention”. This narrative only makes sense, however, if you leave out the Syrian masses and their revolution.

Like all of the mass rebellions of the Arab Spring, the original 2011 uprising in Syria resulted from the huge hardships caused by Al-Assad-imposed neo-liberalism, as well as a simple desire to be rid of a corrupt unrepresentative regime. This is the crux of the whole conflict: it began as a peaceful revolution by Syrian people of all religions. With their overthrow imminent, the ruling clique tried to supress the uprising with indiscriminate violence. As one eyewitness from Daraa put it: “Many people were slaughtered. They just ran over them with the tanks. Walking home from school to my mother’s home that day, blood ran in the streets”. This then precipitated an armed uprising as people scrambled to defend themselves, the armed element mainly coming from the defection of rank-and-file troops.

Now facing a popular uprising that was taking on an increasingly armed character, the regime saw its salvation in unleashing sectarian conflict, which it did by a number of means, including the release of a large tranche of jihadi prisoners. This gave a huge boost to jihadi forces who gradually replaced the secular rebels in many areas, with the Saudis and Gulf states happily pouncing on the opportunity to get a slice of the action by backing various jihadist factions, as did Turkey. The popular revolt continued, mainly in the form of local popular councils but now facing devastating violence and repression from both the regime and the jihadis. Finally, with the regime looking increasingly shaky, the Iranians and then the Russians intervened to save it. Ironically today the Saudis and Gulf states are moving towards reconciliation with the regime, eyeing up the profits to be made from “reconstruction”.

Some accounts of the revolution cast the Syrian masses as dupes from the beginning, pawns in an imperialist intervention to overthrow Assad but the facts, as outlined above, show the opposite. As soon as the regime’s power began to recede, people all over Syria set up organs of popular power, with little initial formal input from parties or armed groups in that process: it was a grassroots-based democratic revolution. The Syrian writer Leila al-Shami has compared these popular institutions to the Paris Commune: “as people took up arms and forced the state to retreat from their communities, Syrians engaged in remarkable experiments in autonomous self-organisation despite the brutality of the counter-revolution unleashed upon them”. The regime, and later the jihadis, always supressed these grassroots institutions when they won back control but the fact that the revolution was defeated does not make it any less of a people’s revolution, no more than the defeat of the Paris Commune negates the nature of that popular revolution.

Imperialist interventions

A popular revolution was transformed into a vicious war against its own people by the regime, leading to outside intervention. In terms of financing, arming, training etc. the primary imperialist intervention in Syria has been by Russia. Put simply, without its air power the regime would have been defeated. On the ground, Iran and its fundamentalist proxies from Iraq, as well as Hezbollah, also played a key role in rescuing a regime that was on its last legs.

US intervention, though real, was unfocussed and ineffective. This was largely because the American state didn’t really have clear aims: what they feared most of all was the vacuum that would be left if the regime collapsed and a victory for the popular revolution or for jihadi forces hostile to America. Its ideal scenario was a compromise between the regime and conservative elements of the opposition, with al-Assad himself gone. The arms and training US provided for some elements of the opposition had minimal effect because the Americans were scared of the weapons getting into the hands of jihadists who would turn them on US forces. Ironically, the only decisive intervention by the US was to back the left-wing Kurdish PYD forces in their war with ISIS: American weaponry and airpower was an important factor in the Kurdish victory over ISIS in the north east. This was because the key US goal was the defeat of ISIS, not the overthrow of the regime. One can’t blame the Kurdish forces for taking help from anywhere they could, but the US dropped them like hot potatoes once ISIS was defeated, allowing the Turks to invade the border areas.

The geopolitical context of the Syrian revolution 2011

Some leftists tend to take a “geopolitical” view of conflicts happening throughout the world. This “geopolitical” view is a version of what was called “campism” during the Cold War. This was a view that socialists had to side with the Soviet Union because, imperfect as it was, it was the only opponent of US imperialism and capitalism. So, the details of class struggle on the ground did not really matter: everything was a struggle between the USSR vs USA.  This led some leftists to support the military suppression of workers in Poland or the brutal pro-Soviet military regime in Ethiopia in its war against the national liberation movements of Tigray and Eritrea etc.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, “campism” has evolved as there are now a number of contending imperialist and regional powers in the world – US, Russia, China, the EU etc. – but the basic view is the same you “pick sides” on the basis of who seems to be opposed to US imperialism. So, in any conflict one’s position is decided not by the interests of the worker and peasants in the conflict but simply by the interests of the great powers. If the US, even rhetorically, seems to adopt a certain position then, by default, the opposite position must be correct. Ironically, this is also the position of far-rightists, many of whom see Russia as a new nationalistic world power that acts as a counter to “decadent” liberal democracy, leading parties such as the BNP and the Front National to strongly support the Al-Assad regime.

“Geo-political” leftists see the world in terms of the relative merits of competing powers but internationalist socialists like Independent Left see the world in terms of the struggles of oppressed and exploited classes and peoples constantly striving for social, economic and political freedom. Yes, the ground on which these struggles happen are also the playing fields of the great powers which makes things complicated but the fundamental socialist principle is “always with the oppressed”. The complicated nature of the conflict should not be an excuse to declare a plague on all houses: as the Syrian leftist Yassin al-Haj Saleh has stated, “And it is indeed complicated (the Syrian conflict). But this should be a call to know better, a challenge to old simplistic approaches, rather than a cause for disidentification and apathy, as it has mostly been.”

Mass Slaughter in the Syrian Revolution

In raw human terms the Syrian conflict has been an immense tragedy and the facts about responsibility are straight-forward: the overwhelming number of civilian casualties in the conflict have been caused by the Al-Assad regime and its allies. That regime is responsible for mass murder on a huge scale: the total number of civilian deaths stands at somewhere around 200,000 and the regime and its allies are responsible for somewhere in the order of 80% to 90% of those casualties, mainly due to indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian districts, as well as the murder of huge numbers in the regime’s prisons. The facts on the ground are clear, this regime has engaged in unprecedented slaughter of its own people. For socialists, the only principled position possible is to oppose such mass crimes against the people.

Chemical weapons attacks during the Syrian conflict have been the focus of much discussion. According to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, which was set up by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate breaches of human rights in the conflict, there have been around 40 chemical attacks in Syria since the start of the conflict (approximately 33 carried out by the regime and the rest of unknown). Of course, the vast majority of the tens of thousands of civilians killed by the regime have been murdered by barrel bombing, shelling, aerial bombing, torture etc. so the numbers killed by chemical attacks are relatively small. Although few would question the regime’s capability, some ask why would it carry out such attacks? It carried out these attacks for the same reason it shot down thousands of peaceful protesters at the beginning of the revolution, the same reason it shelled and bombed civilian neighbourhoods routinely: to cow the population into surrender and to drive away as many as possible thereby changing the demographic make-up of Syria.

Next Spring? Can the Syrian Revolution be renewed?

We have a revolution there. Curse it or mourn it. It is there, in the rocks, in the graves, in the earth and above in the air. On the wall of a graveyard, we once wrote: “We are alive, we will keep going, and the dream will be realized”. Take whatever is left of us and keep on dreaming.

For now, the Syrian revolution has been defeated: half the population has fled the country and most of the core areas are in regime hands, shored up by Russia and Iran. But there are many factors that could fracture such an unstable regime: a crisis in one of its sponsor states, a breach between them etc. The Arab Spring should be seen as part of a long process in a similar way to the great upsurge of European democratic revolutions in 1848. The revolutions of that era were defeated by a combination of internal and external reactionary interventions, leading to decades of imperialist consolidation but the revolutions of 1848 also laid the foundations for modern socialist and democratic revolutions. Despite the terrible defeats of the great revolutionary upsurge, the forces of reaction and oppression had only bought themselves time. Time may yet run out for al-Assad and his corrupt contemporaries throughout the region, as once again the sparks of rebellion turn to firestorms of revolution in Syria.

Socialists support Scottish independence because it would create better conditions for short-term working-class victories and the long-term struggle for socialism. It would also herald the end of the imperialist British state. Socialists support the right of self-determination – in this case the right of the people of Scotland –  to decide their own future democratically.

The left and Scottish Independence

Over time, the left’s position on Scottish independence has evolved. Originally the Labour movement in Scotland favoured Home Rule (limited self-government within the British empire), though this morphed later into a strong commitment to an exclusively British, parliamentary reformism. The source of this Labour unionism lay in a gradual integration into and acceptance of the imperial British state, as well as suspicion of an originally rural based and conservative Scottish nationalism. 

Scottish Labour, fatally weakened by corrupt urban boss politics, Blair’s neoliberal turn, and the failure of Corbyn’s final iteration of the British road to socialism, seems to be entering its final stage of disintegration. Even its left flays about helplessly, claiming to respect the democratic right of self-determination while opposing another independence referendum, crouching on the shoreline while a huge progressive national independence movement flows by. Only a decisive turn to independence could have saved Scottish Labour but it is too late for that now.

Although some early revolutionary socialists, such as the legendary John Mclean, advocated independence, this was a minority position until the turn of the twenty-first century when, mainly grouped in the broad-left Scottish Socialist Party, the radical left took a strong stance in favour of independence. Today, almost all of the Scottish radical left is pro-independence, a view shared by most of the radical left in the rest of the UK.

Why Scottish Independence matters for Socialists

There is no possibility of radical reform, not to mention revolutionary transformation, within the British state. If there was any doubt about that, the defeat of the Corbyn project has shut that door decisively. The archaic mixture of feudal left-overs, undemocratic political structures, powerful security services etc., that constitute the British state, mean that a decisive break with it would open up huge possibilities for the working class in Scotland. From the start, the terrain would be different given the class structure, political culture and dominant trends in pro-independence ideology in the new Scotland.

In an independent Scotland, a struggle for democracy would be on the table from day one: with the issues of constitution, monarchy, membership of NATO and the EU all now open for real debate. The shape of the new state’s economy, the abolition of anti-trade union laws etc, would also come to the fore. And all this in the favourable context of a weak new-born capitalist class and a dominant political party, the Scottish National Party, that has thrived on signalling left but would have to face the challenge of having to live up to those signals. It would be foolish to think that independence would immediately give birth to a Scottish Socialist Republic but the struggle for that goal would be greatly strengthened in the context of the breakup of Britain.

What we are currently witnessing is the end of the long arc of the British state from its origins in medieval expansion, Tudor conquests of Ireland, and the union of Scotland and England (and later Ireland).  The birth and rise of the UK, an imperial state, from the seventeenth century onwards, was intimately linked to the emergence of capitalism and imperialism. The decline and fall of British Empire has gradually opened the fault lines in the British state itself. Future historians will view the current crises of that state as heralding the end of the process: the final breakup of the UK. Scottish independence would be a severe blow to the British ruling class, the last pulses of British imperialism and, in Northern Ireland and Scotland, to the the sectarian reactionaries of loyalism.

The Irish and more recently Scottish struggle for self-determination has developed in a dialectic relationship with the fall of the British Empire and decline of the British state: the long view of history will reveal that the loss of southern Ireland and the loss of Scotland book-ended the British Empire from zenith to nadir. So central was imperial expansion to the creation and sustenance of the British state and British capitalism, that with the end of the Empire and consequent gradual loss of world power status the crisis of the core was inevitable. Socialists welcome the end to this former pillar of global capitalism and imperialism, whose demise will open up opportunities for potentially transformative social and political struggles.

A British Working Class?

Some on the left are animated by a fantasy of ‘the British working class’ but if the workers of these islands ever shared a broad identity, it certainly no longer does. The objective fact is that the only section of the working class in Scotland who now strongly identify with Britishness are a shrinking loyalist rump. In any case, internationalism does not require a certain configuration of states. Breaking up a state does not break up the links of class solidarity. It is in the interests of the working class of all of these islands to break up the British state. In this context, the myth of a large anti-English element in the Scottish independence movement must be challenged: it is simply empirically incorrect.  Certainly, a tiny element of anti-English fanatics do exist but they are an embarrassment to the movement as a whole and unrepresentative in the extreme. Anti-Englishness plays no role in the main movement, even its more populist pole. In fact, the number of English people living in Scotland who support independence is significant and even finds an organised expression. 

Socialists and the struggle for Scottish Independence

Socialists do not advocate independence for Scotland on the basis of subsuming their struggle under the leadership of the SNP nor on the basis of an independence first, socialism later. These arguments are made, not by socialists but by those nationalists who berate socialists for daring to raise radical demands or stand in elections or work independently during the independence struggle. Socialists are well aware of the balance needed to advance within the broad movement while maintaining distinctive socialist positions.  This is not rocket science: socialists in different contexts have always grappled with this challenge in national and democratic struggles, that of supporting all those fighting oppression while developing socialist tactics to bring the movement forward.

The united front is the classic formula that applies here: in the broader independence movement there are thousands of working class activists who see themselves as socialist (even within the SNP) who revolutionary socialists can work with to advance independence and also our own radical agenda. The facts speak for themselves: during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum this interaction between socialists and independence for Scotland was managed very successfully through the Radical Independence Campaign, which caught the SNP and official Yes campaign off-guard by focussing on radical democratic and socialist demands and which mobilised thousands of activists.

The Radical Independence Campaign moved the whole discourse of the pro-independence campaign to the left and was instrumental in the massive shift in urban working class opinion towards Yes through its targeted voter registration and canvassing in the large urban working class areas. Far from being won over by atavistic nationalism, a gradual shift of working-class opinion arose out of the arguments that the left made linking the struggle for equality and social justice to the opening that independence would provide. It is no coincidence that the only regions that voted for independence in 2014 were the great working-class heartlands of the greater Glasgow region and Dundee.

Like any movement for national independence there are number of overlapping tendencies in the Scottish independence movement, reflecting its broad social base. At its centre are the bourgeois nationalists of the SNP leadership and its allies. In ideological terms these people are social liberals and they represent the interests of the incipient independent Scottish ruling class: a potential national capitalist class composed mainly of medium and small business in addition to elements of the devolved state bureaucracy etc. Increasingly strident are the nationalist populists, a disparate grouping that includes in its ranks followers of former SNP leader Alex Salmond and disgraced former socialist leader Tommy Sheridan, as well as right-wingers associated with the Wings Over Scotland blog: heavy of Braveheart style symbolism veering towards simplistic romantic nationalism.

The populist Scottish nationalists have played a key role in mobilising the huge pro-independence demonstrations of recent years, which, while demonstrating the growing popularity of independence, have no real strategic or tactical goals. To the left is an influential, though disparate, wing of the movement ranging from Marxists to social democrats.  This left, numbering in thousands, include many new SNP members who identify as socialists, the Scottish Greens, ex-Labour activists, those involved in activist websites such as Bella Caledonia, as well as the radical left grouped around the Radical Independence Campaign and in the small revolutionary socialist organisations.

Scottish Independence as a Stage on the road to socialism?

Stages theory, with its origins in Stalinist strategies for national liberation, theorises that socialists should confine their demands and actions to winning the immediate goal of national independence, then proceed with a national democratic revolution, until moving on to the final goal of socialism. In practice, the application of this approach has often had disastrous consequences as socialists subordinate themselves to bourgeois nationalist movements and often end up as mere left-mudguards to corrupt, neo-liberal formations, as has happened to orthodox communist parties in South Africa and various Middle Eastern states.  But the alternative to this discredited theory is not to withdraw from democratic struggles but to engage in the struggle for self-determination without subordinating to bourgeois nationalism and without ceasing to engage in class struggle: all the while pushing revolutionary demands.

No radical group in Scotland has called a truce with the forces of bourgeois nationalism, none have suspended their activism on all the other issues that affect working class. In fact, the pro-independence left is to the forefront of all the major social struggles in Scotland today: whether it be the organisation of low-paid workers, land reform or renters rights. No one on the radical left is arguing that we suspend our criticisms or activities until independence is achieved, we know full well that if we did this socialists would have no credibility when we belatedly raised our red flag on the day after independence. 

The amazing case of invisible British nationalism

There are two nationalisms operating in Scotland: the reactionary but dominant one seems strangely invisible to many commentators.  Unfortunately, it is not unusual for liberals and even some on the left, to see all the flaws of small-nation nationalism but to be oblivious for the monstrous elephant in the room, imperial nationalism.  While modern Scottish nationalism cleaves to a decidedly non-ethnic civic version of what defines a country, British nationalism is racist and reactionary to its core.  It is no coincidence that the far-right are the most virulent opponents of independence, embedded in the sectarian loyalist sub-culture of west of Scotland, allied, of course, to the Conservative Party and their rear-guard of alt-right fan-boys spewing the usual trail of vitriol, much of it aimed at the SNPs government’s tame pro-LGBT/anti-racist policies.

The ‘celebration’ in Glasgow’s Georges Square, by far-right loyalist thugs the night after the referendum in 2014 graphically displayed the real nature of British nationalism in Scotland. Ironically right-wingers and their new ally, the former Labour MP George Galloway, are now demanding that all Scots, regardless of their place of residence in the UK, should have a vote in any future referendum, therefore wielding ethnic definitions of Scottishness in the cause of the preservation of the imperial state, in contrast to the demand of the pro-independence movement that all those living in Scotland regardless of origin or nationality have a vote.

Of course, central state nationalism usually reflects the interests of the ruling class of that state. Any socialists in doubt about the progressive nature of the struggle for independence only have to look at the positions taken by the British ruling class which is firmly opposed to independence. This is the class that pulled out all the stops to oppose independence during the 2014 referendum, explicitly threatening a flow of capital out of the country, in a classic move that ruling classes deploy when faced with a major threat to their interests.  The monarchy, security services, banks, big business, have all lined up clearly to oppose independence. Why such a clear and open position?  Because their interests are intimately linked to the structures of the British state and independence would destabilise that state decisively.  Of course, there is also control of Scotland’s oil and gas and the ownership of vast swathes of the Scottish countryside, but the key here is the threat to the central state. The British ruling class had no direct economic interest in Northern Ireland yet they engaged in a bloody thirty year conflict because of the kick-back that would ensue if they ‘lost’ that territory to a united Ireland. And now, they correctly perceive that the loss of Scotland would herald the end of the United Kingdom destabilising their rule even in the metropolitan core.

Eyes on the Prize of Socialism and Scottish Independence

Since the surprisingly narrow victory of the ‘No’ vote in the 2014 referendum, the demand for independence has grown rather than faded. The question of when exactly a new referendum should be held is one of tactics: optimising the chances of winning and wrong-footing any attempt of the state repression. But as support for independence soars (especially amongst the working class and youth) in the face of the most right-wing government in decades, whose disastrous response to the Covid pandemic and desire to reshape the British state radically in the mould of Viktor Orbán’s illiberal democracy, the democratic demand for the right of all the people of Scotland to decide their future now rises with renewed urgency.

Some socialists daydream of fantasy battles where they lead the massed ranks of the working class against forces of capitalism in an apocalyptic final conflict. Marxists eschew such millenarian thinking; instead they plunge into the messy battles that confront us in real life. In fact, here, Marx’s position on the democratic struggles of his time are instructive. Imagine Marx instructing socialists not to engage in the great democratic struggles of 1848, because these primarily entailed the immediate demand for democratic republics? Imagine Marx opposing the struggle foor Irish freedom on the grounds that it would disunite the working class of the UK? Marx analysed conflicts carefully, identified the most progressive outcome and advocated socialist engagement without proposing subordination to bourgeois forces. Hence, he saw the victory of the capitalist North in the American Civil War as a progressive outcome but he did not confine his demands to a simple support for the North: he, along with many other socialists and trade unionists, galvanised English industrial workers to support the North on the basis of the most daring positions: solidarity with ‘labour in a black skin’!  In the same way, socialists in Scotland today have thrown themselves into the battle for independence with their eyes wide open, refusing to lower, even temporarily, the banner of socialism, putting the demands for working class interests at the centre of that struggle.  As that struggle speeds towards a decisive vote for Scottish independence, socialists are keeping their eyes on the prize.

Independence for Scotland may be the end of the struggle for nationalists, but it is only the beginning for socialists.

Supreme Court Judgement on Scottish Independence Referendum

On 23 November 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that an independence referendum is illegal unless it is expressly approved by Westminster, a decision that was received with predictable gloating by the forces of unionism.  Some on the pro-independence side, especially the social liberals of the SNP leadership, seemed surprised at the decision, perhaps because of a misplaced trust in certain institutions of the British state, such as the judiciary or civil service.  But despite a qualitative difference between institutions of British bourgeois democracy – which are populated by those committed to the rule of law, separation of powers etc. – and those in the Tory Party, right-wing media etc. who believe that they can dispense with such niceties and reconstruct the British state on more Orbanesque lines, the fact is that an institution that broadly serves the interests of the ruling class made a very unsurprising decision to defend the interests of that class.  After Camron’s miscalculation that a referendum would put the issue of independence to bed permanently, the establishment has learned not to take any unnecessary risks. The simple fact is that the British ruling class can and will refuse to provide any routeway to holding a referendum.

While one can’t rule out the possibility entirely, a legal way out now seems nigh impossible.  The SNP’s leadership’s strategy of using legal manoeuvres has manifestly failed.  The latest constitutional gambit, to treat the next general election as a referendum and a SNP/Green majority as a mandate for independence will run into the same roadblock; the British state will simply refuse to accept this or any other legal/electoral manoeuvre. 

So what of the unilateralist propositions of an “illegal” referendum organised by the Scottish Government or even full-scale UDI.  These are largely the fantasies of the ultra-nationalists of the Alba Party: the product of existing in a political bubble that has no real connection with the mass of people, but also a naïve underestimation of the coercive abilities of the British state and its security apparatus.  These fantasies go down well in an online world of saltire emoji’s and hero worship of an  assortment of discredited politicians and cranks such as Salmond, Tommy Sheridan and Craig Murray, but they just don’t wash amongst the general public, even those who constitute the 45-50% of Scots who generally support independence.

So there is no easy way forward but the anger generated by a number of factors may serve to open a new route for socialists and Scottish independence.  Firstly, the deeply undemocratic nature of the British State and the lie of a “voluntary union” are now plain to see.  Second, that relying on the SNP and its cautious social liberal leadership to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute is just not a viable strategy anymore.  Building on that reality, a combination of developments could renew a viable mass movement that takes the initiative, forcing the British state into a choice of retreat or full-scale coercion. The impact of the cost-of-living crisis is already evident in the growing wave of strikes across Scotland, but as people feel the full force of the crisis there is the potential for a full scale mass movement, which could dovetail with demands for independence. 

Glimmers of renewal on the pro-independence left might form the basis for the possible merging of these currents.  The unionist left is entirely bereft of influence, withdrawing into a doomed struggle to transform Starmer’s New-New Labour back into Corbyn’s Bennite project.  On the pro-independence side, the old Radical Independence Campaign leadership, that played such a positive role in 2014, has drifted increasingly rightward into Spiked-style “anti-wokeism”, campism etc. The stage is now open for more radical and democratic elements such as the reconstituted RIC, the Republican Socialist Platform and Socialists for Independence to step into the gap.  The existence of these open, democratic, groups could herald a renewal of the pro-independence left, a renewed left that might just drive that linkage between the popular struggle for independence and the overflowing anger against the absolute failure of the British State (and the capitalist social system in general) to meet the most basic needs of workers.

FAQ

Do Socialists support Scottish Independence?

Yes, almost all radical socialists, greens, feminists, LGBTQ, anti-racists etc. support Scottish Independence while all of the far-right and centre-right oppose it.

Why do Scottish Socialists support Independence?

Because it will end the imperial British state and advance the struggle for socialism in Scotland.

Who would gain the most from Scottish Independence?

The Scottish working class: strengthening its ability to win short term gains, while decisively tilting the position of class forces in Scotland in its favour.