As multiple war zones on the world map trace the urgent imperialist demand for escalation and violent intervention in economic and geopolitical arenas, the Left in the part of the world often labelled as the Global North finds itself in search of a principled position with respect to war, governments in their respective countries, and the nominal enemies in these wars. One position often discussed in these circles is that of revolutionary defeatism, and here we will look at it from the perspective of Ireland in 2026.
Neither King nor Kaiser
Traditionally, revolutionary defeatism is traced back to the First World War and Lenin’s position on it. War between imperialist powers would not constitute a patriotic cause, and the defeat of the Russian empire in this conflict was in the class interest of the working class, and a catalyst of successful revolutionary activity. A point often raised is that Lenin’s focus on the defeat of Russia is not equivalent to wishing for German victory (what Lenin was accused of at the time, in what was then the equivalent of our contemporary “do you condemn X”). Lenin also recognised that the war was never going to result in occupation of Russia or major consequences for running Russia proper: the rearrangement of colonies and dominions was on the war table for the winners and the losers, and the working class had nothing of its own on that table.
Popularised through the maxim “the main enemy is at home”, the perspective on turning the struggle from the imperialist war without to class war within was shared in minority Left circles elsewhere, namely Germany with Liebknecht and Luxemburg spearheading it. In Ireland, the “Neither King nor Kaiser” position of James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army reflects the analysis of an imperialist war in which the Irish working class had nothing to gain, despite the Redmondite propaganda. Connolly is sometimes accused of not having Lenin’s attitude that “seeking Russia’s (or Britain’s) defeat is not the same as seeking Germany’s victory”. To this, we should note that the war finds Connolly in Ireland subjugated by the empire, rather than in the imperial core of Britain—seeing that the outcome of the war was going to affect the colonies and occupied territories in the spheres of interest, Ireland being one of them. We also note Lenin’s favourable analysis of the Easter Rising, and recognition of its ideological alignment with what was to follow in Russia and elsewhere.
After the Great War
In the period after the First World War, communist parties internationally engaged in analysis of material conditions in military conflicts, the rise of fascism, and continuing colonial oppression. The anticipated outcomes of wars defined the approach to support, party work, and strategy in the countries where parties were organised. Wars in this period were not necessarily following the inter-imperialist blueprint of the First World War: the age of imperialism, as Lenin explained, did not convert all wars into those of imperialist forces amongst themselves—and wars of national liberation and resistance to imperialist ambitions were still commonplace. Revolutionary defeatism remained on the agenda as a discussion point well into the Second World War.
After the Second World War, where the anti-fascist struggle in the East of Europe had a dual revolutionary nature and led to the establishment of socialist states, parties in the West found themselves within an openly hostile bloc waging violent war against emerging socialist states, national liberation movements in the colonies, and progressive movements within.
Anti-war movements like the one against the Vietnam war are sometimes cited as examples of revolutionary defeatism—however, while they had important actions in stopping the war effort and contributed toward the military defeat of the United States, the element of moving the imperialist war into class war was very limited.
The Other Side
In the example of First World War revolutionary defeatism analysis, the point of inter-imperialist violence takes central place; the class interest of the working class around Europe at the time would have been to move war into the class realm—no imperative of defence is there. Yet, in wars we witness, the idea of universal defeatism on all sides is not grounded in proper analysis. Not only is the defeat of an imperialist bloc a much-needed catalyst for class war, but the explicit and swift victory of the anti-imperialist resistance is an imperative.
Here, the question of agency arises as well: the agency in anti-imperialist struggle lies both at home and away: the revolutionary defeatist effort in the imperialist states complements the resistance in the same direction. It resolves, in revolutionary practice, the apparent contradiction of the “global North” working class being in a position where refusing imperial spoils of war is class suicide.
On Individualism
Sometimes the discussion of support, revolutionary defeatism and attitude to war are initiated from the perspective of an individual. A question of the correct positioning of an individual towards a major sociopolitical development is not necessarily problematic, but it becomes a problematic symptom in the context where it is the be-all and end-all—a position that has no impact on organising work and serves as a purity test and an experiment in theory interpretation. Where politics are reduced to a list of correct positions on litmus test issues, praxis hardly makes it into the equation. Revolutionary defeatism is not an individual(ist) position—it is one for a party to take and to operate on, within its vanguard role.
The individualist position is perpetuated by the liberal pacifist perspectives on “support for the people”. Often an empty, moralist statement on a conflict, “standing with the people” of a country at war is a way to avoid engaging in analysis. It is a way to avoid facing the responsibility states allied with the imperialist forces have in war and other forms of extreme violence. Another manifestation of this tendency is support for resistance until it is successful, until it establishes a state and engages in international and national politics on an equal footing, in a shape that is now beyond the imaginary “anything could happen”.
The “anything could happen” imaginary, of course, is one that is completely ahistorical—at best uninformed, at worst deliberate. It is tied with “standing with people” through the idea that people will decide on the course they will take. Yes, people make history, but not under conditions of their own choosing! From Libya to Syria, repeatedly we listened to voices stating that the “liberated” people could decide to live in new, emancipatory systems—just to see that the only historically forced direction the society overrun by imperialist forces can take is one of chaos, repression, and colonial barbarism. The emancipatory potential of imperialism might just not be there.
Support for resistance to chaos hence has solid grounds in materialist analysis: the refusal to support an existing system because it has power is not only idealist, but fundamentally individualist. Furthermore, it is reductive, as it consistently restricts analysis to the borders of the place where imperialist intervention happens, and to a particular model that has been made up to prevent thinking about nuanced questions of what the interest of the international working class is and what the interest of anti-imperialism is.
What of Ireland in 2026?
We witness an accelerated tendency of the government, media and industrial lobby in the 26 counties to conscript the resources of the state to the imperialist bloc in their entirety. It is a major part of a Europe-wide move toward militarisation and consolidation of power. The Irish position at the intersection of three imperialist spheres of interest—that of Britain, the United States, and the European Union—creates specific material conditions in terms of economy, policy, and strategy.
Those opposing this dangerous tendency, the removal of the Triple Lock mechanism, and the tying of Irish institutions into NATO and EU military circles, look at the ways to organise the working class on this matter. It is reasonable to look at trade unions and expect action. On the surface, one could look at the composition of Irish industry and note the lack of a military industry as an advantage. However, restricting the perception of war effort interest as if it were solely localised in producing bullets and missiles misses out on multiple important points. One is the nature of modern warfare, heavily reliant on information and communication technology infrastructure, provided by many multinational companies headquartered in Ireland due to its specific economic conditions.
Another is the reminder that war is an extension of policy by other means. Imperialist policies are enforced and reinforced via the financial structures that, again by virtue of Irish economic conditions, run through Ireland. The British union resistance to anti-war politics due to arms industry interests may seem vulgar from this island, but the lack of union support for protection of Irish neutrality, the removal of US military operations from Ireland, and support for imperialist interventions worldwide is a reflection of the same tendency.
Finally, what lessons of 1916 revolutionary defeatism are to be learned? It started with recognising that the First World War was not a war of the Irish working class—and that their war was that against the Empire and its systems of capital, exploitation and colonialism. This recognition was easier through recognition of the Empire, previously naturalised as the inevitable reality of Ireland (in and beyond the Pale), as a foreign structure focused on exploitation and extraction. For the Irish working-class vanguard to engage in revolutionary defeatism in 2026, the three imperialist forces—the EU, Britain, and the US—must be recognised for what they are.
