The Workers’ International, Russian Revolution, and the Transformation of European Socialism. The Foundational Pillars of Socialist Transformation

The Workers’ International movements and the Russian Revolution of 1917 constitute the twin foundational pillars upon which the modern European socialist and communist movements were constructed. These interconnected historical phenomena fundamentally transformed the political landscape of Europe, establishing institutional frameworks, ideological paradigms, and organisational models that would dominate left-wing politics for over seven decades. The subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 represents not merely the end of a geopolitical entity but the dismantling of the primary material and symbolic foundation of international socialism, creating a profound crisis in European left-wing politics that continues to reverberate today.

The Workers’ International as the Organisational Genesis of European Socialism

The First International: Establishing Revolutionary Precedent (1864-1876)

The International Workingmen’s Association emerged during the apex of 19th-century industrial expansion, representing the first systematic attempt to coordinate working-class struggle across national boundaries. Founded in London’s St. Martin’s Hall, the organisation established several crucial precedents that would define socialist politics for generations. The theoretical framework developed during this period, particularly through Marx’s contributions to the organisation’s founding documents, established the fundamental analytical categories that would guide socialist thought: the concept of class struggle as the motor of historical development, the international character of capitalist exploitation, and the necessity of working-class political organisation. Marx’s “Inaugural Address” articulated the principle that “the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves,” establishing the foundation for all subsequent socialist organisational theory. The First International’s support for the Paris Commune in 1871 represents a crucial moment in the development of revolutionary socialist practice. Marx’s analysis of the Commune in “The Civil War in France” provided the theoretical framework for understanding proletarian state power, introducing concepts that would prove essential to later revolutionary movements. The Commune’s brief existence demonstrated both the possibilities and limitations of working-class political power, establishing precedents for the Russian revolutionaries who would later study its experiences intensively. The organisational tensions within the First International, particularly the conflict between Marx’s centralised approach and Bakunin’s anarchist federalism, prefigured later debates about revolutionary strategy and organisation. These debates established fundamental questions about the relationship between spontaneous working-class action and organised political leadership, questions that would prove central to the success of the Russian Revolution.

The Second International: Institutionalising Socialist Politics (1889-1916)

The Second International represented the maturation of socialist organisation, transforming socialism from a revolutionary sect into a mass political movement capable of winning elections and influencing state policy. The organisation’s membership encompassed millions of workers across Europe, with the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) serving as the organisational and theoretical model for socialist parties throughout the continent. The theoretical development during this period, dominated by figures like Karl Kautsky, established what became known as orthodox Marxism. This theoretical framework emphasised the inevitable collapse of capitalism through its internal contradictions, leading to a strategic approach that combined electoral participation with preparation for revolutionary transformation. The Second International’s congresses served as forums for debating crucial strategic questions, from the relationship between reform and revolution to the proper socialist response to war and militarism. The organisation’s cultural impact extended far beyond formal politics. The establishment of May Day as an international workers’ holiday, the development of socialist press networks, and the creation of working-class educational institutions contributed to the formation of a distinctive socialist culture that provided the foundation for political mobilisation. This cultural infrastructure proved essential to maintaining socialist organisation during periods of repression and would later provide the organisational basis for revolutionary activity. The Second International’s collapse during World War I revealed fundamental contradictions between internationalist ideology and national political integration. The decision of major socialist parties to support their respective governments’ war efforts demonstrated the extent to which socialist parties had become integrated into national political systems, compromising their revolutionary potential while gaining electoral influence.

The Third International: Revolutionary Coordination and Soviet Leadership (1919-1943)

The Comintern emerged from the Bolshevik victory in Russia, representing Lenin’s attempt to create a disciplined international revolutionary organisation capable of replicating the Russian success elsewhere in Europe. The organisation’s Twenty-One Conditions for membership established strict ideological and organisational requirements that fundamentally transformed the international socialist movement. The Comintern’s organisational model, based on democratic centralism and unified international leadership, represented a significant departure from previous International practice. This centralised approach reflected Lenin’s analysis that a successful revolution required coordinated action under unified leadership, but it also subordinated national communist parties to Soviet strategic priorities. The organisation’s strategic evolution, from the ultra-left sectarianism of the early 1920s through the Popular Front strategy of the 1930s, demonstrated both the possibilities and limitations of centralised international coordination. The Popular Front period saw communist parties achieve significant electoral success and form governing coalitions, but this success came at the cost of revolutionary independence and strategic flexibility. The Comintern’s dissolution in 1943 symbolically marked the subordination of international revolutionary goals to Soviet wartime diplomacy, establishing a pattern of Soviet dominance over international communist movements that would persist throughout the Cold War period.

The Russian Revolution as the Catalyst of European Socialist Transformation

Revolutionary Genesis: Material Conditions and Organisational Preparation

The Russian Revolution of 1917 emerged from the unique intersection of advanced socialist theory and backwards socioeconomic conditions. Russia’s position as the “weakest link” in the imperialist chain, as Lenin analysed, created revolutionary possibilities that were absent in more developed European countries where socialist movements had become integrated into parliamentary systems. The organisational preparation undertaken by the Bolsheviks during the pre-revolutionary period proved crucial to their ultimate success. Lenin’s development of the vanguard party concept, articulated in “What Is to Be Done?” (1902), provided the organisational framework that enabled a relatively small revolutionary organisation to seize power during the crisis of 1917. This organisational model drew directly from the experiences and debates of the earlier International movements while adapting them to Russian conditions. The February Revolution demonstrated the spontaneous revolutionary potential of the Russian working class, but the October Revolution revealed the necessity of organised leadership for successful revolutionary transformation. The Bolsheviks’ ability to provide political leadership during the revolutionary crisis stemmed directly from their theoretical preparation and organisational discipline, both developed through engagement with international socialist thought.

Theoretical Innovation: Leninism as Revolutionary Adaptation

Lenin’s theoretical contributions during the revolutionary period represented a creative adaptation of Marxist theory to the conditions of monopoly capitalism and imperialist war. The analysis presented in “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” provided both an explanation for the war and a strategic framework for revolution in the era of global capitalism. The concept of the “weakest link” theory suggested that socialist revolution would occur first in less developed countries where capitalist contradictions were most acute, rather than in the advanced industrial countries where Marx had originally anticipated revolutionary transformation. This theoretical innovation had profound implications for international socialist strategy, shifting focus from the developed European core to the global periphery. Lenin’s analysis of the state, developed in “State and Revolution,” provided the theoretical framework for understanding the transition from capitalist to socialist society. The concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a transitional form between capitalism and communism offered a practical approach to revolutionary transformation that influenced socialist movements worldwide.

International Impact: Revolution as Global Inspiration

The Russian Revolution’s international impact extended far beyond the boundaries of the former Russian Empire. The demonstration that working-class revolution was possible in practice provided immense inspiration to socialist movements throughout Europe, leading to revolutionary attempts in Germany, Hungary, and other countries during the immediate post-war period. Establishing the Soviet Union as the first socialist state created a new reference point for international socialist politics. The Soviet model provided both inspiration and practical guidance for socialist movements worldwide, while also creating new forms of international solidarity based on state-to-state relations rather than purely movement-based cooperation. The Revolution’s impact on colonial and anti-imperialist movements proved equally significant. Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and the right of nations to self-determination provided theoretical frameworks that influenced liberation movements throughout the colonised world, extending the revolution’s impact far beyond Europe.

The Soviet Union as the Material Foundation of European Socialism

The Soviet Union’s economic model, based on centralised planning and state ownership of the means of production, provided a concrete alternative to capitalist economic organisation. Despite its ultimate limitations and contradictions, the Soviet system demonstrated the possibility of organising production according to social need rather than private profit, influencing economic thinking throughout Europe. The Soviet model’s influence on European socialist and social democratic parties was profound, even among those who maintained critical distance from Soviet political practices. The demonstration that full employment, universal healthcare, and comprehensive social services were possible under socialist organisation influenced the development of welfare state policies throughout Western Europe. Soviet Union’s role in post-war European reconstruction, particularly in Eastern Europe, established socialist political and economic systems across half the continent. These systems, despite their authoritarian characteristics, provided material benefits to working-class populations and served as examples of socialist possibility for Western European movements.

Military and Geopolitical Counterweight

Soviet Union’s military power provided a crucial counterweight to Western imperialism, creating space for socialist and anti-imperialist movements worldwide. The Soviet nuclear deterrent prevented Western military intervention in socialist countries and supported liberation movements throughout the developing world. The Soviet Union’s support for anti-colonial movements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America provided material assistance that proved crucial to many successful liberation struggles. This support demonstrated practical international solidarity and extended socialist influence far beyond Europe. The existence of the Soviet bloc created a bipolar international system that provided alternatives to Western economic and political models. This geopolitical balance enabled smaller countries to pursue independent development strategies and prevented complete Western domination of international affairs.

Cultural and Ideological Influence

The Soviet Union’s cultural influence on European left-wing politics extended beyond formal political organisation. Soviet achievements in education, science, and culture provided examples of socialist possibility that influenced intellectual and artistic movements throughout Europe. Soviet model’s emphasis on collective values and social solidarity offered an alternative to Western individualism and consumerism. This cultural influence helped maintain socialist consciousness during periods when electoral socialist politics were in decline. The Soviet Union’s role as a patron of international communist movements provided organisational resources and ideological guidance that sustained left-wing politics during periods of repression and marginalisation.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Transformation of Russian Political Economy

The Soviet Union’s collapse resulted from a complex interaction of internal contradictions and external pressures that had been building since the 1970s. The system’s inability to adapt to technological change and compete economically with Western capitalism created increasing strain on Soviet society and political institutions. Centralised planning system, which had proved effective during the industrialisation period, became increasingly inefficient as the economy grew more complex. The lack of market mechanisms for price formation and resource allocation led to chronic shortages and misallocation of resources, undermining the system’s economic credibility. The political system’s authoritarian character prevented the development of democratic mechanisms for addressing economic and social problems. The Communist Party’s monopoly on political power created a rigid bureaucratic structure that was incapable of responding effectively to changing circumstances.

Gorbachev’s Reforms and Unintended Consequences

Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform program, initiated in the mid-1980s, attempted to revitalise Soviet socialism through political liberalisation (glasnost) and economic restructuring (perestroika). However, these reforms unleashed forces that ultimately led to the system’s collapse rather than its renewal. Introduction of political competition and freedom of expression revealed the extent of popular dissatisfaction with Soviet rule, while also enabling nationalist movements in the republics to challenge central authority. The loosening of Communist Party control created a power vacuum that was filled by nationalist and pro-capitalist forces. The economic reforms failed to improve economic performance while disrupting existing production and distribution networks. The attempt to introduce market mechanisms within the framework of socialist planning created chaos rather than efficiency, leading to economic decline and social instability.

The Emergence of Oligarchic Capitalism

The collapse of the Soviet Union created opportunities for the rapid accumulation of private wealth through the privatisation of state assets. The “shock therapy” economic policies implemented during the 1990s transferred enormous wealth from the state to a small group of oligarchs who had connections to the former Soviet bureaucracy. The privatisation process was characterised by massive corruption and the systematic looting of state resources. Former Communist Party officials and enterprise managers used their positions to acquire valuable assets at far below market prices, creating the foundation for the oligarchic system that would dominate Russian politics. The concentration of economic power in the hands of a small oligarchic elite created the material basis for an authoritarian political system. The oligarchs’ control over media and other key sectors enabled them to manipulate political processes and prevent the development of genuine democratic institutions.

Putin’s Consolidation of Authoritarian Rule

Vladimir Putin’s rise to power represented the consolidation of the oligarchic system under centralised state control. Putin’s background in the security services provided him with the organisational resources necessary to discipline the oligarchs and establish a stable authoritarian regime. Putin’s system represents a form of state capitalism in which private property is formally recognised but ultimately subordinated to the interests of the ruling elite. The state maintains control over key strategic sectors while allowing private accumulation in other areas, creating a hybrid system that combines capitalist and authoritarian elements. The ideological foundation of the Putin regime draws heavily on Russian nationalism and Orthodox Christianity rather than socialist or communist principles. This ideological shift represents a complete abandonment of the internationalist and egalitarian values that characterised the Soviet system. Paradoxically the Russian Federation oligarchy and political structures have fomented neo-fascist and neo-nazist nationalism in eastern Europe and across the old continent, de facto providing the ideological base for Ukrainian nationalist movements to rise up against the same Russian Federation in a clash of far-right nationalist extremism.

The Contemporary Crisis of European Socialism

The collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the primary reference point for European socialist politics, creating a profound ideological crisis that continues to affect left-wing movements today. The loss of a concrete example of socialist society in practice forced European socialists to reconsider fundamental questions about the possibility and desirability of socialist transformation. The end of the Cold War eliminated the geopolitical context that had sustained many aspects of European socialist politics. The threat of Soviet expansion had provided Western European socialists with leverage in negotiations with capitalist elites, enabling the construction of comprehensive welfare states as a bulwark against communist influence. In the absence of a socialist alternative to capitalism has weakened the bargaining position of European trade unions and socialist parties, contributing to the neoliberal transformation of European political economy since the 1980s.

Geopolitical Analysis: Soviet Union vs. Russian Federation

Despite its internal authoritarian characteristics, the Soviet Union played a generally progressive role in international affairs, supporting decolonisation movements and providing a counterweight to Western imperialism. Soviet military and economic assistance proved crucial to liberation movements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Soviet commitment to anti-imperialism and international solidarity, while sometimes subordinated to national interests, provided material support for progressive movements worldwide. The contrast with contemporary Russian foreign policy, which supports authoritarian regimes and right-wing movements, demonstrates the progressive character of Soviet international engagement. The Soviet Union’s economic model, despite its limitations, provided an alternative to capitalist development that influenced policy-making throughout the developing world. Soviet technical assistance and educational programs contributed to development processes that emphasised social welfare and economic planning.

The Russian Federation as a Reactionary Regime

Contemporary Russia under Putin has emerged as a reactionary force in international affairs, supporting authoritarian regimes and right-wing political movements throughout Europe and beyond. Russian interference in European elections has generally favoured far-right and anti-EU parties rather than left-wing alternatives. The Russian model of oligarchic capitalism and authoritarian governance provides inspiration for right-wing populist movements throughout Europe. The combination of nationalism, traditionalism, and oligarchic control offers an alternative to liberal democracy that appeals to reactionary forces. Russian foreign policy objectives centre on weakening European integration and NATO solidarity rather than promoting progressive alternatives to neoliberal capitalism. The support for Brexit and various European separatist movements reflects a strategy of disruption rather than progressive transformation.

Implications for European Left-Wing Politics

The transformation of Russia from a socialist state (however flawed) to an oligarchic federation and an aggressive military nationalist regime has eliminated a crucial source of support for European left-wing movements. The absence of any major power supporting socialist or progressive political alternatives has weakened the international position of European socialism. The Russian Federation’s support for European right-wing movements has contributed to the rise of authoritarian populism throughout the continent. This development has complicated left-wing political strategy by associating opposition to European neoliberalism with right-wing nationalism and authoritarianism. Indeed, the geopolitical vacuum created by the absence of progressive major power support has forced European left-wing movements to rely entirely on their own resources and popular support, making political transformation more difficult in the current international context.

Neoliberal Hegemony and Socialist Retreat

The spread of neoliberal ideology following the Soviet collapse has fundamentally transformed the political landscape of Europe. The acceptance of market fundamentalism by formerly social democratic parties has eliminated much of the ideological space for socialist politics within mainstream political systems. The European Union’s construction according to neoliberal principles has institutionalised market-oriented policies at the supranational level, making it extremely difficult for individual countries to pursue alternative economic strategies. The Stability and Growth Pact and other EU economic governance mechanisms effectively prevent the implementation of traditional social democratic policies. Financialization of European economies has created new forms of capitalist power that are less susceptible to traditional forms of working-class organization and political pressure. The mobility of financial capital enables capitalists to escape national regulatory frameworks, undermining the effectiveness of national political strategies. European socialist and social democratic parties have experienced significant decline since the end of the Cold War, both in terms of electoral support and ideological coherence. The adoption of “Third Way” politics by parties like New Labour and the German SPD represented an explicit abandonment of traditional socialist commitments. Integration of formerly communist parties into European political systems has generally resulted in their transformation into conventional social democratic parties rather than the revitalisation of socialist politics. The Italian Communist Party’s transformation into the Democratic Party exemplifies this broader trend. Trade union membership has declined significantly throughout Europe, weakening the organisational foundation of left-wing politics. The shift from industrial to service employment, combined with neoliberal labor market reforms, has made traditional forms of union organization increasingly difficult.

Trade Unions and Socialist Parties as the Last Bastions of Egalitarianism

European trade unions represent the most significant institutional continuity with the historical workers’ movement, maintaining organisational structures and ideological commitments that predate the neoliberal transformation. Despite declining membership, unions continue to play crucial roles in wage bargaining, workplace protection, and political advocacy. The adaptation of trade union strategy to contemporary conditions has involved both defensive actions to protect existing rights and innovative approaches to organising new sectors of the workforce. The development of European-level trade union coordination through the European Trade Union Confederation represents an attempt to match the scale of contemporary capitalist organisation. Trade unions’ role in maintaining social solidarity and collective values provides an important counterweight to neoliberal individualism. Union education programs and cultural activities continue to transmit values of solidarity and collective action that are essential to any future socialist resurgence. The surviving socialist and left-wing parties in Europe, despite their electoral limitations, continue to serve as vehicles for socialist ideas and policy proposals. Parties like Die Linke in Germany, Podemos in Spain, and La France Insoumise represent attempts to renew socialist politics within contemporary European conditions. These parties’ electoral programs, emphasising public ownership, wealth redistribution, and workers’ rights, maintain connections to the historical socialist tradition while adapting to contemporary political realities. Their presence in European parliaments provides platforms for articulating alternatives to neoliberal orthodoxy. Ideological work performed by these parties in developing contemporary socialist theory and policy proposals may prove crucial if economic crisis creates new opportunities for left-wing politics. The preservation of socialist intellectual traditions during the current period of political marginalization parallels the role played by socialist intellectuals during earlier periods of political reaction.

New Forms of Progressive Socialist Organisation

Contemporary European left-wing politics has seen the emergence of new organizational forms that combine traditional socialist commitments with innovative approaches to political organization. Movements like Extinction Rebellion and various anti-austerity campaigns demonstrate the continuing relevance of collective action and social solidarity. Development of municipal socialism in cities like Barcelona and Naples represents an attempt to implement socialist policies at the local level despite national political constraints. These experiments provide concrete examples of alternative approaches to urban governance and public service provision. Digital technologies have enabled new forms of political coordination and communication that may provide foundations for future left-wing organisations. The use of online platforms for democratic participation and decision-making represents a potential evolution of socialist organisational practice.

The Imperative for a Modern Workers’ International against the Contemporary Threat of Fascist-Corporatism and Militarised Neoliberalism

The contemporary global political economy presents unprecedented challenges that demand a coordinated international response from progressive forces. The emergence of what can be characterised as “fascist-corporatism” represents a fusion of authoritarian political control with concentrated corporate power that transcends traditional left-right political categories. This system combines the worst elements of 20th-century fascism—nationalism, authoritarianism, and militarism—with contemporary corporate power and technological surveillance capabilities. Militarised neoliberalism has evolved beyond the market fundamentalism of the 1980s and 1990s to incorporate systematic violence and coercion as instruments of economic policy. The use of military force to secure resource extraction, enforce debt collection, and maintain favourable investment climates has become normalised within contemporary capitalism. NATO’s expansion and the militarisation of economic competition demonstrate how neoliberal economics now depends on military power for its implementation and maintenance. The integration of corporate power with state military apparatus has created new forms of political economy that challenge traditional democratic institutions. The military-industrial complex has expanded to encompass financial services, technology corporations, and energy companies, creating a unified elite structure that operates across national boundaries while remaining largely unaccountable to democratic processes.

The Convergence of Eastern Authoritarianism and Western Oligarchy

The apparent contradiction between Russian authoritarianism and Western democracy obscures their fundamental complementarity within the contemporary global system. Both systems serve the interests of concentrated wealth and power while using different rhetorical frameworks to justify their dominance. The Russian oligarchic model and Western corporate capitalism share essential, similar characteristics: extreme wealth concentration, political influence of economic elites, and systematic suppression of working-class organisation.

Western democratic institutions have been systematically hollowed out through corporate capture, regulatory capture, and the financialization of political processes. The revolving door between corporate leadership and government positions, the influence of corporate lobbying on legislative processes, and the dependence of political parties on corporate funding have created what amounts to a corporate oligarchy operating within democratic forms. The apparent opposition between Russia and the West serves the interests of both systems by channelling popular discontent into nationalist rather than class-based analysis. The focus on geopolitical competition distracts attention from the similar class structures and economic policies implemented by both systems. Russian support for Western right-wing movements and Western tolerance for Russian oligarchic investment demonstrate the practical cooperation between these supposedly opposing systems.

Deterioration of democratic governance in Western countries has created conditions remarkably similar to those that enabled fascist movements in the 1930s. Rising inequality, political polarisation, and the breakdown of traditional democratic institutions provide fertile ground for authoritarian solutions that promise order and national greatness while serving elite economic interests.

The Crisis of International Law and Institutional Legitimacy

Systematic violation of international law by major powers has undermined the post-war institutional framework that provided some protection for smaller nations and progressive movements. The United States’ unilateral withdrawal from international agreements, Russia’s territorial annexations, and China’s territorial expansions demonstrate the collapse of the international legal order that emerged after World War II. This institutional breakdown has particular implications for working-class movements, which have historically relied on international law and institutional protections to advance their interests. The International Labour Organisation, various UN human rights mechanisms, and European social legislation provided frameworks for advancing workers’ rights across national boundaries. The current crisis of international institutions eliminates these protections and leaves workers’ movements vulnerable to corporate and state repression. The use of economic sanctions, international criminal law, and trade agreements as instruments of geopolitical competition has transformed institutions originally designed to promote peace and cooperation into tools of inter-imperial rivalry. Absence of effective international law enforcement has enabled the systematic violation of workers’ rights, environmental protections, and human rights by multinational corporations. The inability of existing international institutions to address climate change, global inequality, and corporate criminality demonstrates their fundamental inadequacy for addressing 21st-century challenges.

The Strategic Necessity and Moral Imperative of an International Working-Class Organisation

The global character of contemporary capitalism demands international coordination of working-class resistance. The mobility of capital across national boundaries enables corporations to escape national regulatory frameworks and play workers in different countries against each other. Only coordinated international action can effectively challenge corporate power and advance workers’ interests in the current global economy. The technological infrastructure now exists for forms of international coordination that were impossible during the era of the historical Internationals. Digital communication, rapid transportation, and global media networks provide tools for coordinating international campaigns and sharing organisational strategies across national boundaries. These technological capabilities could enable new forms of international working-class organisation that transcend the limitations of previous International movements. The climate crisis provides a concrete basis for international working-class unity that transcends national and cultural differences. The transition to sustainable energy systems requires massive public investment and democratic planning that conflicts with corporate profit maximisation. Only coordinated international action can implement the economic transformation necessary to address climate change while protecting workers’ interests during the transition. The global character of supply chains and production networks creates new possibilities for international labour solidarity. Coordinated strikes and boycotts can disrupt global production systems in ways that were impossible when production was primarily national. The development of international labour coordination within multinational corporations provides a foundation for broader forms of international working-class organisation. A modern Workers’ International must learn from both the successes and failures of previous International movements while adapting to contemporary conditions. The centralised, party-based model of the Third International proved vulnerable to bureaucratisation and manipulation by state power, while the loose federalism of the First International lacked the coordination necessary for effective action. Contemporary International should emphasise horizontal networking and democratic participation rather than hierarchical command structures. The use of digital technologies for democratic decision-making could enable mass participation in strategic discussions while maintaining operational flexibility. The Spanish Indignados movement and various Occupy campaigns demonstrated the potential for horizontal organisation on a large scale. The organisation should focus on coordinating concrete campaigns around specific issues rather than attempting to impose unified ideological positions on diverse movements. Campaigns around corporate taxation, labour rights, climate action, and military spending could provide focal points for international coordination while respecting the autonomy of national movements. Inclusion of various forms of working-class organisation—trade unions, political parties, social movements, and community organisations—would reflect the diversity of contemporary working-class experience. The traditional focus on industrial workers must be expanded to include service workers, agricultural workers, domestic workers, and other forms of contemporary labour.

Strategic Priorities for International Coordination

The immediate strategic priorities for a modern Workers’ International should focus on areas where international coordination can achieve concrete results that would be impossible through purely national action. Corporate taxation represents a crucial area where international coordination is essential, as corporate tax avoidance relies on playing national tax systems against each other. Scrutiny regulation of multinational corporations requires international coordination to be effective. Labour standards, environmental regulations, and financial oversight can only be enforced if implemented simultaneously across multiple jurisdictions. The development of international corporate accountability mechanisms could provide tools for challenging corporate power that transcend national boundaries. Military spending and arms trading represent areas where international coordination could achieve significant results. The global arms trade depends on international networks that could be disrupted through coordinated action. The redirection of military spending toward social programs and climate action requires international coordination to prevent military competition from undermining progressive economic policies. Climate action provides the most compelling case for international working-class coordination. The transition to sustainable energy systems requires massive public investment and democratic planning that conflicts with corporate profit maximisation. The development of international frameworks for just transition could protect workers’ interests during the economic transformation necessary to address climate change.

Confronting and breaking up the Authoritarian-Corporate Regime

Corruption between authoritarian political movements and corporate power represents the primary threat to democratic and egalitarian politics in the contemporary period. This alliance combines the organisational resources of corporate power with the mass appeal of nationalist and traditionalist ideology, creating a formidable opponent for progressive movements. Corporate funding of authoritarian political movements throughout Europe and North America demonstrates the strategic character of this alliance. Corporate elites recognise that authoritarian governments can implement austerity policies and suppress labour organisations more effectively than democratic governments constrained by popular opposition. The use of authoritarian rhetoric and policies by ostensibly democratic governments demonstrates the convergence of political systems around the interests of concentrated wealth and power. The militarisation of border enforcement, the expansion of surveillance systems, and the criminalisation of protest activities show how democratic countries are adopting authoritarian methods to maintain elite dominance. A modern Workers’ International must develop strategies for confronting this authoritarian-corporate alliance that go beyond traditional electoral politics. The alliance’s control of media systems, financial resources, and state apparatus requires innovative approaches that combine legal action, mass mobilisation, and international solidarity.

The Question of Violence and Revolutionary Strategy

The militarisation of contemporary capitalism raises fundamental questions about the relationship between peaceful and violent resistance that have been central to socialist politics since the First International. The systematic use of violence by corporate and state actors to maintain elite dominance challenges traditional assumptions about the possibility of peaceful transformation. History of successful social transformation suggests that significant change has typically required some combination of mass mobilisation, institutional reform, and defensive violence against elite repression. The civil rights movement, anti-colonial struggles, and labour organising campaigns all involved elements of both peaceful and militant resistance. A contemporary Workers’ International must develop strategic approaches that combine principled non-violence with recognition of the legitimate right of self-defence against corporate and state violence. The development of international solidarity networks could provide protection for activists facing repression while maintaining a commitment to democratic and peaceful methods of social change. Revolutionary strategy cannot be separated from questions of democratic participation and popular sovereignty. Any strategy for fundamental social transformation must be based on mass participation and democratic decision-making rather than the actions of small revolutionary minorities.

The Historical Imperative and Contemporary Possibility

The analysis of the Workers’ International tradition, the Russian Revolution, and the contemporary crisis of socialism reveals both the necessity and the possibility of renewed international working-class organisation. The global character of contemporary challenges demands a coordinated international response, while technological and social developments provide new tools for international coordination. Convergence of authoritarian and corporate power, the crisis of international law, and the militarisation of neoliberalism create conditions that parallel those that generated the original Workers’ International movements. The response to these conditions requires learning from historical experience while adapting to contemporary circumstances. The survival of trade unions and socialist parties as institutional carriers of egalitarian values provides organisational foundations for renewed international coordination. The emergence of new social movements around climate change, economic inequality, and democratic participation demonstrates the continuing vitality of progressive politics despite institutional marginalisation. Geopolitical transformation from a bipolar world with a socialist superpower to a multipolar world dominated by various forms of capitalism creates both challenges and opportunities for the international socialist organisation. The absence of state socialist support requires greater reliance on popular movements and international solidarity, but it also eliminates the distortions created by subordination to state power. The contemporary moment may represent a crucial turning point in the development of international working-class politics. The depth of the current crisis creates possibilities for fundamental transformation that have been absent since the revolutionary periods. The development of a modern Workers’ International could provide the organisational framework necessary to realise these transformative possibilities. The imperative for socialist international working-class organisations has never been greater, while the tools for achieving such an organisation have never been more available. The combination of historical necessity and contemporary possibility creates conditions that favour the emergence of new forms of international socialist politics adapted to 21st-century challenges.

Read more:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-labor-and-working-class-history

https://www.jstor.org/journal/intelaboworkhist

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-labor-and-working-class-history/latest-issue

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-labor-and-working-class-history/all-issues

https://www.jstor.org/journal/intelaboworkhist?decade=2000

https://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=31396&p=199801