The theoretical basis of internationalism was deeply embedded in the consciousness of the entire Bolshevik leadership. One important fact determining the insurrection in October 1917 had been Lenin's belief that a revolution was imminent in Germany.
The revolution in Russia was seen by all Bolsheviks as the harbinger of proletarian revolutions throughout Europe.
The notion of "building socialism in one country" appeared bizarre even six years after the revolution. In 1924 Stalin wrote:
"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. ...
"Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible.
"To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of one country are sufficient-the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient.
"For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary...
The formation of the Communist International was, therefore, a vital necessity not just for the oppressed of the world, but also for the Russian workers.
There could be many criticisms of some of the tactics adopted by the Comintern in its early years, but its aim was never in doubt. The Comintern was created to unify revolutionaries throughout the world, to use the strengths of the Russian revolution in order to aid the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism on a global scale.
The message which emerged from the Soviet leaders was concise and clear: if you want to help the Soviet Union, then make the revolution in your own countries.
The first four congresses of the Comintern were held annually from 1919 to 1922. Following Lenin's death, the sharp split inside the Russian party, and the victory of Stalin, they became less and less frequent.
The sixth congress, which decided to label social-democrats as "social-fascists," was held in 1928; the seventh and last congress was held in 1935. This latter embarked on the strategy of popular fronts, a grotesque caricature of the early Comintern positions on the united front. The logic was obvious.
From 1933 onwards the Comintern disappeared from Stalin's speeches and writings. There was one mention in March 1939 when he denounced as slanderous the allegation that the CI was fomenting revolutions. Then in 1943 he announced its dissolution, stating that it would "put an end to a calumny."
In reality the Comintern had ceased to be a revolutionary force after the fourth congress. It was increasingly being misused by the dominant faction in the Russian party.
Inner-party disputes in the CPSU determined the line in China in the 1920s. The defeat of the 1927 uprising in Shanghai selves with the bourgeoisie of their own countries if the local ruling class was on good terms with the Soviet Union.
The zig-zags carried out by the Communist parties and their unquestioning loyalty to the Soviet state and its bureaucracy reflected a form of perverted internationalism. It destroyed them as revolutionary parties, however.
In France, in 1936, the CP helped to defuse a strike wave of revolutionary proportions; in Spain the CP organised a civil war within the working class by liquidating forces on its left; in Greece Stalin disarmed the partisans at a crucial stage. After the war the French and Italian CPs loyally accepted the agreement at Yalta.
Where revolutions were made they were carried out by parties which broke empirically with Stalin: Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and China are the best examples.
The dominant characteristic of Soviet foreign policy became that of defending the status quo. For this was the best way of preserving the stability of bureaucratic rule.
Peaceful co-existence was first practised by Stalin, then by Khrushchev, and finally by Mao, with devastating results for the international workers movement. The internationalism of Lenin was replaced by the national chauvinism of the bureaucracy.
In order to defend this regime the bureaucracy was quite capable of moving outwards. The assimilation of Eastern Europe, with the establishment of regimes modelled on the Stalinist monstrosity in Russia, was required to consolidate its military and political position in Europe. It was necessary to contain imperialism.
Secondly, the fact that the bureaucracy presides over a society in which capitalism does not exist compels it towards an objective tension with imperialism.
So, although Soviet foreign policy has no revolutionary content whatsoever, it is a fact that the Soviet Union provided vital military and economic aid to the Cuban revolution. An extension of that was the decision of the Russian leaders not to oppose the Cuban intervention in Angola.
There can be little doubt that the Soviet Union is the only major power which provides military aid designed to bring down the settler regimes in southern Africa. The important point is that it is quite happy to assign the accomplishment of this task to African nationalists.
The Kremlin is totally uninterested in aiding the building of even pro-Moscow
Communist parties in the region!
Even where it is possible to create new Cubas (in the positive sense), the Kremlin advises caution and seeks to smother all spontaneous mass initiatives. Angola, South Yemen and Afghanistan are all states that are proclaimed by the Western press to be "communist."
In fact they are curious hybrids: isolated by imperialism, held at arm's length by Comecon, but constructing powerful state apparatuses with the backing of the USSR and East Germany.
All three states are in vital strategic areas. If they went the way of Cuba they would considerably weaken the imperialist hold in the region. But until now they have been used, in differing degrees, as instruments of the foreign policy of the Soviet bureaucracy.
It is a tragedy that sixty years after the Comintern was founded there is not the slightest trace of internationalism in the actions of those parties which once belonged to it.
On an international scale today the sole repository of the traditions of the early Comintern is the Fourth International founded by Trotsky in 1938.
Those of us who belong to it can be justifiably proud at upholding the banner of proletarian internationalism. But a gulf still exists between where we are and where we aim to go.