The Battle Over 1776 in the Present Crisis
The discussion on the importance of the American Revolution
has become a central ideological conflict in the early 2000s. The elite,
struggling with a legitimacy crisis, tries to both absorb and undermine the
democratic ideals of 1776. At the same time, the pseudo-left has completely
abandoned these traditions, reducing the Revolution to a moralistic list of
hypocrisies, exclusions, and crimes. In this context, defending the American
Revolution as a key bourgeois democratic movement is not just an academic issue
but a crucial political stance.
The latest article, published by the British Socialist
Workers Party, illustrates what happens when a pseudo-left view tackles a
historic issue without a solid Marxist basis. The article exemplifies the
pseudo-left's failure to clearly answer key questions, swinging between
praising the revolution's "radical" aspects and criticising its
shortcomings, concluding with a vague moral call to "make true" its
promises—without explaining how or through which social forces. This is not
representative of Marxism. It is political tourism through the past.
Currently, the only political organisation capable of
providing a historical materialist perspective on the American Revolution is
the ICFI and its online publication, The World Socialist Website. It rejects
the vague "on the one hand, on the other' approach used by the SWP and
instead employs the method of historical materialism to uphold the
revolutionary legacy of 1776.
A Marxist viewpoint sees the American Revolution
differently. It views it as an important bourgeois-democratic movement in
global history. The working class ought to rekindle the democratic ideals of
1776 — not as a patriotic legend, but as a vital part of the ongoing struggle
for universal emancipation.
The Historical Necessity of the Bourgeois Democratic
Revolution
Marxism does not view bourgeois revolutions as moral issues
but as necessary historical stages in the evolution of capitalist society and
the modern working class. The American Revolution was not just an accident, an
enslaver’s conspiracy, or a simple colonial uprising. Instead, it symbolised
big changes in property relations, class structure, global trade, ideological
awareness, and the growth of Enlightenment universalism. The pseudo-left fails
to understand this because it dismisses historical materialism, replacing
analytical reasoning with moral outrage and current feelings without historical
context.
By the mid-18th century, North American colonies had
developed a distinct social landscape, including a petty-bourgeois class, a
rising capitalist elite, and a literate, politically engaged artisan and labourer
population. These colonies were also characterised by frontier society in
conflict with aristocratic land claims and a political culture influenced by
republicanism, dissenting Protestantism, and Enlightenment ideas. These factors
made the colonies particularly receptive to revolutionary ideas. The Revolution
was not a top-down imposition; rather, it was driven from the bottom up by a
broad social coalition whose demands went beyond those of the elite.
As David North points out in his essential formulation, the
Declaration “indicted the existing social and political order and called for
its overthrow in the most sweeping and universal terms. “This is the key to
understanding 1776. The Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created
equal” was not a description of existing social relations. It was a
revolutionary negation of the entire edifice of hereditary privilege,
monarchy, aristocracy, and divine right.
What the Revolution Was
The American Revolution was a bourgeois democratic movement,
not a socialist one, and no Marxist has ever suggested otherwise. This term is
a precise, scientific description, not an insult. As David North noted in his
opening remarks at the WSWS's 250th anniversary webinar, the Declaration of
Independence "condemned the existing social and political order and called
for its comprehensive overthrow." It challenged monarchy, hereditary
privileges, and colonial dominance. The statement that "all men are created
equal" and have "unalienable rights" was revolutionary in a
world dominated by lords and kings who claimed divine right.
The Socialist Worker article hints at this but quickly
shifts to moral judgment: acknowledging that the revolution was progressive yet
noting that enslavers also participated, Indigenous peoples were dispossessed,
and power remained in the hands of the wealthy. This 'pros and cons' approach
fails to offer real insight. As North pointed out: 'Calling the founders
hypocrites does not explain why a revolution happened, why the Declaration
gained significance beyond their intentions, or why its words resonated with
abolitionists, enslaved people, workers, socialists, and civil rights
activists."
The American Revolution was founded on contradictions. Its
promises excluded enslaved individuals, women, Indigenous peoples, and those
without property. However, the democratic ideals it promoted went beyond the
limitations of its era. This creates a dialectic: the Revolution was both
rooted in its time and forward-looking. It inspired the French Revolution, the
Haitian Revolution, anti-colonial efforts in South America, the abolitionist
movement, and later democratic and socialist campaigns. As Tom Paine stated,
"the cause of America" was "the cause of all mankind."
The Socialist Worker article views the 1788 Constitution as
merely the end of a story — a compromise between Northern capitalists and
Southern enslavers that temporarily masked divisions until the Civil War.
However, this perspective overlooks a key point: the Civil War was not
accidental or secondary. Instead, it was the second American Revolution,
completing the first. As North pointed out, "The transition from the first
to the second stage of the bourgeois democratic revolution proceeded rather rapidly.
Thaddeus Stevens, the most prominent radical Republican, was born in the early
years of George Washington's presidency."
The end of slavery and the Radical Reconstruction
represented the realisation of the democratic ideals established in 1776,
rather than their betrayal. The subsequent defeat of Reconstruction and the
rise of Jim Crow laws served as counter-revolutions that reversed the Civil
War's progress. This perspective is missing from the pseudo-left, which
replaces class analysis with racial theory.
Why This Matters Now
The question "Should we celebrate the American
Revolution?" is not purely academic; it has become a highly political
issue in 2026. The Trump administration is intensifying its assault on
democratic rights, with the president openly discussing dictatorial governance.
The fundamental idea of popular sovereignty—government of, by, and for the
people—is now under threat.
Under these circumstances, abandoning the revolutionary
democratic tradition in favour of reaction would be a devastating political
mistake. Unfortunately, that is what much of the pseudo-left effectively does
when it dismisses 1776 as merely an enslaver's plot or dismisses the
Declaration's language of equality as mere hypocrisy. As North warned: "If
the left abandons the revolutionary-democratic tradition, viewing equality,
rights, popular sovereignty, and universal emancipation as deception, it risks
handing that tradition over to reaction. And that is precisely what is
occurring."
The working class must safeguard the democratic ideals of
the American Revolution, viewing them not as complete but as unfulfilled. The
goals of 1776 cannot be achieved under capitalism; instead, they demand a
socialist overhaul in which the working class seizes power and the capitalist
system—which accumulates wealth and authority in fewer hands—is abolished. As
Andre Damon noted in 2016: "The American Revolution provided the
ideological and political impetus for the French Revolution and all subsequent
democratic, egalitarian and socialist movements."
The significance of the American Revolution extends beyond
mere history; it is a crucial political issue today. By 2026, democratic
institutions face exceptional pressures, with the executive branch increasingly
flirting with authoritarianism and democratic norms eroding rapidly. The
pseudo-left’s rejection of 1776 as a conspiracy by enslavers dismisses the
progressive aspects of the bourgeois revolution, rejects universal principles,
weakens the ideological basis for democratic rights, and leaves the working
class without political power.
Yes, we should honour the American Revolution—not as a
patriotic myth, a completed achievement, or by ignoring its contradictions—but
as a significant historical milestone whose democratic principles are still
revolutionary today. Its unfulfilled promises can only be realised through
socialist revolution, and the working class must protect its legacy against the
current authoritarian threat. The ambiguous, moralistic, and politically
inconsistent tone of the Socialist Worker article offers no guidance.
The democratic principles established in 1776 — such as
equality, rights, and popular sovereignty — are still revolutionary. However,
they cannot be fully realised within capitalism and instead demand a socialist
revolution. The American Revolution was a major bourgeois-democratic revolution
of global historical importance. While it had contradictions, these do not
diminish its significance; rather, they highlight the need for continued
revolutionary progress.
The working class must uphold the democratic legacy of 1776,
not as a myth but as a historical fight for universal emancipation. Achieving
the Revolution's promises requires a socialist restructuring of society.”
