Nasser Paydar October 2005
The profound influence of bourgeois political economy on the explanation of the capitalist mode of production and the unjustifiable attribution of this explanation to Marx’s teachings has a long history and is truly universal in scope across international leftist circles and movements. Analysing capitalist relations through the strategies and doctrines of the political economy of capital has, in turn, laid the groundwork for various bourgeois narratives regarding socialism, the socialist movement, and class struggle both within the labour movement and in the social life of the working class.
The pressure exerted by these narratives and perspectives each serving as a vehicle for non-working-class tendencies and movements to assert themselves, encroach upon, and exert influence within the labour movement has severely stifled the ability of radical, anti-capitalist working-class uprisings worldwide to breathe. Wherever in the world a group of workers begins to organize a class struggle against wage slavery, they are immediately met with a lightning-fast siege by the entire spectrum of the “social-bourgeois” Left. The hatred, hostility, and obstructionism directed by this Left heir to populist and nationalist movements against any working-class initiative to oppose or abolish wage labour is so intense that it frequently acts as a formidable barrier to any conscious, organized worker resistance against the very foundations of exploitation and the capitalist system itself. The international anti-capitalist movement of the working masses suffers under this pressure; consequently, every step forward and every degree of consolidation requires a more precise and transparent elucidation of the movement’s manifold issues. The present article is an attempt to address these very needs.
Wage Labor and Capitalist Production
Wage labour or the relationship involving the buying and selling of labour power constitutes the foundation and material basis of the capitalist system. Any analysis or dissection of capitalism that fails to account for the defining role and fundamental nature of this social relationship will inevitably result in a “blind” analysis one that is pro-capitalist rather than pro-worker, and certainly non-Marxian. Throughout history, the encroachment and dominance of various bourgeois and social-bourgeois strategies within the global labour movement have consistently involved erasing this essential component of the capitalist mode of production and system, replacing it instead with one of the secondary factors or elements of capitalist economics.
Contrary to what the pseudo-intellectual “Leftists” of both old and new varieties imagine, wage labour is not merely a secondary component of the capitalist mode of production; rather, it is the cornerstone of its existence and the gateway through which history enters the economic, social, and historical reality of this system. The relationship involving the purchase and sale of labour power is not an isolated, disjointed interaction where one party performs work and the other pays a wage but is, in fact, a social relationship. It is a relationship that, on the one hand, generates, embodies, and originates the capitalist system, and on the other, defines the character of all relations, social ties, and the very fabric of capitalist society. The wage-labour relationship is the relationship of surplus-value production. It is a relationship in which the worker stands not in their capacity as a human being, but in the guise of a commodity known as “labour power”; stripped of the freedom, rights, dignity, status, and role of a human being, and having completely lost these attributes and prerogatives facing another commodity: the product of their own labour, which represents the crystallization and accumulation of the surplus labour performed by them and their fellow workers. It is within this relationship that the worker’s surplus labour is transformed into capital; capital, in turn as the embodiment, representative, and crystallization of this entire social relationship (or mode of production) comes to dominate the entire human and social existence of the worker and their class. Marx describes the initial link in the life of the capitalist mode of production the moment of its birth and emergence from the process of expanding commodity production, known as the phase of “primitive accumulation” in the following terms:
“Money and commodities are neither capital nor means of production and subsistence from the outset. They must, therefore, be transformed into capital; yet this transformation itself is possible only under specific conditions. These conditions may be summarized as follows: the owners of two vastly different types of commodities must confront and come into contact with one another. On the one hand, there are the owners of money and the means of production and subsistence who in order to valorise the value, they possess purchase the labour power belonging to others; on the other hand, there are free labourers who sell their own labour power and thus, their labour. Workers are ‘free’ in the sense that, firstly, they are not themselves like slaves, serfs, and the like directly part of the means of production, and secondly, they do not like independent peasants and similar figures possess means of production of their own; in other words, they are to the greatest extent possible free from any ties of ownership or dependency, standing unencumbered and detached in that regard.” (Capital, Volume I, )
Here, Marx discusses the phenomenon of the primitive accumulation of capital or, in effect, the threshold marking the entry of the commodity economy and the material evolution of history into the capitalist mode of production. In his view, the commodification of labour power and the emergence of the relationship involving the buying and selling of labour power or the relationship of surplus-value production constitute the fundamental indicators of the rise of these productive and social relations. Marx begins with the human being. “The first premise of all human history is, naturally, the existence of living human individuals.” He emphasizes labour as the distinguishing feature separating humans from animals: “One can distinguish humans from animals by consciousness, religion, or anything else one pleases; yet humans themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals the moment they start to produce their means of subsistence a step conditioned by their physical organization. By producing their means of subsistence, humans indirectly produce their own material life” (The German Ideology).
Marx first examines the labour process independently of any specific social form. He views labour as a process between human beings and nature and delineates the elements of the labour process comprising purposeful activity, the object of labour, and the instruments of labour. He meticulously analyses the labour process in terms of its product or the objective of its realization; following a profound and scientific dissection of all these various defining aspects of the process, he ultimately summarizes its natural form and simple state as follows.
“The labour process as we have analysed it in its simple, abstract form consists of purposeful human activity aimed at producing use-values and adapting nature to human needs. It is the general condition for the metabolism between man and nature and an eternal necessity of human life; as such, it is independent of any specific form of human existence or social organization or, more precisely, it is common to all social forms of human life. Consequently, there was no need in this discussion to examine the relations between the worker and other workers; considering man and his labour on the one hand, and the materials of labour on the other, sufficed. Just as one cannot tell who sowed the wheat simply by tasting it, one cannot discern from the labour process itself the conditions under which it was performed. Did it take place under the ruthless lash of a slave overseer, or under the anxious gaze of a capitalist? Was it carried out by Cincinnatus on his small farm, or by a savage felling his prey with a stone?” (Capital, Vol. I)
It is through all these analyses and dissections that Marx transitions from the abstract labour process to the process of value creation. He subjects the commodity viewed as the vital cell and the elementary form of wealth in societies dominated by capitalist production to rigorous analysis. After explaining use-value and exchange-value, and subsequently dissecting value (or exchange-value) that is, the socially necessary labour embodied in the commodity he formulates his view on the labour process within commodity production as follows:
“Since the commodity itself is a unity of use-value and value, the production process must necessarily be a unity of the labour process and the process of value formation” (Ibid., p. 246).
The next step in Marx’s dissection of the labour process is a scientific or the most comprehensive and profound examination of the dynamics by which commodity production transforms into the capitalist mode of production; or, in other words, the transformation of the “labour process as value-creation” into the “labour process as value-augmentation.”
“The production process, as the unity of the labour process and the process of creating value, is the process of producing commodities. The production process, as the unity of the labour process and the process of augmenting value, is the capitalist process of production.” (Ibid.,)
The commodification of labour power and the emergence of wage labour as a relationship for the production of surplus value, as a mode of production, and as a social relation that elevates the labour process into a unity of production and value-augmentation constitute precisely that distinctive “ethereal glow” upon which Marx focuses the foundation of his analysis of the historical existence of capitalism. It is here that the worker’s labour power is sold as a commodity, yet the appearance is created that the worker has sold their labour itself. It is here that the entire spectrum of appallingly unequal human relations manifests as an equal relationship between the commodity of capital and the commodity of labour power. It is here that the worker’s surplus labour or the surplus value they produce transforms into capital, and ever more capital, becoming an overwhelming, nightmarish force that dominates human existence 1.
1. Recently, a critic of the movement to abolish wage labour after raising a few contradictory points claimed, in a supposedly “scholarly” manner, that wage labour is not the foundation of the capitalist system! The reasoning given was that abolishing wage labour does not entail the elimination of child labour or women’s domestic labour. This represents a profound yet naive distortion of the Marx’s explanation of the concept of wage labour. Marx discusses this phenomenon as the turning point where commodity production transforms into the capitalist mode of production, or as the evolutionary link shifting the unity of the production process and the value-creation process toward the unity of the production process and the value-augmentation process. Marx identifies the relationship of wage labour and the associated relationship of surplus-value production as the foundation of the economic, political, civil, cultural, legal, and social structures, as well as the totality of interactions and relations within capitalist society. In his view, wage labour is a social relation; it is precisely this relation that, through its economic, civil, and social expansion, gives rise to capitalist society as a whole. Domestic labour performed by women and children and indeed the entire spectrum of disenfranchisement and oppression facing humanity today are economic, legal, civil, and cultural consequences of the existence of capitalism. The abolition of wage labour entails the elimination of the capitalist system itself and, naturally, all its associated cultural, civil, and social superstructures. Contrary to Marx’s perspective, our “scholarly” friend views this category not as a social relation, but as an isolated, individual, and non-social act. In this researcher’s conception, wage labour is equated with the simple act of an individual in ancient Rome receiving payment from another individual of that same era. This understanding of wage labour is not unlike the clamour raised by extreme Iranian nationalism whenever a stone inscription is discovered at Persepolis purportedly attesting to the proud history of wage labour among the Aryan people!
Capitalist Society and the Labor Movement
With the development of the wage-labour relationship into the dominant mode of production in society, all superstructures and social relations property, the state, law, culture, social and ethical values, and the entirety of what is termed “civil society” undergo a process of transformation and adaptation to the foundations of the reproduction of the labour-power exchange relationship. In all its economic, legal, civil, political, cultural, and social spheres, capitalist society is one that manifests the imperatives of capital valorisation and the consequences of the inescapable class struggle between capital and the vast masses who sell their labour power. Here, whatever constitutes a right for capital constitutes a wrong for workers. Whatever represents freedom for the capitalist class signifies sheer bondage and the antithesis of freedom for the sellers of labour power. Whatever signifies power for capital and the capitalist signifies powerlessness and alienation from the capacity to exercise power for the working class. Whatever confers dignity upon the capitalist class imposes humiliation and destitution upon the working class. Every act of agency by capital entails the exclusion of the worker from the possibility of shaping their own destiny. In short, the principle defining human relations within this society operates precisely against one class to the same extent that it serves the interests of the other. It might be argued that human knowledge itself, the technological and material advancements derived from it, or a significant portion of political, legal, civil, and social reforms despite the vast disparities in how they affect these antagonistic classes and despite their realization in accordance with the imperatives of capital’s self-expansion are nonetheless more or less beneficial to the working class. Such a perspective, however, does not offer a radical view of these phenomena but rather presents an inverted image of them. In the course of capitalist historical development, humanity has achieved much; yet every step of this transformation has been accompanied by a realm of barbarism and hostility toward humanity. The history of capital’s civilizing mission has been fundamentally marked by the darkest episodes of savagery against the vast majority of humankind. A significant feature of the “Communist Manifesto” is Marx’s remarkable precision in articulating the organic interweaving of capitalism’s civilizing tendencies with the anti-human essence of this mode of production. Marx’s analysis of Britain’s role in India which has recently faced criticism from former pro-Russian postmodernists and others precisely addresses this organic fusion of that civilizing drive with the inherent, intrinsic barbarism of capital.
We have noted that capitalist society within the very fabric of its economic and social life and in all human interactions bears an irreconcilable, fundamental class conflict between capital and the vast masses who sell their labour power. The central point is that this entire antagonism is rooted in and stems from and is reproduced by the depths of the wage-labour relationship. It is here that the worker’s total dispossession of fundamental human rights is established and codified. Within this relationship, the worker’s civic and social existence and the entire scope of their human self-expression is subjected to a specific legal definition dictated by the imperatives of capital reproduction. Their freedom is defined solely as the freedom to sell labour power as a commodity; this “freedom” is contingent upon the denial of any liberty to have a say in the labour process or the fate of the product of their labour. They are stripped of any right to intervene in decisions regarding what is or is not produced. The consumption of the labour power they have sold and the manner in which that consumption proceeds falls entirely within the absolute prerogatives of capital. At this juncture, the worker forfeits all freedom, agency, and right of intervention along with everything that signifies their human dignity and worth and is reduced to a wage-slave, compelled to sell their labour power to this or that capitalist, or to capital in the abstract. Capitalist society is either one that has transcended this relationship along with its principles, dictates, and underlying intent or one completely absorbed and dissolved into the very fabric of the requirements for the survival and reproduction of wage labour. Here, “civility” signifies the perpetual reproduction of the worker as a wage-slave stripped of power; it is a mode of existence contingent upon adherence to the sanctity of the law of value and the relationship of surplus-value production a civility wherein any attachment the worker feels toward it amounts to hanging oneself from the noose of that very production relationship. Freedom, in this context, is at best a matter of defining the terms and conditions of human liberty based on the regulations governing the productive order and the valorisation of capital. The right to vote is the right to submit and yield to the laws of capital reproduction. Equality is a concept that extends the false equivalence between the price of labour power and the actual value of labour.
From a Marx’s and working-class perspective on capitalism, the putrefaction, savagery, backwardness, and anti-human nature of the wage-labour relationship are perceived at the very heart of every legal tie, political institution, contract, social law, cultural value, and indeed, the society’s entire outlook on humanity; consequently, any critique of this system or any protest against any facet of its prevailing realities is grounded in a fundamentally radical, revolutionary, and transformative approach. In this view, the sickly pallor of a child signifies the depth of capital’s exploitation; the degradation of women manifests the inherent malice of capital; a hungry belly represents a crime natural to the process of capital accumulation; every drop of innocent blood bears witness to the bloodshed and barbarism of the capitalist system; every form of disenfranchisement and deprivation embodies the wage-labour relationship’s intrinsic hostility toward rights; and every instance of humiliation where human worth is dissolved by capital and lives are ruined serves as a manifestation of the internal corruption of the capitalist mode of production.
From this perspective, class struggle entails uniting a worker’s protest against any form of disenfranchisement or oppression with a protest against the material foundations of that very disenfranchisement and oppression. Realizing this unity is the ongoing task of the movement’s activists and enlightened members. Without this unity, the labour movement remains confined within the bounds of submission to wage slavery, merely reproducing the basis of its own continued existence under the dominion of the capitalist mode of production and the wage-labour relationship. When protesting low wages, a worker must simultaneously probe the true roots of their immediate predicament; and when a worker is unable to do so, it is the primary duty of their enlightened fellow worker to unearth these roots from the dark soil of capital and lay them bare before them. The struggle of the working class is a struggle against capitalism. Naturally, this struggle encompasses a process of inception, growth, maturity, ebbs and flows, defeat and victory, and all its own distinct phases. The crucial, fundamental issue is that all these states, transformations, shifts in form, and fluctuations must in their social reality manifest as living expressions of anti-capitalist resistance and tangible instances of the class struggle against capital.
The working class may and indeed has turned toward two distinct, conflicting movements that diverge in direction, content, purpose, and nature. These two movements embody fundamentally opposing approaches to capitalism and the class’s position within the system of wage slavery. They rest upon deeply contradictory interpretations of the capitalist mode of production and the very existence of the system itself, envisioning vastly different and conflicting horizons for the working class in relation to capitalist society. Grounded in these fundamentally opposed analyses and approaches, the two movements remain distinct and alien to one another across all the ebbs and flows, manifestations, and defining characteristics of their existence. Clearly, despite their fundamental differences, both movements are composed of the masses who sell their labour power; in both instances, workers are engaged in a struggle against capital. In both movements, the demands, expectations, livelihood issues, social rights, and welfare provisions of the working masses serve as the subjects of contention. Yet, these movements are not of the same kind; the relationship between them is not one of simple growth and evolution whereby one transforms into the other. While both movements draw upon the energy and strength of the working masses to sustain their existence and struggles, one represents the worker’s cry of protest against the very foundation of capital’s existence, whereas the other embodies a plea a desperate cry for permission to survive within the dark hell of capital. One aspect represents their conscious, class-based opposition to the existing order, while the other signifies their stagnation and distortion within the quagmire of capitalist-induced illusions. The working class’s anti-capitalist struggle is not necessarily—at all times and in every instance—an organized movement possessing a clear vision, coherence, unity, and a precise communist orientation aimed at the abolition of wage labour. In other words, a labour movement can be anti-capitalist while simultaneously suffering from significant shortcomings regarding coherence, consciousness, vision, or organization. What is fundamental and defining is that, at every stage of its development commensurate with its capacity, possibilities, and prevailing conditions the movement grapples with these deficiencies and weaknesses, striving to overcome them. The reverse holds true for movements lacking an anti-wage-labour character such as trade unionism and bourgeois socialism in its entirety. In these cases, even the highest forms of expansion and development fail to imbue the workers’ day-to-day struggles with any anti-capitalist dimension; indeed, every step in the evolution of such struggles marks a further departure from an anti-capitalist stance.
Bourgeois Socialism: Perspectives on Capitalism and the Labor Movement
As previously noted, analysing capitalist relations by focusing on various secondary tendencies or specific components of the capital-organization process thereby inevitably avoiding a focus on the wage-labour relationship (or the buying and selling of labour power) as the analytical foundation constitutes the common ground and point of convergence for all reformist currents and the entire spectrum of bourgeois socialism.
In the distant past, Proudhon unable to truly grasp the wage-labour relationship believed that the source of surplus value lay in the difference between the cost price of commodities and their selling price! He held a distorted and unrealistic view regarding the buying and selling of labour power, the true secrets behind the generation of surplus value, and by extension the role of this relationship as the lifeblood and driving force behind the legal, civil, political, and social interactions of capitalist society. Consequently, Proudhon’s socialism amounted to nothing more than a form of populist egalitarianism combined with a specific mode of organizing and planning capitalist production. His perspective on both capitalism and socialism was, in every respect, a conflation of the two. On this matter, Marx states:
“This absurd theory holding that the cost price of a commodity is the true basis of its value, but that surplus value arises from selling the commodity above its value (implying that whenever the selling price equals the cost price that is, the price of the consumed means of production plus wages commodities are sold at their value) is the very theory that Proudhon, with his characteristic pseudo-intellectual charlatanry, trumpets as the newly discovered secret of socialism. Indeed, this reduction of commodity value to cost price forms the fundamental basis of Proudhon’s ‘People’s Bank.’ We have previously stated that the various components of the product’s value can be reflected, in due proportion, in the components of the product itself…” (Capital, Vol. III)
The infiltration of the narratives of capitalism and Proudhonian socialism into the labour movement of his era was undoubtedly a disaster for the European working class; the sinister and destructive consequences of this influence and the prominent role played by Proudhon’s adherents in that failure can be clearly observed in the unfolding events of the Paris Commune. In formulating his “evolutionary socialism,” Bernstein made a banal attempt to refute Marx’s theory of surplus value his primary undertaking. He proclaimed that the source of profit was not exclusively the worker’s surplus labour; rather, factors such as demand levels, the utility of the commodity, the complexity and skill of the workforce, and modern technology and machinery each played a role in the fluctuation of what is termed “surplus value.” By ignoring the reality of the wage-labour relationship and failing utterly to perceive it as the true nexus of all interactions and relations within capitalist society Bernstein had no choice but to sink completely into the quagmire of an ethical, utopian socialism. Here, too, there was a profound, organic link between the political rejection of class struggle coupled with a descent into the trap of illusory, bourgeois egalitarian idealism and an analysis of capitalism that disregarded the wage-labour relationship.
Following the impactful and relatively widespread rise of Marx’s teachings on class struggle, the anatomy of capitalism and the narrative of socialism viewed through the lens of bourgeois political economy were compelled to adopt a different configuration and set of mechanisms compared to the preceding era. It goes without saying that social democracy and the leaders of the Second International could no longer articulate or formulate their understanding of capitalism, the proletarian class struggle, socialism, and the socialist movement using the same logic employed by Proudhon, Bernstein, and their ilk. The Marx’s dissection of the capitalist mode of production, Marx’s critique of bourgeois political economy, and the significant influence of these doctrines on the European labour movement of the time had elevated the debates between working-class communism and the bourgeois perspective on communism in every respect to a new level of confrontation and alignment of forces. The conciliatory reformism within the labour movement prepared to capitulate to wage slavery could not simply ignore the Marx’s critique of capitalist political economy; consequently, in its effort to persuade the global working masses to accept the wage-labour relationship, it had no choice but to engage with the discourse surrounding this relationship recognizing it as the cornerstone of all forms of exploitation, oppression, deprivation, atrocity, and inhumanity in the world. Social democracy undertook this task. With great sleight of hand and by seizing upon specific historical circumstances it framed the problem of capitalism not in terms of its actual foundation or the existence of wage labour, but rather in terms of the nature of capital ownership (state versus private), the anarchy of production inherent within it, and the system’s disregard for the centralized planning of labour and social production. Naturally, the socialism of social democracy had no recourse but to present itself as an alternative to individual capital ownership or the anarchy of capitalist production in the guise of a different form of ownership and a different mode of planning capitalist labour and production: a type of socialism realizable through state ownership of segments of social capital and through parliamentarism.
“Once we reach this stage of large-scale production, only two forms of ownership remain possible. The first is private ownership of the means of production which are utilized through collective labour by an individual; this signifies the existing capitalist system, with its attendant misery and exploitation for the workers and its stifling abundance for the capitalist. The second is the collective ownership of the means of production by the workers, signifying a cooperative system of production and the abolition of the exploitation of labour. In this system, the workers themselves are the masters of their own production and appropriate the surplus value from which the capitalist deprives them under the current system. Replacing private ownership of the means of production with social ownership this is what economic evolution, with ever-increasing force, compels us to do” (Karl Kautsky, “The Class Struggle”).
The forms of ownership and the ongoing competition among various capitals are merely components and derivative indicators of the capitalist mode of production. Competition whether free or monopolistic, and however it may shift along with the distinction between private and state capital, merely reflects changes in the capitalist planning of labour and production; yet, under no circumstances do they undermine the fundamental existence of wage slavery or the relationship involving the buying and selling of labour power. By completely disregarding the role of the wage-labour relationship, the social-democratic perspective on the capitalist mode of production and society leads the labour movement into a graveyard one where any future resurrection from the depths of those tombs would require a monumental revival of the global labour movement.
From its very inception amidst the rise, consolidation, and expansion of the Russian labour movement Russian Social Democracy absorbed the intellectual legacy, perspectives, and visionary outlook of Social Democracy within the European labour movement. The 1902 program of the Russian Social Democratic Party aimed to establish a society characterized by the abolition of private ownership and the implementation of a planned production system. In the period between that year and the October Revolution, Bolshevism engaged with the Russian labour movement based on this very perspective and rationale; it pursued the movement’s organizational structuring, party-building, revolutionary methods, and historical objectives through this same lens. Following the October victory, within Lenin’s classification of the prevailing Russian economy, the system established whereby state ownership of capital was instituted—was designated as a “socialist economy.” Socialism was conceived merely as a step forward from state-monopoly capitalism or, in effect, a transition to direct state ownership.
“…Socialism is nothing but the next step forward from state-monopoly capitalism…” (Lenin, “On the Tax in Kind”)
Here, too, the critique of the political economy of the working class directed against the political economy of capitalism failed to serve as the guiding light for the struggle of the working masses or as the lifeblood of the labour movement’s praxis. Here, too even during the days of the October Revolution Russian society was regarded not as a truly capitalist society or one founded on wage labour, but rather as a society of “small-scale peasants” (Lenin, “The Tax in Kind”). Under this analysis, the dominant economic class was seen not as the capitalist class but as a stratum of small-scale producers; consequently, the proletariat’s program was defined not by the organization of the abolition of wage labour within the processes of production and social labour, but by the “NEP.” Here, too, socialism was not conceived as the planning of labour and production by the broad masses of workers organized in councils with the ultimate aim of eliminating wage labour but was instead proclaimed to be the combination of advanced industry and a party-state standing over the workers.
“To further clarify this issue, let us first cite a very concrete example of state capitalism. Everyone knows what this example is: Germany. In that country, we are confronted with the latest word in modern large-scale capitalist technology and systematic organization, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cast aside the emphasized terms and replace the Junker-bourgeois imperialist military state with another state one of a different social type and class content, namely the Soviet or proletarian state and you will obtain the entire set of conditions that bring about socialism.” (Lenin, “On the Tax in Kind”)
To gain a clearer understanding of the narrative of socialism within this specific argument of Lenin’s, we must bear in mind other statements he made elsewhere viewing them in an organic relationship with the point at hand. He characterizes the state existing in Russia at the time as an instance of a “state of a different social type and with a different class content.” For, just a few lines later, he adds: “History from which no one, save for the most obtuse Mensheviks, expected the smooth, calm, easy, and simple delivery of a fully formed socialism followed a unique trajectory; by 1918, it had brought forth two distinct halves of socialism side by side, much like two chicks emerging from beneath the single shell of international imperialism. Germany and Russia, more than any others, embodied the material realization of socialism’s economic, productive, and social conditions on the one hand, and its political conditions on the other.”
The state through which Lenin envisions the planned economy of a society such as Germany as the realization of socialism is a state possessing the following characteristics.
“The dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organized in the Soviets. The proletariat itself is under the leadership of the Bolshevik Communist Party… The Party, whose congress convenes annually… is led by a Central Committee composed of 19 members. Furthermore, day-to-day operations in Moscow are conducted by even smaller bodies namely, the so-called Oligarchy (Organizational Bureau) and Politburo (Political Bureau) each consisting of five members of the Central Committee, elected at the Committee’s plenary session. Thus, the conclusion is that a full-fledged ‘oligarchy’ exists. No state institution in our Republic resolves any significant political or organizational issue without the guidance of the Central Committee” (Lenin, “Selected Works emphasis added).
The sector of the Russian economy termed “socialist” in Lenin’s analysis consisted of enterprises where workers continued to sell their labour power, yet ownership remained in the hands of the state. A crucial point requiring clarification is that our reference here to the specific nature of the state following the October Revolution has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of that state’s relationship to democracy! The most banal, right-wing, and non-communist analysis in this regard is to slide into a democratic critique of Bolshevism and the Bolshevik state during those years. The fundamental premise of the current discussion is that as long as labour power is bought and sold, there can be no talk of socialism or a socialist economy. The point is that regardless of how fervently a state proclaims its commitment to the working class and communism, or the extent of its internal democratic relations and openness if it plans the processes of labour and production from above (over the heads of the workers), and if the workers themselves do not plan through their own council organizations what is to be produced, the volume of production, the distribution of the product, and all matters concerning their work and social lives; and as long as they derive their livelihood in exchange for surrendering their labour power, they remain sellers of labour power, and the economic and social relations governing their lives remain capitalist.
The anatomy of the capitalist mode of production defined by the persistence of the wage-labour relationship and the socialist narrative corresponding to it, endured with remarkable resilience even after the defeat of the October Revolution and the establishment of the state-capitalist bloc. A wide array of groups including “sister” parties and pro-Russian factions, nationalists, Maoist “populists,” Eurocommunists, European Marxists, and the so-called “Trotskyists,” among others all sought to influence the labour movements of various countries and impose their own prescriptions upon them, operating through a bourgeois political-economic perspective on capitalism and a bourgeois narrative of socialism.
The question of whether the society of Russia whose entire labour and production were organized around wage labour and the reproduction of the surplus-value-generating relation of production was capitalist served as a focal point of analysis and a common reference for all these currents. Even the Maoist “Social-Imperialists” who incessantly parroted the label “social-imperialist” for that society never uttered a word about its capitalist nature or the reasons behind it. For all of them from “fraternal” parties to their Maoist “non-fraternal” counterparts and the anti-Stalinist Trotskyists the criteria for identifying capitalism cantered on the legal form of ownership (private versus state), the nature of capital possession, the planning mechanisms governing the capital-wage labour relationship, and the degree of centralization in that planning. None of their versions of socialism went a hair’s breadth beyond state capitalism. At its deepest level, the disagreement between them hinged merely on the presence or absence of democracy within a society founded on the wage-labour relationship.
An Onslaught of Movements or a Distortion of Ideas?!
Throughout the twentieth century, the dissection of capitalism from the perspective of bourgeois political economy wrought disaster upon the labour movement at every turn. Theses such as “dependent capitalism,” the nationalist narrative of imperialism, and the familiar theory held by the so-called Trotskyist spectrum regarding the existence of a society that is “neither capitalist nor socialist”!!! dealt devastating historical blows to the movement. A fundamental point here is that attributing these theories merely to a misunderstanding of Marx’s teachings or to revisionism regarding his ideas constitutes, in itself, a non-class-based explanation that contradicts the essence of Marx’s revolutionary materialism. The nationalist narrative of imperialism, the “dependent capitalism” thesis (or any synonym thereof), the Trotskyist notion of a society that is “neither capitalist nor socialist,” and similar concepts have each represented and continue to represent specific ways of viewing and critiquing the capitalist system from the standpoint of a particular social movement. Marx’s anatomy of the capitalist mode of production and his exposition of the labour movement and working-class socialism was never merely a collection of beliefs, ideas, ideological categories, or theoretical abstractions; consequently, the inversion, distortion, and perversion of these concepts cannot be reduced simply to the misunderstandings or revisionism of adherents to various ideological schools. The characterization of imperialism as a phenomenon “opposed to the free growth of capitalism”!!! It was not merely a misinterpretation of Marx’s teachings; rather, it was the direct intellectual and ideological sublimation of the imperialist conditions of capitalist accumulation within the minds of a segment of the bourgeoisie in these societies. It is entirely natural and self-evident that the intellectual representatives of this stratum of the bourgeoisie acting on a global scale have resorted to every necessary form of theorizing to articulate their views, analyses, expectations, and the requirements for advancing their movement; this has included latching onto Marx and seeking every possible avenue to infiltrate the international working-class movement. The “dependent capitalism” thesis was, in turn, another facet of the analyses and theorizing of this very segment of the bourgeoisie; furthermore, dismissing their arguments as a mere misunderstanding of Marxism or a revision of Marx’s guidelines reflects, in itself, a metaphysical approach to revolutionary materialism. The exact same issue applies to the spectrum of Trotskyists, Euro-communists, market socialists, and similar currents. The problem with these currents has never been merely a matter of abstract theoretical beliefs or convictions. When Trotskyists dismiss the significance of the wage-labour relationship and its foundational role in the capitalist mode of production they effectively declare their own existence as a proposed solution for reforming capitalism, and as a movement dedicated to restructuring the capitalist system. When they tell the hundreds of millions of wage-labour sellers in the former Soviet bloc, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and elsewhere that coercing people into wage slavery and the sale of labour power has nothing to do with the capitalist nature of society, they are loudly proclaiming their own class, social, and political allegiance to the global capitalist class and to the tendency that seeks to reform the social structure of the wage-slavery system. What is fundamental here is not the theoretical formulations that distort Marx’s teachings, but rather the class and social origins of this movement within the sphere of global bourgeois existence. The theses regarding “imperialism as an obstacle to industrial capital accumulation” and “dependent capitalism” promoted by “national-left” parties or groups in Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere reflect not only these currents’ inability to grasp Marx’s critique of political economy but also their calculated astuteness in fashioning versions of these teachings designed to deceive or appeal to the working class. Similarly, when market-socialist theorists employ a myriad of stratagems to delve into Marx’s various analyses of the market and capital seeking to distort these issues to suit their own ends—their underlying problem is not an ideological animus toward Marx, but rather the need to address the contemporary demands of a movement aimed at reforming the structure of capitalism. It is evident that the bourgeoisie is a class historically slow of wit and incapable of grasping reality; yet this historical obtuseness stems, above all, from its very nature as the bourgeoisie. One cannot attribute this failing to the class’s inherent intellectual capacity or power of thought as if one were considering individuals unencumbered by class constraints.
Viewing the capitalist system through the lens of bourgeois political economy while simultaneously envisioning a different model of labour and production planning that still operates within the framework of the wage-labour relationship, all under the banner of “socialism” and linked to a form of idealism divorced from class struggle has naturally resulted in a bourgeois-reformist approach to the labour movement. As previously noted, these very elements constitute the common ground shared by the entire spectrum of bourgeois socialism. It is here that all distinctions blur, and the various conflicts and antagonisms among the factions of this spectrum give way to unity: anti-Khrushchev “Marxist-Leninists,” anti-Trotskyist Maoists, anti-Stalinist Trotskyists, European Marxists opposed to the “Eastern Bloc,” and Bloc loyalists opposed to all the others all have joined hands regarding these two fundamental, class-based criteria. In their analysis of the anatomy of capitalism if not in theoretical abstractions, then certainly in social practice they have disregarded the foundational role of the wage-labour relationship; ultimately, the socialist prescriptions they offer point to no other destination than the doorstep of state capitalism.
Given the fundamental commonalities mentioned above, the spectrum of these currents has naturally and inevitably converged (and continues to converge) upon a unified approach regarding the labour movement, despite all the acrimonious squabbling between them. The key components of this shared approach are as follows:
1. They all fundamentally deny that the working-class masses possess the capacity to organize against wage labour and to struggle for its abolition.
2. Contrary to their outward claims, they in reality and at the very core of their political existence severely distance themselves from the Marx’s conceptualization of the relationship between theory and practice. They reduce the working class’s critique of capitalist political economy to mere abstract concepts, regarding the discovery of these abstractions as the exclusive province of the intellectual elite from the upper classes. In this vein, figures such as Marx and other proletarian thinkers are judged not by their political track records or their actual practice of class and social struggle, but rather by their family lineage and ancestry! The result of this metaphysical-empiricist perspective shared by this entire spectrum is the view that proletarian class consciousness is a gift bestowed upon the working class by the bourgeoisie; they firmly believe and insist that this consciousness must be transmitted into the labour movement by self-sacrificing, compassionate bourgeois intellectuals ready to break with their own class and join the proletariat!!
3. Worker masses who, in the eyes of this entire broad spectrum, lack the social capacity to comprehend capitalism and, consequently, the ability to unite and organize against it are expected to turn to trade-unionist and legalistic struggles. They are to establish trade unions and occupational organizations, bargaining within these legal frameworks to improve their living conditions while remaining under the domination of capitalism.
4. Workers require a party composed of vanguards, pioneers, and professional revolutionaries a party that issues commands to the worker masses from above the proletariat; a party that does not serve as the vehicle for the nationwide organization and unity of workers against wage labour, yet demands that the labour movement execute its directives; a party that dismisses the actual, ongoing struggle of the worker masses against capitalism and reserves the right to speak on this subject exclusively for the leaders of its own Central Committee. It is a party that seeks the overthrow of the political regime but does not pursue opposition to that regime based on anti-capitalism, nor from the platform of the workers’ anti-capitalist movement or through the deep effort to organize that movement; rather, it seeks democracy. For this party, communism is a historical utopia, a doctrine, and a form of faith; in practice and reality, it fights for democracy and is anti-imperialist! It demands the right of nations to self-determination and depending on the exigencies of the moment formulates these very demands under labels such as “People’s Democratic Republic,” “National Republic,” “Republic of Toilers,” “Soviet Republic,” “Soviet Republic of Toilers,” “Socialist Republic,” or any other title. It is a party that, despite all this, considers itself the communist leader of the proletariat and the leader of the workers’ anti-capitalist struggle, yet believes the working masses can only speak of opposing capitalism once they have accepted its leadership and transformed themselves into an army under its command. On this basis, it declares that the organization of the working masses against wage labour is impossible prior to the overthrow of the political regime, the establishment of democracy, and the securing of the party’s authority over the labour movement.
5. All the fragmented and conflicting factions within this spectrum agree that, based on the aforementioned beliefs, the labour movement requires two types of organizations: one for economic and welfare struggles and political demands aimed at reforming the capitalist structure, and another to represent the anti-capitalist struggle. Accordingly, they all accept the trade union as the vehicle for the former and the party as the vehicle for the latter.
6. Based on these premises, all these currents urge the working class to organize into trade unions or similar bodies, mobilize behind these groups to overthrow the political regime, and bring the party to power as the proxy for their class. Simultaneously, they all insist that the proletariat should regard the party’s rule as synonymous with its own class rule.
7. This entire spectrum distinguishes workers’ struggles against the various forms of disenfranchisement inherent in capitalism from the working class’s anti-capitalist struggle. They do not view movements such as working women’s opposition to gender discrimination, workers’ struggles against ethnic apartheid, the movement to abolish child labour, environmental activism, and the fight for political freedoms and social rights as integral parts of the anti-capitalist movement aimed at dismantling capitalism. In their view, each of these forms of protest constitutes merely a sphere of democratic struggle; any attempt to incorporate them into a broad front against wage labour with the goal of abolishing the wage-labour system is dismissed as “ultra-leftist.” Every aspect of the views and tactical stances held by these various currents aligns with their unified strategy of class struggle. All such theorizing and solution-mongering stems naturally from the perspective of capitalist political economy regarding the capitalist mode of production and system; simultaneously, it is the natural product of the brand of socialism shared by these groups namely, state capitalism. The vast body of writings and publications produced by representatives of this fragmented spectrum all aimed at portraying themselves as the true defenders of working-class communism ultimately evokes, for any class-conscious communist worker, the proverbial contradiction of swearing a solemn oath while the “donkey’s tail” (the undeniable evidence of the lie) remains plainly visible.
Their tactics involve stoking the fires of syndicalist labour struggles and organizing the working masses into guilds and trade unions; fragmenting the labour movement and dissolving each splinter into a specific sector of the pro-democracy movement; subordinating the labour movement to a party standing over it; and preventing the working masses from uniting and organizing against the wage-labour system. All these tactics are organically linked to the bourgeois political-economic interpretation of capitalism and the bourgeois narrative of socialism. Under the guidance of their theories, strategies, and solutions, the labour movement at best stands no chance of achieving anything other than replacing the currently dominant form of capitalist labour and production planning with a centralized version operating under the authority and dominance of a party-state standing over the working masses. The communism espoused by these currents is bourgeois communism; attempts to embellish it with rhetoric about the abolition of classes and the state, the destruction of capitalism, and similar slogans stand in fundamental contradiction to their underlying view of capitalism and what they propose to the labour movement. The tactics and strategies of all these currents are as consistent with the strategy of replacing existing capitalist planning of labour and production with centralized state planning of the wage-labour relationship as they are irreconcilable with their claims of establishing working-class socialism and communism. Tactics such as organizing the worker masses along syndicalist or trade-based lines; completely divorcing workers’ current struggles and demands from their struggle against wage labour; rejecting the organization of the worker masses into a nationwide anti-capitalist body; relegating the working class’s political and socialist struggle to a party standing above the workers; urging the worker masses to dissolve their political struggles into a supra-class quest for democracy rather than pursuing them within the heart of a nationwide anti-capitalist movement; dictating a “democratic” opposition to the regime in place of a struggle to overthrow the system to abolish wage labour; and fragmenting the labour movement into various trades and professions all these strategies and tactics not only fail to advance an anti-capitalist workers’ revolution but actively serve to further derail the working class from the path of such a revolution, steering the labour movement instead toward replacing the current form of capitalist economic planning with state capitalism.
The Anti-Capitalist Movement: The Unity of Strategy and Tactics
Everything stated above regarding the spectrum of “bourgeois socialism” stands in direct contrast to the anti-capitalist movement aimed at abolishing the working class’s wage labour. This is the sole movement that represents the genuine communism of the working class and translates it into practice. Here, strategy and tactics constitute an organic unity within the process of transforming existing objective reality; they represent another manifestation of the unity between revolutionary theory and action, directed toward replacing the capitalist system with a society free from wage labour, the state, class divisions, and any form of human alienation from the destiny of one’s own labour, production, and life.
This movement begins its analysis of the anatomy of capitalist society with the wage-labour relationship. It views the entire fabric of capitalist relations political, civil, social, legal, ethical, and cultural as emanations of the relationship governing the production of surplus value. It regards all existing forms of poverty, misery, deprivation, oppression, subjugation, displacement, homelessness, and disenfranchisement as consequences of the reproduction of the labour-power exchange relationship. From the perspective of this movement’s activists, private property is a phenomenon of long standing, whereas capitalist private property is merely a derivative feature or a form corresponding to the capitalist mode of production. Any explanation of capitalism based on indicators such as competition, the anarchy of production, or the legal form of property amounts to slipping into the abyss of bourgeois political economy and breaking away from the Marx’s critique of capitalist political economy.
The anti-capitalist movement defines socialism through the abolition of wage labour, regarding no system based on wage labour or reliant on the buying and selling of labour power as having any affinity with socialism. It does not count state ownership of capital as socialism, regardless of the label the state adopts. It views the political superstructure corresponding to socialism not as a state standing over the workers under any name or guise but as a nationwide council-based organization for planning social labour and production, composed of the working-class masses and characterized by the direct, effective, decisive, and conscious participation of the workers. It does not recognize any form of political power by whatever name as an institution of workers’ power and rule unless, in reality, it serves as a vehicle for the immediate, conscious, organized, and council-based expression and intervention of the broad working-class masses, actively engaged in planning labour and production toward the goal of abolishing wage labour. The product of the socialist revolution is not a state standing over society, but a council-based organization for socialist labour and production planning, driven by the direct and decisive participation of the working masses themselves.
The establishment of socialism depends on the broad masses of the working class who have organized themselves against capitalism and for its abolition. Socialism does not emerge from within trade unionist, guild-oriented, or legalistic movements. Similarly, the party-elite banners raised in the name of communism and Marx’s teachings detached from the labour movement’s current realities, imposed from above the working class, and involving the exercise of party authority over that movement will absolutely not lead to a socialism that abolishes wage labour. Contrary to the Bolshevik conception, socialism is not the twin offspring of the party and advanced industry. The very fabric of socialism is woven from the anti-capitalist movement dedicated to abolishing wage labour. The socialist movement is precisely that anti-capitalist movement of the working class which, throughout its entire anatomy its limbs, tissues, and vital vessels has transformed into a movement possessing a conscious and awakened class awareness.
For the labour movement, Marx’s revolutionary materialism the political economy of the proletariat and the critique of bourgeois political economy represent not abstract tenets or ideological categories, but an objective, radical critique and the praxis of the working class directed at the very foundation of wage labour and capitalist society as a whole. Revolutionary materialism and the Marx’s critique of bourgeois political economy only become manifest and tangible within the workers’ ongoing, objective class struggle against wage labour and for the abolition of capitalism. Contrary to the notion held by the “Hegelians born two centuries too late,” communist consciousness did not originate within the four walls of London libraries or from the contemplative insights of a single individual named Marx. The source of this consciousness is the proletariat, and Marx’s role in this process can be understood and explained solely as that of a revolutionary thinker of the working class:
“A class that is cast out of society and inevitably enters into the sharpest contradictions with other classes; a class that constitutes the majority of society and is the source of the consciousness of the necessity for a fundamental revolution communist consciousness a consciousness that can naturally arise among other classes as well through a deep understanding of this class’s situation” (Marx, The German Ideology)
The class consciousness of the proletariat constitutes the conscious existence of the labour movement. Communism Marx’s revolutionary materialism, the Marxist critique of bourgeois political economy, and the proletariat’s class critique of capitalism as a whole would, if divorced from the ongoing practice of the working-class movement, amount to nothing more than a handful of beliefs; in such a state, it would be neither the conscious existence of the proletariat nor a material weapon for the class’s struggle, but merely one doctrine among many other political and intellectual schools of thought. While the assertion that “Marxism” is a science is entirely correct, this fact cannot obscure the class nature and class significance of these teachings. Marx’s teachings constitute a science, yet the actual existence of this science can only be grasped through the practice of the workers’ anti-capitalist movement. Physics is a science, yet it holds different applications for different classes; Einstein’s formula has been employed by the bourgeoisie with the aim of destroying human life, just as it can be utilized by the communist proletariat to further the betterment of the world. Marx’s teachings and the proletariat’s entire class critique of capitalism are not things that can be employed by the bourgeoisie against the labour movement to perpetuate capitalism itself! It goes without saying that if they were to be exploited by the bourgeoisie as indeed has happened, they would cease to be Marx’s teachings or the proletarian critique of capitalism; instead, they would become quite the opposite a bourgeois weapon against working-class communism and the labour movement, and in that state, they would no longer constitute Marx’s teachings at all.
The movement for the abolition of wage labour draws no line of demarcation between the working class’s struggles to impose its immediate demands upon the bourgeoisie and the class struggle of the worker masses to eradicate capitalism. Any demand for a wage increase can and must serve as a link in the workers’ all-out war against capitalism. When the worker masses hurl the balance sheet of their own production and labour in the form of a class indictment at the bourgeoisie and the capitalist state, and commensurate with the prevailing balance of class forces demand a reduction in surplus labour in favour of necessary labour; and when workers make this the object of their struggle not within the confines of the trade union movement or by submitting to the capitalist order of production, civil society, and politics, but rather by defying that very order they effectively take up a position on the front lines of the anti-capitalist war. The same holds true for other day-to-day struggles of the workers. Any struggle by workers to improve their livelihood, working conditions, welfare, or social amenities provided it relies not on the framework of capitalist legality or trade union reformism, but rather on the fighting spirit and exercise of working-class power (and the actual capacity to wield that power) constitutes, at that very level, an anti-capitalist movement and a concrete manifestation of the working class’s struggle against wage slavery. What determines whether the demands and struggles of the working masses are anti-capitalist in nature or, conversely, reformist, is not the mere scale high or low of these demands. Even the most modest demands manifest an anti-capitalist working-class movement when their realization is predicated on shattering bourgeois resistance through the exercise of the workers’ anti-capitalist class power. The converse holds true for reformism and reformist struggles: even the most far-reaching welfare demands are fundamentally reformist and syndicalist so long as their realization is grounded in an acceptance of the tenets, principles, and legality of capitalism, and in resolving issues within a framework that acknowledges the legitimacy of the system’s existence.
For the movement to abolish wage labour, the social demands and political rights and freedoms defining the workers’ struggle are not limited to nor defined by free suffrage, the right to strike, the right to organize, and the like. It views the strike as a mechanism for the working class to exercise power one that must be organized and deployed against capitalism. Reducing the strike to a legal right derived from the legality of the capitalist system represents a fundamental departure from the anti-capitalist struggle. Exercising the right to organize within the framework of capitalist legality amounts to a negation of workers organizing in opposition to capitalism. The working masses must organize against capital without any recourse to the bourgeoisie or the bourgeois state. From the perspective of the movement to abolish wage labour, free suffrage and free elections represent a slide into the abyss of bourgeois parliamentarism and a capitulation to capitalist democracy and legality. For the labour movement, the alternative to free elections and suffrage lies in rejecting parliamentarism and maximizing efforts toward anti-wage-labour organization and the exercise of power through anti-capitalist workers’ councils. Within the vision of the movement to abolish wage labour, the movement against gender-based discrimination is not merely a facet of a pro-democracy movement seeking to reform the capitalist structure; rather, it is an integral part of the entire working class’s anti-capitalist struggle. In this realm, the demands of the working masses go beyond the mere slogan of “equal pay for equal work”!!; they aim to exert the maximum possible pressure to curtail as extensively as possible the disenfranchisement and lack of rights imposed on women under capitalism. This is a demand whose scope is determined solely by the balance of power between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The movement to abolish wage labour views the struggle for environmental protection, the abolition of child labour, and the fight against poverty, ethnic discrimination, and all other forms of disenfranchisement, injustice, and deprivation as integral parts of the workers’ anti-capitalist struggle; in each of these arenas, rather than resorting to reformism or modifying the legal framework of wage slavery, it adopts solutions that challenge the very nature of wage labour. It seeks the remedy for environmental pollution not merely in substituting one form of energy or transport system for another, but in fundamental changes to the planning of labour and production, and in a radical assault on the very basis of the surplus-value production relationship addressing fundamental questions such as what is produced, what is not, and in what quantities thereby inevitably linking this struggle to the foundations of the anti-capitalist movement and the workers’ council-based organization against wage labour. Regarding children, it does not content itself with vague rhetoric about abolishing child labour; instead, it makes the unconditional provision and guarantee of livelihood, education, and healthcare for all children independent of labour a central objective of its struggle. In the fight against poverty, it does not appeal for reforms to the bourgeoisie’s method of resource distribution; rather, it adopts the platform of fundamental, anti-capitalist demands for all humanity as the basis for its protest and struggle.
The movement to abolish wage labour does not pursue the struggle for housing, healthcare and medicine, education, transportation, and other forms of social welfare within the framework of reformism or the modification of the legal structure governing the surplus-value production relationship. Instead, it regards each of these spheres as organic, intrinsic components of the anti-capitalist movement aimed at abolishing wage labour. It views free healthcare, medical services, and education as well as free transportation and other social amenities as immediate demands of the working class in any given society. It identifies these demands as channels through which the working masses can launch an offensive against the wage-labour relationship and declares the struggle to wrest these concessions from the bourgeoisie to be an ever-open battlefield for the proletariat in its fight against capitalism.
A careful examination of the points above readily clarifies why every tactical issue—or any day-to-day strategy of the working-class struggleis organically linked to the very backbone of that class’s anti-capitalist struggle from the perspective of the movement to abolish wage labour. Here, every tactic is an integral part of the strategy, the strategy as a whole exists in unity with these methods and tactics, and all of them derive their relevance, meaning, and significance from within a coherent anti-capitalist framework aimed at the abolition of wage labour. This entails a Marx’s exposition of capitalism that takes the buying and selling of labour power as its fundamental starting point; relies on Marx’s revolutionary materialism to analyse capital as a social relation; dissects the anatomy of all capitalist relations, contracts, laws, civil norms, and rights in light of the surplus-value production relationship; and approaches the labour movement grounded in revolutionary materialism as a movement fundamentally opposed to capital. It also involves a Marx’s understanding of the origins of communist consciousness; a deep analysis of the intrinsic relationship between consciousness and class action within the labour movement; an emphasis on the unity of the various spheres of the working class struggle against wage slavery; the rejection of sectarian party-building imposed upon the working class; a radical critique of syndicalism and sectarianism; and an insistence on linking immediate demands to the broader anti-capitalist movement. Each of these elements constitutes a necessary and indispensable condition for the flourishing of communism and the working-class movement to abolish wage labour.
“Bourgeois communism” fails to view capitalist society as a system of social relations defined by the production of surplus value; precisely for this reason, it rejects any anti-capitalist solution regarding workers’ immediate demands, the ongoing movement to realize them, the organizational form of this struggle, or any other aspect. While this disparate spectrum positions itself as the guardian of the workers and the standard-bearer of the labour movement’s anti-capitalist stance, it remains in every strategy it proposes for the movement, from demands for improved livelihoods and political freedoms to the slogan of overthrow firmly captive to reformism and syndicalism. Its version of socialism and communism is neither the outcome of a movement to abolish wage labour nor the product of an organized, anti-capitalist class struggle by the working masses; rather, it is quite the opposite the product of a sect operating outside the labour movement, seeking to ride the wave of workers’ struggles and insinuate itself into the realm of political power over the heads of the workers. Ultimately, the socialism and communism advocated by these groups amount to nothing more than state capitalism.
Over the past year or two amidst the growth and maturation of the working class’s anti-capitalist movement, and particularly following the announcement of the “Coordinating Committee for Establishing a Working-Class Anti-Capitalist Organization” in Iran many sects and currents (including Trotskyists and even syndicalists) have sought to portray themselves as part of this anti-capitalist movement, even while relentlessly hurling abuse at the movement’s activists who advocate for the abolition of wage labour. While it is heartening that the pressure of the radical upsurge within the labour movement has driven these groups, sects, and currents to adopt this stance, one must not overlook the fact that their true colours inevitably show through. Globally, Trotskyists define the capitalist system in terms of private capital ownership and competition between different sectors of capital; they do not regard state capitalism as capitalism at all. Every tactic, policy, strategy, and solution they propose to the labour movement and to workers’ day-to-day struggles is aimed merely at replacing the status quo with a different form of capitalist planning and rule. They owe the workers an answer: how exactly do they claim to be anti-capitalist?
The anti-capitalist stance of syndicalists is well known to all and requires no further explanation. However, the problem does not end there, nor with the mere posturing of these groups against capitalism. All those claiming to align with working-class communism and the anti-capitalist movement must realize that one cannot speak of preparing for a socialist, anti-wage-labour revolution through actions such as imposing parties upon workers from above, channelling the labouring masses into syndicalism and trade-union struggles, pursuing a supra-class agenda of regime overthrow, or attempting to dissolve the workers’ movement into demands for reforming the legal structures of capitalism. This ship is not destined for salvation. The movement to abolish wage labour is the only movement that serves as both strategy and tactic for the working class.