What is a Communist? Our starting point is this: there is no such thing as a “perfect communist”. In fact, such a creature would be a contradiction in terms.Two reasons exist for this statement. The more fundamental reason is that to be a perfect communist one would have to have perfect (complete) knowledge. This is an absolutist proposition. From the standpoint of science (dialectical materialism), such a position is untenable.
But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things. If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired. On the other hand, one no longer permits oneself to be imposed upon by the antitheses, insuperable for the still common old metaphysics, between true and false, good and bad, identical and different, necessary and accidental. One knows that these antitheses have only a relative validity; that that which is recognised now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously be regarded as true. (Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, p. 620 )That is, rather than being perfect, communists are always in the process of development, the “perfect” finality never being achieved. To accomplish such an end would mean the completion of history, the end of all motion.
The second reason, linked to the first, is that all communists have erroneous ideas about some aspects of society. These incorrect notions may be significant or not, they may be relatively unimportant in waging the class struggle or they may retard that struggle or cause actual retrogression, but they exist. The major question is whether such errors result from ignorance (the lack of careful study) or from an incorrect class basis–bourgeois ideology.
To some extent these basic causal factors promoting ignorance are intertwined. All communists in capitalist countries are taught to have a pro-capitalist outlook. This can be obviated somewhat by certain environmental conditions such as having communist parents, but none can totally escape the “educational” influence of the capitalist class. When one subjectively decides to adopt an anti-capitalist outlook, however, that individual must undergo a retraining process in which old (capitalist) ideas are replaced with new (communist) ideas. In the course of this transition to becoming a communist objectively, ignorance will be lessened and replaced with science–correct knowledge concerning the workings of society. Nevertheless, some ignorance will remain.
The more insidious and, therefore, dangerous basis for erroneous ideas is that of subjectively and objectively maintaining a capitalist bias. In this case the individual may claim to be a Marxist, may learn some phrases and shout them or write them at the appropriate time, may claim to stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but all the platitudes in the world cannot conceal that the practice of this type of person is always pro-capitalist, anti-working class.
The communist movement in the United States as everywhere else contains both types of individuals and we must be very clear as to their distinction and how to deal with each type.
The Communist Movement What is a communist movement? A communist movement is not simply a movement of communists. As communists are a small fraction of the population under minority-ruling-class societies, such a movement would be ineffectual. Unfortunately, such a position has a following in the United States. It is believed that all one has to do to effect socialist revolution is to develop a group of dedicated, hard-core cadre who through dint of effort will cause the transition to socialism.Such a position is the result of elitism; this is a particular aspect of a bourgeois class position. Such individuals have no real concern for the working class as a whole. To them, workers are incapable of realizing their objective interests; they are stupid, racist, sexist, absorbed in their petty concerns. Thus, workers are not a revolutionary force. Revolution must be made for them and they must be coerced into accepting a socialist society in their own interests. In other words, with the only difference being that between a “socialist” society and capitalist society, these individuals view the working class exactly as do the capitalists.
This position has historical precedence. Both the Utopian socialists and the anarcho-syndicalists held similar positions. Both were elitist, objectively pro-capitalist, and both were proved wrong by the course of history.
The communist movement begins, though in unconscious form, with the development of capitalism. Capitalist society necessitates the creation of a working class, a body of individuals who by virtue of losing control over the means of production are forced to sell their labor power (mental and physical ability to produce) to the owners of the means of production for a wage or salary.
Yet we know by experience that a circulation of commodities relatively primitive, suffices for the production of all these forms. Otherwise with capital. The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world’s history. Capital, therefore, announces from its first appearance a new epoch in the process of social production. (Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, p. 167)The essence of this historical development was the process of primitive accumulation, a process by which the peasantry in particular was driven off its land and forced to find an alternative means to make a living–by selling its collective labor power to those who now owned the land peasants previously worked as their own.
In addition to the peasantry, the other major source of labor power was found among the craftsmen, particularly in rural areas where guild organizations were weak or didn’t exist. (Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, part 8)
Thus, capitalism establishes a society in which two[1] major classes, workers and businessmen, face each other as antagonists.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. (Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, p. 36)Why is this? Simply because the basis of the class relationship is exploitation. As this is so, then capitalists have an interest in promoting the highest rate of exploitation possible. It is through exploitation that they maximize their profits and maximization of profits is the basis of capitalist production. Thus, businessmen have an interest in paying the lowest wages consistent with capitalist reproduction (they cannot kill off their working class). They have an interest in a longer working day, poorer working conditions (safety, ventilation, etc. are all costs of production). In other words, they have an objective interest in promoting a situation that makes the life of the worker increasingly intolerable.
Workers, on the other hand, have the opposite point of view. They prefer higher wages and salaries to lower; safer working conditions to unsafe; a shorter working day to a longer one. Hence the two classes have conflicting interests and, as they are conflicting, they must be resolved through a fight, sometimes open, sometimes concealed, but a fight nonetheless.
In this fight, the capitalists have the state to assist them.
According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it creates “order,” which legalises and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collisions between the classes.... (Lenin, The State and Revolution, p. 9)Workers have themselves and their organizations. To the extent that workers are organized and aware of their objective interests (have working-class consciousness) they are able to advance their interests. To the degree that they do not meet these requirements, they allow the capitalists the upper hand.
But what is the result of this struggle? There is only one possible long-run resolution: the destruction of capitalist society and the creation of socialism, where the working class controls the means of production, operates the factories, land, etc., in its own interest, and controls the state machinery which assists the creation of socialist society through oppressing capitalists and other anti-working-class elements.
Why is this the only possible long-run solution? There are two basic reasons. Initially exploitation is an injustice–the basic injustice. As long as there is this injustice with its attendant effects (racism, sexism, etc.) there will be a movement to eliminate it. Thus, only with the elimination of the injustice can the movement be put to an end. As workers are (eventually) the majority of the population, they are in a position to end exploitation; they have sufficient power (if understood) to accomplish this end.
Second, capitalists cannot exist without workers, but workers can exist without capitalists. As it is workers who actually do the producing, they are quite capable of undertaking this activity in their own interests. Hence, the logical conclusion to the struggle under capitalism is the elimination of capitalism and the long-run transition to communism.
But this cannot be accomplished unless workers are aware of their objective interests and are organized to achieve this long-run goal. Before Marx’s time, this was impossible.
Communism is not a mere “natural” outgrowth of capitalism. The communist movement without a working class is impossible. But a working class which does not have the necessary knowledge to effect its transformation will not spontaneously evolve into a revolutionary force. For this to occur, workers in large enough numbers must develop sufficient knowledge concerning the nature of capitalist society, the nature of the state and the necessity of revolution to “change the world”.
The communist movement is, therefore, the merging of the working-class movement (which if left to itself merely ameliorates conditions under capitalism without destroying the basis of the problem) with the scientific ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, et. al. These two aspects of the communist movement cannot be separated if there is to be transition to communist society.
In order to bring about this merger, an instrument must be forged to both develop ideas and disseminate these ideas among workers in order to change their political consciousness–a communist party. Such an organization has two primary responsibilities. It must first educate the working class under capitalism to its objective interests; a revolutionary consciousness must be created. Second, it must lead the revolutionary struggle and direct the working class to the goal of communism.
In order to carry out these responsibilities a communist party must not be ideologically separated from the working class. The party must take the problems confronting workers, then clarify the issues at hand, synthesize them and develop the proper theory to take back to the workers for implementation. To do this requires that the party be of and for the working class.
All too often, however, we observe that such an organization is of and for itself–it sets itself apart from the working class and begins to view itself as a sacrosanct institution. If this occurs, then the organization ceases being a communist party; it ceases being an instrument forged for the purpose of helping to bring about the goal of communism. In the long-run, the purpose of the party is to assist the establishment of a society in which it is no longer needed–it must seek to eliminate itself. When everyone is a communist, then no special communist organization is necessary. If it views itself as an institution for itself, however, then it cannot persist in this direction. Such a goal would mean the elimination of the organization and deprive it of its “hallowed” position.
***
[1] (Footnote my own) Of course, there are not exclusively two classes; while similar, the petit-bourgeoise, lumpen, etc. do have nuanced differences in their respective class interests, even if they tend to fall closer to one camp than another.
Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt Euch! ☭ camarada.neocities.org est. May 1 2025 ☭ Last Updated: