The Ideology of the Working Class
Edited by Quetzal Pineda
In the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeoisie exercises its rule over society, exploiting the working class for capitalist profit. The bourgeoisie uses the police, the military, and other institutions of the state to employ force against the working class. But raw force alone is not enough to keep capitalism running – if the only method the capitalists used to keep the working class in line was violence, society would be completely unstable. As a result, capitalist rule also depends on the dominance of capitalist ideology. This ideology helps perpetuate capitalism to the benefit of the ruling class, and to the detriment of the working class. If the working class is to liberate itself, it needs to understand the ideology of the capitalists and embrace an ideology of its own – and that ideology is dialectical materialism.
The Rise of Class Ideology
In the colloquial sense, ideology usually refers to the thoughts and opinions of an individual or group. But ideology on a class level – the level on which the capitalist class imposes itself on the working class – involves more than just thoughts and opinions. In this sense, ideology refers to a framework of views and concepts which help explain the world, while simultaneously hiding the social interests behind it. But how does ideology develop? And why is concealing the social interests behind a given ideology necessary?
All human societies are structured around production – the means by which that society procures the necessities of life for its members. There are many aspects which go into production. The first is human labor power, the mental and physical energy required to produce a usable object. In order to produce something useful, labor power must be applied to the means of production, i.e. the tools and resources that a society has at its disposal. Because humans are a social species, they enter into relations of production, material relationships linking those involved in the process of production. Collectively, human labor power, the means of production, and the relations of production constitute a society’s productive forces. Different societies in different eras use their productive forces in unique ways to create the necessities of life. The particular way in which a society does this is known as the mode of production.
Many tens of thousands of years ago, early human societies were characterized by a mode of production in which resources were shared communally – this arrangement is referred to as primitive communism. This mode of production emerged because humans had not yet learned to domesticate animals, grow crops for food, or store the food they had for use in times of scarcity. Everything that was produced was either immediately consumed (in the case of food), or put to immediate use (in the case of tools), leaving no surplus. At this point in human history, there were no class distinctions, because all the resources produced by a society were distributed between all its members according to need. However, the advent of domestication and agriculture, leading to increasing populations enabled a surplus of production, and a shift in the social relations of production. Whereas before, there was little specialization in the production process and the social product was shared by all, the nature of domestication and agriculture led to specialization in the production process. With different individuals responsible for different tasks, families or individuals began to accumulate increasing shares of surplus related to their area of specialization. Eventually, the struggle for control over surplus led to the rise of class distinctions and the development of a ruling class and exploited classes.
In class society, the surplus created by the labor of the exploited class(es) is appropriated by the ruling class, though not voluntarily; there is a struggle between classes for control over the surplus of production. To enforce its control over this surplus, the ruling class employs violence to keep the exploited class(es) in line.
Because of the change in social relations of production, the mode of production also changes as a result. There have been multiple modes of production throughout history, with their own ruling classes. In Ancient Rome, the rulers enslaved other human beings as property to produce for them, and in the feudal societies of Europe the nobility exploited the labor of serfs and peasants who worked the land as rent to their lords and were often legally tied to the land. However, in all class societies the rulers develop views and concepts which help to explain the world and justify their own control. In other words, their economic interests give rise to ideologies which help enforce the economic system they benefit from. A society’s mode of production makes up the economic base of a society, and the institutions, culture and belief systems employed to reinforce the relations inherent in the mode of production make up its superstructure. Ideology is thus part of the superstructure, and the ruling class of a society imposes its ideology as the dominant one on those that are exploited. Through the constant exposure, repetition, and imposition of the dominant ideology, the exploited come to agree with it, view it as correct, and adopt the ideology of the exploiters as their own. This allows for a mitigation of open conflict, extending the dominion of the ruling class – but not forever.
Ideological Conflict and Revolution
A society’s mode of production is not an immutable, fixed thing. Because the world is always changing, relations of production and productive forces are also changing. This leads to changes in ideology, from which arise ideological conflict. One example of this is the shift in Europe from feudalism to capitalism. The feudal mode of production was characterized by a large peasantry, or class of people who work the land and give up some of their surplus production to their lords, above whom sits a monarch. The ideology of feudalism is often characterized by the principle of “divine right,” in which the monarch (and by extension the rest of the nobility) is ordained by a higher power to rule. The religious aspect of feudal ideology serves not only for the nobility to justify their own existence, but also to ensure the compliance of the masses – if it’s God’s will for the king to rule, the exploited won’t be as likely to rebel (though peasant rebellions were not uncommon throughout history).
Around the 16th century, however, major ideological conflict did arise between the feudal class, and the non-noble merchants and traders who would form the foundation of the bourgeoisie. The interests of the emerging bourgeoisie clashed with those of the nobility – they had increasing levels of wealth, but the privilege of the nobility precluded the bourgeoisie from attaining significant political power. Additionally, production began to shift away from peasant agrarianism to mercantilism, and eventually industry. The ideology of feudalism thus no longer “worked” for the bourgeoisie – the principle of divine right left no space for wealthy merchants to rise to the same heights as the nobility, and the demands of production required a greater focus on the material, rather than the supernatural. Thus, the material interests of the bourgeoisie shaped their ideology, and they would espouse new values such as reason, rationality, and equality (for themselves) before the law. Eventually, the ideological conflict escalated into outright violence, such as that seen in the French Revolution against the monarchy.
It is clear then that, when an ideology “no longer works” for one class and their interests, they must develop an ideology of their own to suit their own needs. This is precisely the situation facing the working class. If the global working class is to have any chance of liberating itself from the shackles of capitalist domination, they must embrace a political ideology of their own, made by and for them. That ideology is dialectical materialism – but what is dialectical materialism? And why is it the ideology of the working class?
Idealism, Materialism, and Dialectics
To define materialism, we must first define its opposite – idealism, which posits that thoughts, ideas, and human consciousness exist separately from the rest of reality. (This separation between thought and reality, the mind and the body, and other diametric opposites is called dualism.) In terms of ideology, idealism primarily serves the ruling class of a given society, because by separating the mind from the rest of reality, exploitation can be explained away as irrelevant or even necessary for the health of the soul. For example, during the rise of capitalism, in which millions were forced into cities and factories, the grueling labor and harsh daily life of the working class were justified as necessary for spiritual salvation. Idealism is also deeply metaphysical, holding that things have innate fixed essences, and that things change via gaining or losing quantities of these essences.
Materialism, on the other hand, holds that matter and energy form the basis of all reality. This includes seemingly “intangible” things like thoughts and emotions, because thoughts and emotions are products of the brain, which is made of matter. Materialism rejects the idea that things have immutable essences, and instead holds that qualities and characteristics are the product of things existing and occurring in relation to other things, in varying quantities.
An idealist, metaphysical analysis holds that the quality of a thing cannot change, only its quantity. The counter to this is dialectics, a form of analysis that explains that the development of all contradictory and complementary aspects of a given phenomenon give rise to new phenomena with their own contradictions. Put more succinctly, dialectics is the science of change. The combination of dialectics and materialism results in dialectical materialism, which allows for a true scientific inquiry and understanding of the phenomena of the world.
For the working class to liberate itself from exploitation, workers must embrace dialectical materialism as their ideological framework, their way of engaging the world, politically. This is because workers need an ideology that serves their own class interests, rather than the ideology imposed upon them by the bourgeoisie. As stated before, the ideology of the ruling class obscures the material basis of their rule, relying on idealistic justifications. From the divine right of kings, to the myth of capitalist “meritocracy,” the ruling class uses ideology to keep the exploited in the dark, unaware of the true nature of things and thus unequipped with the knowledge of how to fight back. By embracing dialectical materialism, the working class can understand the nature of capitalism, from whence the capitalists derive their power, and how workers can take their power back to build Revolutionary Democratic Control by the Working Class.
Political Education, Dialectical Materialism, and the Construction of Socialism
For the working class to make dialectical materialism their own, workers must understand it fully. This is no small undertaking – much study and education is required. After all, to abolish capitalism and build socialism, you must understand its history, how it works, what the concrete relations are between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and so on. On their own, workers will not spontaneously develop these understandings. To that end, political education is a constant necessity when organizing. Organizers must ensure that every action also serves to raise political consciousness and educate workers. Beyond that, structured political education in the form of reading and discussing articles and texts is needed to deepen workers’ understanding of these concepts. There are some who would claim that this behavior is chauvinistic on the part of organizers; that workers do not want to be “talked down to” or patronized by communists with pretentious ideas and fancy concepts. But communists have a Duty to Lead; in the same way that an experienced chef in a kitchen would stop a trainee from putting out a grease fire with water, communists must disseminate their accumulated knowledge and increase the consciousness of workers, arming them with the ideological tools of theory.
The dominion of the capitalists seems insurmountable, but it is not; by embracing dialectical materialism, the working class can cast off their shackles and build a better world. But if dialectical materialism is a tool for the working class, how is it to be wielded? And why this tool over others?
Dialectical Materialism and the Construction of Socialism
Dialectical materialism is the “science of change,” of matter in motion. Applied to the field of history, it provides a material explanation for the development of class society and proves that all class societies require exploitation in the process of production. Under capitalism, the working class has a vested interest in bringing an end to its own exploitation. Workers are already the ones who engage with the means of production, but are prevented from controlling the surplus. To put an end to this, workers must understand not only the nature of their class enemy (the bourgeoisie), but also what is to be built in the place of capitalism. Workers must understand why it is necessary to build socialism.
To do away with the strife and misery that are the products of class society, the logical solution is to do away with class society altogether, and for the surplus of a society’s production to be shared collectively with all its members. It does not serve the working class to build a future in which surplus is retained disproportionately by one person or group, recreating the conditions for class society and exploitation. But class society cannot be annihilated in one fell swoop, in which overnight everything is remade anew, without any traces of the old world. For the working class, the building of socialism is necessary because it is the method in which, bit by bit, the surplus of production becomes increasingly collectivized.
Armed with dialectical materialism, workers will begin the process of creating a planned economy. A materialist analysis allows the working class to develop a clear accounting of the resources it has and the commodities it needs. Dialectics will allow the working class to understand how to develop its productive forces over time to meet those needs. The science of change based on a concrete analysis of concrete conditions will, in the long run, allow the working class to solve the problems which currently plague class society. Further, as the working class expands to encompass the whole of society, and successfully provide for its needs, class distinction itself will begin to dissolve.
To build a socialist economy and dismantle capitalism, the whole working class must move as one; this is why workers must understand the need for unity in their struggle. Workplaces must be organized into workers’ committees, workers’ committees in the same neighborhood must unite to form workers’ councils, workers’ councils in the same city or region must unite into larger representative bodies, and this process must continue until all revolutionary workers’ organizations have been centralized, able to mobilize the whole power of the working class. Just as production and its surplus must be socialized, united for the collective benefit, so too must the workers’ struggle.
An army cannot be effective if it does not have a clear doctrine guiding it. The doctrine of the bourgeoisie cannot serve to guide the working class anywhere except back into the arms of their exploiters. Dialectical materialism is the doctrine that the working class will use to achieve liberation.