Worker Communism Radical Conscience of the Left of Capital

1 post / 0 new
Worker Communism Radical Conscience of the Left of Capital
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

Worker Communism

Radical Conscience of the Left of Capital

(Part 3)

In Defence of Marxism


Internationalist Voice




[email protected]



Issues of the text


Issues of part III (this part):

  • The 1979 revolution in Iran from the perspective of the Unity of Communist Militants
  • Marxist conception of social revolution
  • Democratic Revolution from the perspective of the Unity of Communist Militants
  • Retaking of democratic revolution


Issues of part II:

  • Changing the name of «Sahand» to the«Unity of Communist Militants»
  • The Marxist-Leninist ideology of the «Unity of Communist Militants»
  • The country of the «Unity of Communist Militants»
  • «Unity of Communist Militants» and the Iranian “communist” movement
  • «Unity of Communist Militants» and the theocratic faction of the bourgeoisie


Issues of part I:

  • Introduction
  • Azarakhsh (“Lightning”)
  • Sahand: sympathizer of the Alliance for struggle for Working Class Cause
  • Current three and Alliance for struggle for Working Class Cause (Arman)
  • Sahand and the Anti-Imperialist Struggle
  • The petty bourgeois Khomeini


It is not possible to publish the entire text here, only the part “Marxist conception of social revolution” is published here, the entire document can be download below.

Download the Text

Marxist conception of social revolution

Since the social classes were formed and the exploitation of man by man began, this exploitation took on a systematic form and a class took on all the blessings of material production. This exploitation provided the contexts of the formation of uprisings, rebellion, riots and even revolutions. But the material conditions for social protest, revolt and rebellion are very different to the material conditions of social revolution. If the material conditions are provided for the social protests, but the subjective conditions are not prepared, or the protesters do not have a horizon or perspective for their protest, society will explode, and protests will be formed more in the form of a rebellion, uprising or even revolt.

The social revolution is a process where the relations of production and consequently a new social relation of production will replace the old social relations. It is an undeniable fact that "the history of all hitherto societies is the history of class struggle." But this does not mean that the battle of exploiting the history with the rulers of class societies always resulted in a social revolution and the transformation of the relations of production.

Before the feudal relations of production were replaced by relations of the production of slavery, the history of slavery was rife with rebellions; the most famous of them being the slave uprising led by Spartacus. Slaves’ living conditions and the oppression they faced formed the basis for the slaves’ protests. In 73 BC Spartacus began leading the protests. During the revolt of Spartacus, many slaves were freed and joined the ranks of the rebels. Slaves led by Spartacus resisted against the Army of "Rome" for several years. Finally, the revolt of Spartacus in 71 BC, despite the sacrifices and heroic resistance, was crushed by the army of "Rome" and the captured slaves were crucified.

The revolting slaves were not an alternative to the system of slavery; they wanted to be released and to return to their homeland. Slaves never had the possibility of a feudal system, and they neither wanted nor could have been promoted to the ruling class, but they dreamed about a free life without their slavery chains.

This issue is also correct about the feudal system (the serf or vassal system). Several riots and rebellions have been recorded in the feudal system era (serf system). Peasants or serfs were no longer slaves. They had authority over their own lives but were dependent on the land. If the owner of the land changed, they were actually passed on to the new owner. One of the most famous peasant revolts was Pugachev's Rebellion which occurred between 1773 and 1775 in the Russian Empire. [12]

The peasants (serfs) never revolted against the aims or demands of the capitalist system. At best their horizons were a piece of land and relative justice. The exploited peasants (serfs) did not create new production relations; no bourgeois revolution converted the peasant class or even farmers into the ruling class and would not have been able to do so.  In other words, the peasant class did not become the capitalist class, but the capitalist relations of production gradually grew in the womb of the feudal system and the new class, namely the capitalist class, was not replaced by the peasant class or even farmers but was replaced by the master class.

Within the feudal system the conception of two social classes emerged, namely, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and both classes were then transformed into the main classes of society. In fact, the growth of these classes in society would end the rule of feudalism. In other words, within the feudal relations, the conception of capitalist relations emerged and began to grow. Workshops, factories and other industries were not created by the feudal class but by the capitalists and in the feudal system.


The gradual growth of capitalist productive relations within the feudal system has created the heterogeneity of the superstructure of society, namely political power with the infrastructure of society that has provided the grounds for the formation of the bourgeois revolutions. "Liberty, equality, fraternity" was the slogan and symbol of the French Revolution. This slogan was not the slogan of peasants or farmers, but the slogan of a class that was growing and that represented the new productive relations within the feudal system that was growing, namely the bourgeois class, which at that time was the revolutionary class. New relations of production (the capitalist relations of production) that took over society needed freedom for citizens and equality, "the law is the same for all" in society.


The Iranian Constitutional Revolution that was due to the influence of the French Revolution had two main demands: "Parliament" and "constitution" which had freedom and justice as the main slogan. The Constitutional Revolution represented a bourgeois-democratic revolution of Iran, which due to the restrictions of a peripheral country like Iran was delayed. Finally, the Constitutional Revolution, after years of effort, achieved victory in 1906 which led to the formation of the National Assembly and the adoption of the first constitution of Iran. [13]

Only one social class in the history of humanity has arisen and according to its material conditions it has been capable of offering an alternative to the system that exploits them. This is the proletariat class, and its alternative is the communist system. Unlike previous systems, where their embryo was initially created within the previous class system and began to grow within the old system and eventually became the ruling system, the alternative was the proletariat in the capitalist system. In other words, the embryo of socialist relations of production cannot occur within the capitalist system so that it can continue to grow.

But again, unlike the exploited classes of the past, the class of slaves and the class of serfs (or even farmers) for the first time in history, the exploited class's mission is to be the ruling class and to create new relations of production, to be a class that cannot release itself unless it releases the whole of humanity from the yoke of the class society and then destroys itself as a class.

“In all revolutions up till now the mode of activity always remained unscathed and it was only a question of a different distribution of this activity, a new distribution of labour to other persons, whilst the communist revolution is directed against the preceding mode of activity, does away with labour, and abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves, because it is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society, is not recognised as a class, and is in itself the expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc. within present society”[14]

Although the material basis of the socialist relations of production within the capitalist system comes up, socialist relations cannot arise within capitalism under any circumstances. The productive forces of capitalism and the growth also create a significant conflict. On the one hand, productive forces are collective, but on the other hand, the relation of production is private or capitalist. In other words, under capitalism, the growth of the productive forces, and the antagonism between labour and capital would provide background material conditions to the Communist Revolution. Therefore, objective conditions are supplied for the Communist Revolution.

The Communist Revolution is the first revolution in the history of humanity that exploited class with their class consciousness and with relative knowledge of the future relations of production and revolution to eliminate the contradiction between the productive forces and relations of production.

The Communist Revolution is a world revolution. In other words, the Communist Revolution is a political earthquake that has its center in the country or countries but the condition of its victory is spreading waves of the political earthquake to other regions and countries. Otherwise, like the October Revolution, despite the sacrifices of the Russian proletariat, the revolution will be isolated and will eventually fall into decline. The socialist relation of production is only possible on a global scale and cannot form islands of socialism within capitalism. Engels clearly emphasizes this issue in the Principles of Communism. And in the question and answer the following global nature and form of Communist Revolution is emphasized:

“Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. …It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.”[15]

No social systems disintegrated during their period of prosperity. It was only after a period of decline that the old social system was replaced by a higher social system. This is also true in the case of the capitalist system. The history of the capitalist mode of production can be divided into two periods. The first period is when the bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role, and the relations of production provided the possibility for the growth of the productive forces. The second period is when capitalism was entering into its period of decline. The bourgeois class is an anti-revolutionary and reactionary class, and capitalist relations are an obstacle to the development of the productive forces. In the era of capitalist decadence, capitalist relations of production became chains and shackles on the hands and fed on the productive forces. It is only at this stage that the material conditions will be provided for a social revolution and in the current era of the communist revolution.

More than a hundred years ago, Lenin offered a clear picture of the rise of capitalism and the role of the bourgeoisie and named different historical periods of capitalism. With the beginning of the imperialist world war of 1914 the bourgeoisie lost its progressive role and took a reactionary and counter-revolutionary role, in other words, capitalism entered into its period of decline, and he states the following:


“The usual division into historical epochs, so often cited in Marxist literature and so many times repeated by Kautsky and adopted in Potresov's article, is the following: (1) 1789-1871; (2) 1871-1914; (3) 1914 - ? Here, of course, as everywhere in Nature and society, the lines of division are conventional and variable, relative, not absolute. We take the most outstanding and striking historical events only approximately, as milestones in important historical movements. The first epoch from the Great French Revolution to the Franco-Prussian war is one of the rise of the bourgeoisie, of its triumph, of the bourgeoisie on the upgrade, an epoch of bourgeois-democratic movements in general and of bourgeois-national movements in particular, an epoch of the rapid breakdown of the obsolete feudal-absolutist institutions. The second epoch is that of the full domination and decline of the bourgeoisie, one of transition from its progressive character towards reactionary and even ultra-reactionary finance capital. This is an epoch in which a new class—present-day democracy—is preparing and slowly mustering its forces. The third epoch, which has just set in, places the bourgeoisie in the same "position" as that in which the feudal lords found themselves during the first epoch. This is the epoch of imperialism and imperialist upheavals, as well as of upheavals stemming from the nature of imperialism. “[16]

This issue indicates that in the growing period of the capitalist system, the material conditions for the Communist Revolution were not yet available. Yet the era of communist revolution had begun. The Commune of Paris occurred when the worldwide capitalist system had not yet entered into its period of decline. (Internationalists divide the capitalist system into two periods. The first period is from 1600 to 1914, when capitalism was in its progressive period. The period of decline began from 1914-ongoing). The Commune of Paris in the cradle of bourgeois civilization was slaughtered by civilized barbarians. If it had not been slaughtered, its development towards a global communist system would not have been possible at that point. Engels explains it well:

“Everywhere that revolution was the work of the working class; it was the latter that built the barricades and paid with its lifeblood. Only the Paris workers, in overthrowing the government, had the very definite intention of overthrowing the bourgeois regime. But conscious though they were of the fatal antagonism existing between their own class and the bourgeoisie, still, neither the economic progress of the country nor the intellectual development of the mass of French workers had as yet reached the stage which would have made a social reconstruction possible. In the final analysis, therefore, the fruits of the revolution were reaped by the capitalist class.“[17]

As mentioned above, the outbreak of the First World War showed that capitalism was entering into its period of decline, and capitalism was the era of imperialism. We believe that in the decline period of capitalism, in the era of imperialism, all states regardless of their size, large or small, regardless of their military and economic power, from the more significant gangsters like America and Great Britain to the smaller ones like Iran and Pakistan, are imperialists.

In other words, with the arrival of capitalism, due to the era of decline, the era of imperialism, the era of communist revolution also began. This means that the revolution on the agenda in all countries, whether a capitalist metropolitan or a capitalist periphery, is the Communist Revolution. The Communist Revolution is valid in Great Britain, Germany, etc. as well as in the most peripheral capitalist countries like Afghanistan. Certainly, the Communist Revolution in a capitalist peripheral country will be part of the world revolution, not an entirely distinct and isolated phenomenon and on the other side because part of the world revolution will need help from the international proletariat. This is definitely a great responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the proletariat of the metropolitan countries. Without the help of the proletariat of the metropolitan countries, all aspects of the process will not go forward regarding the Communist Revolution in peripheral countries.

It is also essential that the social revolution (Communist Revolution) is not limited to the few days that the revolution will win, but that the whole process of revolution is considered. For example, the October Revolution is achieving the goals of a process that took many years and finally, on October 25, 1917 during an armed uprising, the political power was taken by the proletariat of Russia.


M. Jahangiry

1 January 2012