Beyond Nostalgia: For a Revolutionary Class Unity Against All Oppression
Lessons for Today from the IMG
Paul Embery's book "Despised" has undeniably prompted vital discussion on the left regarding its connection with and understanding of the working class. It raises important concerns about economic democracy and wealth redistribution, which Marxists wholeheartedly champion. However, from a revolutionary Marxist perspective, informed by the historical experience of tendencies like the International Marxist Group (IMG), Embery's approach exhibits fundamental flaws in its grasp of class, oppression, and the necessary path to genuine working-class emancipation. Far from being a deviation or a secondary issue, the fight against anti-racism and all other forms of social oppression is seen not just as connected, but as absolutely integral to the class struggle itself.
A core Marxist principle, stressed repeatedly in the sources, is the unrelenting struggle against any form of oppression or discrimination based on nationality, gender, ethnicity, language, religion, or anything else. This isn't a charitable addition to class politics; it's a fundamental necessity for building a united and powerful working class. Marxism is inherently opposed to any condition where human beings are "despised, alienated, exploited, oppressed, or denied basic human dignity, whatever the pretexts".
One of the central criticisms of Embery's perspective, as highlighted in the wider discussion of his book, is its relative underestimation to the inherent diversity and complexity of the modern working class. While his definition might technically include Pakistani Muslim shopkeepers or Polish Catholic builders, his emphasis on the conventional heterosexual family, religion, and patriotism seems to gloss over the varied life experiences, aspirations, and desires of many within this class. Many workers value freedom and experiment just as much as family and faith. Crucially, this focus risks ignoring the dark side of such traditional values and how they may have a dark side and perhaps oppress others. The suggestion that community cohesion and social solidarity depended on a homogeneity disrupted by immigration is a dangerous simplification.
From a Marxist standpoint, oppression is not external to capitalism but is actively produced and reproduced by capitalist social relations to maintain and strengthen the system. Various forms of oppression, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, are deeply intertwined with the system. Racism, for example, is described as an ideology deeply tied to imperialism and the ruling class, historically used to divide the working class by setting different groups against each other based on ethnicity, skin colour, and language. This division directly weakens workers' collective power and hinders their ability to unite against the capitalist class.
This brings us to a crucial point of divergence: Embery's perceived risk of promoting sectionalism against outsiders who are themselves working class. As one participant in the discussion noted, this is a dangerous form of division, effectively wanting to divide the working class and call it 'solidarity'. This aligns with the Marxist critique of narrow, class-collaborationist nationalism.
In stark contrast, Marxists strive for the unity of the working class and the oppressed. This unity isn't achieved by ignoring differences or suppressing specific struggles, but by recognising the material reality of sectional oppressions and struggles and ultimately aiming for a unified movement against the root causes of exploitation and oppression. Building such unity requires acknowledging the diverse experiences within the working class and among the oppressed and facilitating debate to build unity in action.
Echoes of Past Debates: Class vs. Oppression is Not New
The tension between focusing solely on economic class issues and addressing what might be seen as 'secondary' or 'identity' issues is not a new phenomenon. The sources reveal that debates with striking parallels have occurred within the Marxist movement for decades, particularly regarding the national question and the fight against specific forms of oppression.
Discussions from the 1970s, for instance, highlight the need to distinguish between supporting the demands for self-determination by oppressed nationalities and supporting nationalist ideology. Revolutionary Marxists unconditionally defend the right of oppressed nations and national minorities to determine their own fate, including the right to secede. However, this is combined with a relentless struggle against nationalist ideology itself, which promotes "national solidarity, national collaboration, against foreign enemies" and seeks to "deny or subordinate an understanding of the need for proletarians to carry out their class struggle against their own bourgeoisie". Supporting the "national liberation struggle" does not mean capitulating to the "petty-bourgeois or bourgeois nationalist ideology that may dominate this movement during a certain phase of its development". The task is to substitute this with the development of proletarian class consciousness. This is a direct historical parallel to the contemporary debate about whether fighting racism, sexism, or transphobia means abandoning a class perspective or capitulating to non-class ideologies. The Marxist answer, then as now, is that supporting the concrete struggles of the oppressed against specific forms of oppression is essential, but must be combined with an uncompromising critique of ideologies that obscure class divisions.
Furthermore, historical Marxist analysis has long recognised varied experiences and specific oppressions within the working class. While critiques of the "labour aristocracy" theory evolved, later analysis noted the contrast between the mass of factory workers and "over-exploited minorities: home-industry workers, agricultural workers, domestic workers, crippled and old-age pensioners, colonial immigrant workers, negro workers in the USA". The revolutionary potential of specific oppressed layers within the working class, such as Black workers in the US industrial working class, was explicitly acknowledged. This counters any romanticised, homogeneous view and reinforces the need to address the specific conditions faced by different segments of the working class, including those based on race or origin.
Crucially, some sources directly criticise those on the left who downplay the fight against oppression. There is an explicit caution against ignoring the "culture war" or arguing that the left should only focus on "bread and butter" issues, labelling this "economism". This approach is deemed "counterproductive" and risks "siding with forces attacking the oppressed". This mirrors the historical Marxist opposition to "abstention" when faced with specific reactionary threats. For example, in the context of fighting McCarthyism in the 1950s (described as an "American form of incipient fascism"), the correct course was seen as actively defending democratic forms against this threat, not abstaining or dismissing McCarthy as "nothing but another 'bourgeois democrat'". Such abstention would "actually facilitate McCarthy's work". The lesson is clear: revolutionary Marxists must actively fight specific, ideologically driven threats and oppressions, rather than reducing them to abstract capitalism or hoping they will disappear if we only talk about economics.
The demand for "complete solidarity and the closest unity of the workers of all nations" is a foundational principle of Marxism, linked to the need to resist the nationalist policy of the bourgeoisie. Prioritising patriotism or a narrow national focus, as Embery appears to do, works against this necessary international solidarity required to combat a global capitalist system. Fighting against capitalist trading blocs and the racism they create is linked to developing international working-class links.
Autonomous organisation often arises because mainstream or dominant groups, including those on the left, may fail to adequately address the specific needs and experiences of the oppressed. These independent groups are crucial for countering bourgeois ideology, including within the working class itself. They are vital for asserting the experiences of the oppressed and pushing the broader movement towards a truly universalistic politics – one that integrates differences. This aligns with the emphasis on workers' democracy, freedom of organisation, and the right for masses to organise different parties in a socialist society, all seen as essential safeguards against bureaucracy and crucial for workers to make their opinions heard and exercise power. Defending democratic rights within capitalism is important precisely because it allows the working class greater freedom to organise and defend its interests.
Ultimately, for Marxists, the fight against capitalism is intrinsically linked to the struggle against all forms of special oppression. To build a genuinely revolutionary movement capable of overthrowing capitalism, the left must actively fight racism, sexism, anti-immigrant sentiment, homophobia, transphobia, and all other oppressions. This is not a distraction from class struggle; it is a fundamental requirement for forging a unified, conscious, and powerful working class that can lead all the exploited and oppressed towards a socialist future. Any approach that downplays or ignores these struggles, or worse, aligns with sentiments that divide the working class along lines of identity or nationality, ultimately weakens the overall fight against capital and the systemic oppression it perpetuates. The historical record of Marxist debate reinforces this: acknowledging and fighting specific oppressions is not a modern deviation but a necessary component of revolutionary strategy.