Class Organization: Pure Anti-Capitalism at its Limit

Jakob Schaefer reviews "Kapitalismus am Limit"

Notes on the Strategy and Organization of Anti-Capitalist Forces in light of Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen's book "Capitalism at its Limit"

By Jakob Schäfer

[This article appeared in the March/April 2025 issue of Die Internationale.]

There is an almost overwhelming range of books on the impending and partially realized catastrophe into which capitalism drives humanity, many of which overlap significantly. Brand and Wissen's new book stands out from this series, partly because, compared to their previous book ("Imperial Mode of Living"), it effectively highlights the power interests of the ruling class and makes it clearer that the imperial mode of living cannot be overcome through individual behavioral changes.

The authors provide a good overview of several key crisis moments within the capitalist system, the impossibility of a green capitalism, and increasing eco-imperial tensions. "Green capitalism" cannot solve humanity's problems (not just climate change) because it relies solely on externalizing problems to the Global South, thereby exacerbating the precarious situation there.

The third type of imperial tension arises from the fact that, as the imperial mode of living expands into more and more societal areas and global regions, established possibilities for externalization are diminishing. The emergence of middle classes in emerging economies leads to an expansion of the imperial mode of living and an intensification of the ecological crisis, but also to a decrease in the "classical possibilities of externalization by the global North" (p. 161).

Contradictory Strategy

The book also clarifies that to avert the impending dangers, we need an overarching narrative, and single-issue movements are insufficient. However, when outlining the strategy for averting the looming and partially realized catastrophe, the book is not radical enough.

On page 237, essential points about the "structural conservatism" (Häußermann 1977) of the state bureaucracy are elaborated, emphasizing that it concerns the "structure of the state" itself. The text then states:

"Its operational logics and its close connection with capitalist interests must be changed. However, this can only succeed if the economy and society themselves are transformed".

So far, so good. This question becomes interesting, however, when considering how this fundamental change can be achieved. The authors propose a combination of work within institutions and outside of them (i.e., within movements). The authors develop this idea based on the discussion of socialization. They make it clear that the:

"...limits of capitalist crisis management have been reached, that a different society has become a matter of survival for many". And finally, it (the socialization discussion) shows what would be conceivable and possible, how concrete reforms, whose necessity and feasibility are immediately evident to many, and for which fundamental majorities could be organized, should be shaped to pave the way for a fundamental change in the mode of production and living" (216 f.).

These statements reflect the idea that one can progressively (not to say piecemeal) dissolve or fundamentally change one or another operational logic and close connection between the state and the economy.

Regarding the procedure for "paving the way for a fundamental change in the mode of production and living," Brand and Wissen write the following:

"Emancipatory actors aiming for far-reaching transformations should be aware of the tension they necessarily navigate, namely, engaging in politics within and simultaneously against the institutions of the capitalist state". In this contradiction, emancipatory politics can move successfully if it also understands itself as an institutional sounding board for social movements. Instead of merely seeking to represent voters or members, governments and parties, trade unions, and associations that aim for fundamental changes must contribute to the empowerment of movements, from which they, in turn, draw strength. Only in this way can dynamics be set in motion that point beyond the structural limits of the capitalist state and ultimately lead to the securing of far-reaching socio-ecological achievements" (p. 208).

It is therefore not surprising that the authors do not centralize the class question when naming the actors. Although they identify the "class contradiction as a structuring moment of capitalist social relations" (p. 179), this class contradiction blurs when naming the necessary strategy. It then merely leads to an undifferentiated enumeration of various (possible) actors, whose differing (and sometimes opposing) interests are not even named. The implicitly conveyed notion of a piecemeal change of "fundamental structures" ignores both the systemic character of the apparatus of domination (material and ideological, both based on specific production relations) and the lessons of history. The ruling class has enough experience to nip potential qualitative structural changes in the bud. When it comes to securing the crucial levers for the ruling class, it will change its own rules of the game and switch to a more authoritarian approach.

A system change will not be achievable without resolving the question of power—which class prevails. We find no information from Brand and Wissen on the necessity of a system break. In our view, it can only be enforced and completed if the production relations are overthrown, meaning that the commodity economy (and thus the profit principle) is no longer the measure of all things, but rather the production of use-values. Given that humanity's problems are even more extensive and pressing today than they were one hundred and eighty years ago, what Marx and Engels wrote in "The German Ideology" applies more than ever:

"Finally, we also obtain the following results from the developed conception of history: [...] that both for the mass production of this communist consciousness and for the realization of the cause itself, a mass alteration of people is necessary, which can only take place in a practical movement, in a revolution; that therefore revolution is necessary not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the overthrowing class can only in¹ a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the old muck and become capable of founding society anew."2

System-Breaking Strategy and Subjective Factor

As well as the book outlines the current problematic situation over long stretches, it nevertheless has two major weaknesses. The outlined strategy does not clearly and unequivocally reject the "walk through the institutions," which regularly leads to the ideological adaptation and integration of actors into the system. Not only does the concept of radical reforms practically ignore the systemic character of commodity-producing society, it also ignores the systemic connection of the state with the interests of the ruling class and the power relations that secure the capitalist mode of production.

Given that the vast majority of the population does not aim for a system change, a strategy is needed that builds on real ongoing struggles and prevailing consciousness and develops a program of transitional demands that, in its consequence, raises the system question. This means making it clear to people (more precisely: to the majority of the wage-dependent population) in the course of intensifying struggles that production relations must be changed if one wants to get rid of all the "old muck."

Such a program cannot be developed at a desk but only through the participation of as many progressive forces as possible in the real class struggle (however undeveloped it may be) and in the organized processing of its lessons. This brings us to the question of who must and can undertake this processing, ultimately leading to the question of the revolutionary subject and its organization.

Here lies the second shortcoming of the book: it lacks a more precise definition of the subjective factor and its organization. A system change will only be possible if a counter-power is built. In other words: an anti-capitalist strategy is only realistic and purposeful if it relies on a class-based force that strives to assert the interests of the majority of the population against the interests of the rulers. That the organization and political arming of counter-power is not a technical task was worked out by no one better than Antonio Gramsci, who in numerous elaborations identifies the political factors that are indispensable for a transformation of relations. The oppressed class must conquer political-ethical hegemony before it conquers political power. Critical self-awareness is therefore achieved through a struggle of political hegemonies, contrasting directions, first in the field of ethics, then of politics, in order to arrive at a higher elaboration of one's own conceptions of reality. The consciousness of being part of a particular hegemonic force (that is, political consciousness) is the first phase of a progressive self-awareness that goes beyond this, in which theory and practice finally form a unity. The unity of theory and practice is therefore also not a mechanical given, but a historical becoming, whose elementary and primitive phase consists in the sense of 'distinction,' 'detachment,' precisely instinctive independence, and which progresses to the real and complete possession of a coherent and unified world view."5

As clearly as Gramsci highlights the importance of political and—what is often overlooked—ethical hegemony, his description of the becoming of the class for itself, i.e., the development of a (revolutionary) class consciousness and the development of a revolutionary program, is open to interpretation (at least in need of supplementation). He writes:

"Critical self-awareness means historically and politically creating an elite of intellectuals: a human mass does not differentiate itself and does not become 'independent per se, without organizing itself (in a broad sense), and there is no organization without intellectuals, that is, without organization and leaders, that is, without the theoretical side of the theory-practice nexus concretely differentiating itself into a layer of people 'specialized' in conceptual and philosophical elaboration". But this process of creating intellectuals is long, difficult, full of contradictions, advances and retreats, fragmentations and regroupings, in which the loyalty of the masses (and loyalty and discipline are initially the form that the support of the masses and their cooperation in the development of the entire cultural phenomenon take) is sometimes severely tested. The development process is linked to a dialectic of intellectuals-masses; the layer of intellectuals develops quantitatively and qualitatively, but every leap to a new 'expansion and complexity of the intellectual layer is linked to a corresponding movement of the mass of simple people, who ascend to higher cultural levels and at the same time expand their sphere of influence, with individual advances or also those of more or less important groups towards the layer of specialized intellectuals."6

Gramsci repeatedly emphasizes the necessary "practical element of the theory-practice nexus," but important gaps remain. For him, the subjective factor consists of two essential components: the "mass" and the intellectuals (also repeatedly referred to as the elite). However, the "mass" as such is not a sufficiently differentiated consideration of the subjective factor of the working class. The history of class struggle over the last one hundred and fifty years teaches that the class is not a uniform entity. In terms of consciousness, it consists of at least two conceptually distinguishable components: the broad "mass" (in other words: the majority of colleagues in the workplace) and the de facto vanguard. The latter consists of individuals and groups of colleagues who take the lead in real internal (and sometimes inter-company) conflicts, formulate or take up relevant demands, popularize them in their environment, and draw in and activate colleagues (at least a large part of them). Without incorporating this experience of real processes in the class struggle, no coherent concept of an organic connection between intellectuals and the workers' vanguard can be developed. Therefore, Gramsci's concept is too abstract and too static.

The building of a counter-power against the ruling class and its misanthropic and destructive policies cannot be limited to advisory functions on the part of an "elite" and then hope that the "mass" develops sufficiently. For completeness, we want to note that Gramsci assumes a changing intellectual layer when it is connected to the masses. He relates this to the "intellectuals who feel organically connected to a popular-national mass."7

However, overall, this remains vague and does not sufficiently and systematically incorporate the experiences of anti-capitalist class struggles. A truly organic connection of a part of the "general intellect" can only exist in common practice, which can only be realized in the form of one (or several) political anti-capitalist organizations, be they socialist or anarchist in orientation.

It is understood that building an organized counter-power cannot be a linear process without ups and downs or major setbacks. It is dependent on the development of the class struggle, and this, experience shows, moves in waves. Without anti-capitalist political organizations—and thus without their concentrated (trained) ability to process partial victories and defeats—the class has no instrument capable of processing experiences and drawing sufficient conclusions from defeats. Ernest Mandel, in his significant work "Lenin and the Problem of Proletarian Class Consciousness," best articulated how complex the task of self-empowerment of the subjective factor is and what lessons can be drawn from history. We deliberately refrain from summarizing Mandel's work in a few—necessarily insufficient—words here. We want to focus on observations regarding the current situation to break down the task defined above into a current conflict situation.

Responsibility of the Trade Union Leadership

At the beginning of 2025, the conflicts at VW are of particular importance. On the one hand, because they highlight with particular clarity the necessity of a transport transition, and on the other hand, because they simultaneously concern the social interests of those who ultimately play the decisive role in the struggle against capital interests and for the transport transition. In both respects, the leadership of IG Metall (board and district leadership) and the majority of the works council have conspicuously failed. With the "Christmas miracle," the collective agreement at VW on December 20, holiday pay and bonus payments are reduced or eliminated entirely. By 2030, 35,000 jobs will be cut, while working hours will be increased for some employees. At the same time, IG Metall has approved a package of measures that amounts to intensifying the competitive struggle among the workforces of different locations. The benchmark is the "productivity increase" target set by the VW board, i.e., saving personnel, and without employment security for those still employed.

Regarding the urgently needed transport transition, IG Metall has precisely not taken up the fight for the conversion of production to buses, trains, bicycles, and other socially useful products. Such a struggle must be linked to the perspective of socialization (along the lines of: Our society does not need billionaires. Expropriate Wolfgang Porsche and other rich and super-rich!). Only through this path – conversion under the control of employees and the public – can a real contribution be made to the fight against the climate catastrophe and for the simultaneous safeguarding of employees' social interests. For this, nationalization is of course not enough; it requires the self-empowerment of the working population and democratic control over what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed. To advance in the struggle for these goals, the transport sector and the housing question are particularly suitable today.

The leadership of IG Metall cannot excuse itself by claiming that time was pressing or that the colleagues were not ready to fight. Large parts of the workforce at VW are now (end of January 2025), since the collective agreement was finally presented to the colleagues, immensely disappointed. This is best seen in the fact that at the relevant shop steward meetings (e.g., in Baunatal or Braunschweig), the large majority of the approximately 200 shop stewards present rejected the agreement. The trade union bureaucracy typically organized the meetings in such a way that no organized discussion for an alternative approach was possible; the "explanation period" (i.e., the deadline for non-acceptance) expired the following day. This collective agreement has serious consequences: On the one hand, it causes a noticeable demoralization, so that some colleagues will hardly activate themselves for trade union demands in the future, according to the motto: "IG Metall cannot be relied upon, they only betray us". On the other hand, this can give impetus to right-wing, anti-union currents.

When many VW employees today – even those who are truly not revolutionaries – perceive the collective agreement as a severe defeat, this reveals the great responsibility of the trade union bureaucracy. Not only has it made no efforts to initiate a struggle for conversion, it has even unnecessarily betrayed the struggle for the immediate social interests of the employees.

What becomes clear from this example? There are not "the" progressive actors; at least "the" trade unions do not belong to them, because their executive boards beg for social partnership and prefer to defend Germany as a business location rather than the interests of the wage-dependent population. To change these circumstances, a consistently system-oppositionary, class-struggle-oriented force must be built within the trade unions. This is a complex task.

For the building of a class-struggle current in the trade unions, it is currently most important to network critical voices (often only individuals) so that they can organize themselves in a second phase. More must happen than what we experience at the "strike conferences" (next one was scheduled for May 2-4 in Berlin), where typically it does not go beyond an exchange of experiences.

In parallel, political organizing must progress. Today, such forces are largely marginal, but they too should strive for a merger, although this is even more difficult than building a progressive current within the trade unions.