In the latter half of the 19th century, Karl Marx wrote about Irish immigrants in England
who had been forced to leave their home country due to The Great Famine in the
preceding decades which had been caused by British colonial-capitalist policies.
The havoc caused by the British empire had claimed over a million Irish lives,
and caused a further million to leave this country in hopes of finding a better life abroad.
Many travelled to England. And the result of this migration of the masses was that now
Irish people were competing with English workers for jobs. This became a source of
deep antagonism between the two groups. In 1870, Marx wrote that, “Every industrial and
commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps,
English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as
a competitor who lowers his standard of life. […] His attitude towards [the Irish worker] is
much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.”
So, we can see that Marx has no interest in sugar-coating the harsh reality of the immigration
of Irish workers to England – neither in its cause nor its effect. He didn’t shy away from
noting that the influx of Irish labourers was lowering wages for English workers.
But Marx, however, unlike conservatives or reactionaries of any stripe,
never resorted to blaming Irish immigrants for this state of affairs. And in fact,
he noted that the contradiction between the Irish and English workers was being weaponised by the
ruling classes to keep both groups down, so that they wouldn’t stand together and turn against
their common enemy: the British ruling class. Indeed, Marx wrote that “This antagonism [between
Irish and English workers] is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press,
the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes.
This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class,
despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power.
And the latter is quite aware of this.” So, what was the solution that Marx suggested
in order to resolve this state of affairs? Well, it wasn’t to simply ignore the reality
of global capitalist-colonialist destruction and its consequences at home and abroad.
And it certainly wasn’t to “close the borders” of the bourgeois state or in
any way direct blame towards immigrants. No, the solution that Marx put forward was
the overthrow of the British ruling classes which had created and profit from this state of affairs.
Specifically, this meant putting an end to the British Empire’s colonial occupation and
exploitation of Ireland, which created the conditions that necessitated the migration
of the Irish masses in the first place. It meant giving full support to the Irish struggle
for national liberation and socialist revolution that continues to this day.
Indeed, Marx believed so strongly in this cause that he claimed that
“After studying the Irish question for many years I have come to the conclusion that the
decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the
workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland.”
So here we have Marx tackling Immigration. By acknowledging the effect that this immigration
was having on the material conditions of the proletariat, Marx went beyond the liberal
approach of simply denying the existence of any contradictions arising from immigration at all.
Nor did Marx champion anything even remotely resembling the conservative and reactionary
solution of tightening the bourgeois state’s border controls and demonising immigrants.
Marx denied both the liberal and conservative approaches to this issue
and instead put forward the position of the revolutionary proletarian internationalist:
to give full support to Irish national liberation and socialist revolution to abolish
the capitalist-colonialist conditions which have given rise to this issue in the first place.
The implications of this for Marxists today is as important as ever – the Marxist position is not
that of the bourgeois liberals, nor the bourgeois and feudal conservatives. The Marxist position is,
as it has always been, the position of the international revolutionary proletariat.
Of the movement for stateless, classless, moneyless society.
And yet - as a result of how heavily ingrained are bourgeois society’s goalposts between liberal
and conversative - some of these notions have been carried over into the communist movement.
Consequently, a division has emerged between supposedly “socially liberal communists” and
supposedly “socially conservative communists”. So, let’s talk about this phenomenon from a
historical materialist perspective, analysing it through the lens of the Marxist division of
society into Base and Superstructure, with the hopes of shining a light on the way forward for
comrades who are struggling to make sense of these topics from a scientific socialist perspective,
rather than ahistorically appealing to individuals’ subjective senses of morality.
But first, if you’re new here, go ahead and hit subscribe and turn on the notification bell
below for new Marxist educational videos every second Friday, alternating between beginner-level
Socialism 101 videos and then applying that theory in video essays like this. If you’d
like to support Marxist educational content, toss a euro or a dollar per month on Patreon, which
you’ll find linked in the description box below. If you’re not in a position to support financially
but you want to help out, then please share these videos around on social media like Twitter,
Reddit, Discord, Instagram, etc. – you’d be surprised how much that actually helps!
Now, as a quick reminder from the most recent Socialism 101 video on this topic,
the Base refers to society’s Mode of Production including the Productive Forces and the Relations
of Production – for example, the Capitalist Mode of Production. The Superstructure refers all other
aspects of society that aren’t directly part of the production process (such as repressive
and ideological state apparatuses; the law, religion, the family, the media, art, culture,
etc.). The Base gives rise to the Superstructure, which then reinforces the Base, which in turn
reinforces the Superstructure, and so on, and so forth in a reciprocal, circular pattern.
Keep this reciprocal relationship between the Base and Superstructure in mind as we move
forward – it’s going to be important. Now, if we look at the components of
Superstructure, we can find the principal values of social conservatives here. Religion,
the family, tradition (manifesting under culture), ideology, and so on. And keep in mind that this
superstructure has emerged from the economic Bases of class society (including slave-society,
feudalism, and capitalism) as ways of maintaining the given mode of production for
each period – which may be a cause for concern. Now, that’s not to say everything that exists in
the current Superstructure solely represents the interests of the Bourgeoisie or Feudal Landlords
– the proletariat is also a part of the economic Base which makes its own unique contributions to
the Superstructure (such as proletarian ideology, proletarian art, etc.). It’s just that when the
bourgeoisie is the dominant class, as it is under capitalism, then they, too, dominate
the Superstructure – meaning the dominant aspects of the Superstructure represent their interests.
So, when it comes to the potential for socially conservative communism, we need to ask: “What is
it exactly that’s being conserved? And whose class interests does this serve?” And in many cases,
social-conservatism is inadvertently conserving superstructural aspects and institutions of
class society – which works against our long-term goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless world.
For example, the traditional nuclear family unit of a man and a wife with children is a
hallmark of social conservatism – “family values” and so on. But when you look back
historically at how this particular family unit has emerged – that is, the patriarchal
monogamous family unit – it becomes clear that its purpose is the preservation of private property
relations by facilitating inheritance and the accumulation of property across generations,
as a well as the reproduction of labour. So, if the conservative communist wished to
conserve the nuclear family unit in its current form indefinitely, they would be disappointed to
learn that with the abolition of private property during the socialist transition period, the basis
for this particular family unit will disappear. Championing “family values” as communists would
therefore be working against our long-term goals (of abolishing private property) in favour of
short-term gains (that is, potentially gaining some support from more conservative sections
of society). In short, this is opportunism. Now, to follow this through to its natural
conclusion and demonstrate the damage this would do to the communist movement in the long-term,
let’s imagine a conservative communist organisation did come to power,
overthrowing the bourgeoisie and in putting in its place a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
They may partially transform the economic Base and its relations of production, but if they prevent
the transformation of the Superstructure (such as if they continued to protect and
uphold the patriarchal monogamous family unit, prohibiting divorce and so on) then there would
be a constant Superstructural pressure on the Base to backslide into earlier modes of production.
The remnants of class society would be protected and preserved indefinitely at the Superstructural
level. And because the Superstructure and the Base influence each other in a reciprocal manner,
the Superstructure would then end up obstructing the development of the economic Base to a higher
level – the Superstructure would become the principal barrier between class society and the
industrial communist mode of production. And if this barrier remains in place,
as the Conservative Communists who are committed to a mechanical materialist understanding of
revolution may desire, then communism becomes an impossibility – meaning the society is no longer
transitioning from capitalism to communism, and is therefore no longer in the socialist
transition period. It abandons the socialist road and reverts to the capitalist road.
Conservative Communism thus sows the seeds for capitalist restoration, and in this way works
against the long-term goals of moving towards a stateless, classless, moneyless world, even
if it may successfully gain short-term support among more conservative sections of society.
Now, if we’re aware that taking up positions within our movement, like championing “family
values”, are working against our long-term goals, but we do this anyway in order to gain
short-term support, then we’re falling into the trap of opportunism. We’re sacrificing
long-term success for short-term gains. This manifests in the temptation that some feel
to latch onto whatever popular position or trendy movement a large group of people are attached to.
To follow behind them, dragging like a tail, rather than to be among the people
and guiding them forward with the Mass Line. Rather than putting in the work of patiently
and tirelessly helping to educate the people and correct misapprehensions that have been
passively absorbed as a result of bourgeois manipulation (such as the English ruling class and
its superstructural apparatuses stoking tension between Irish and English workers), this tailism
abandons the proletariat and allows our class to be guided by the forces of reaction – which
tailists in turn end up supporting. If we resign ourselves to this tailism,
we could very quickly find ourselves championing the most reactionary positions conceivable. We may
see a White Supremacist rally and - upon seeing such a mass of people - get in line behind them
and begin championing their backward positions. This would, of course, be a completely
unprincipled anti-communist act that would sacrifice everything that Marxism stands for
in favour of gaining short-term support from an extremely backward section of the masses.
And this is an extreme example, of course. But you see milder forms of this same
phenomenon today with supposed communists in imperialist countries like Britain and the USA
championing national chauvinism masquerading as so-called “proletarian” patriotism.
This is specifically attempting to appeal to backward sections of the masses and mistaking
their reactionary views, for the views of the wider masses – completely ignoring the larger
intermediate and advanced sections of the people. Mao warned of this as far back as 1945 when he
stated that: “It often happens that the masses outstrip us and are eager to advance a step
and that nevertheless our comrades fail to act as leaders of the masses
and tail behind certain backward elements, reflecting their views and, moreover,
mistaking them for those of the broad masses.” So, we need to be very careful with any suggestion
that communists should focus our attention on “appealing to conservatives and reactionaries”.
This is an opportunistic, and specifically tailist approach which dishonestly hides our
long-term goals as revolutionary communists from the masses.
Now, if tailism is dragging behind the masses, we also need to be careful of its inverse:
being ahead of the masses and commanding the people to catch up from afar: commandism.
When you’re engaging with the masses, you need to meet people where they’re at in a principled
manner. Not everyone is going to be ready for revolutionary communism right off the bat.
And many well-meaning people do hold things like their family, religion, etc. very close
to their hearts, even in some cases those who are most oppressed by the institutional
arms of these superstructural elements. Some communists may feel a temptation to
command these people from afar that they catch up with you – to lecture and talk at them,
rather than talk with them and help them work through backward positions for themselves.
But, as Mao wrote, “Commandism is wrong in any type of work, because in overstepping the level
of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of voluntary mass action
it reflects the disease of impetuosity. Our comrades must not assume that
everything they themselves understand is understood by the masses.”
So, we must always strive to be among the masses and patiently guide the
people forward towards communism; neither falling behind into reactionary tailism,
nor shouting back at them from afar with commandism. We have to unite the advanced
sections of the masses, to elevate and win over the intermediate sections,
and isolate backward, reactionary elements where they can’t be won over.
As Marxists, our positions must be always be based on the Historical Materialist method,
and tested in practice with the people through the Mass Line.
With regard to the notion of “Conservative Communism”, we have to move beyond thinking
of our positions narrowly within the terms of “social liberalism” or “social conservatism” and
instead subject every political question of our time to the scientific socialist method – just
as Marx did with the question of immigration and the conflict between Irish and English workers.
With that in mind, we have to remain conscious that if we succumb to the trapping of “social
conservativism” (or an unprincipled “social liberalism” for that matter)
we will be sacrificing the Marxist method in favour of bourgeois subjectivism – putting
our individual feelings, subjective values and moral inclinations ahead of any kind of
systemic materialist theoretical analysis to be tested in practice with the people.
The failures of the subjectivist approach become especially apparent when we’re aware
that much of our moral leanings have been shaped by the dominant forces of class society itself.
In this way, bourgeois ideology (or even feudal ideology in some cases) is smuggled into the
proletarian movement and sows the seeds of its destruction through revisionist ideology.
But armed with the scientific socialist method and the mass line, we can combat
this every time it rears its head. As Marx stated, “We call communism
the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.”
By its very nature, the communist movement is diametrically opposed to conserving class
society and its corresponding remnants from slave-society, feudalism, and capitalism at
the levels of both Base and Superstructure. Conservative Communism under still-existing
class society is therefore oxymoronic, and actively focusing on appealing to
conservative ideology ultimately works against the long-term interests of the working class.
Perhaps when we actually achieve a stateless, classless, moneyless world that has successfully
overthrown capitalism-imperialism and brought about global communism, then we can talk about
conserving that state of affairs – only then will we be able to truly take up the mantle of
“conservative communists” in resistance to a potential backslide into class society in
order to conserve what we will have achieved. And – make no mistake – we will achieve it.
Right, thanks very much for watching this video! Hopefully you’ve found
it useful in one way or another. Thanks especially to the supporters
on Patreon who’ve made this possible. Thank you Ian McShea, Yugopnik, Boricua Guerilla,
Ryan Hodgson, soup, Madeleine, sonic232, Sagan, Michaela Schmid, Christian Nipales, Brian Ruiz,
Alfonso Dingo Torres, Mecholova, Rotgardist, GenGre, Todd Sprang, NikedeSade, zakasi,
Anglo-Irish Bolshevik, Amy Schmidt, Eli Leslie, Thomas Rawson-Wood, Jason Schmidt, Del Seibold,
TrainHXIII, Meowcifur, Hunter Johnson, Donal O Coisdealbha, Six Ní Bhaoighealláin, Kale Marx,
Roja, MLMinPractice, Eric Lindahl, Zekay Goodie, kyle rapp, Vučko, Doctoma, Ayob Farah, bekey,
Pastor Joubert, A Mouthwash Bottle, MrMiyamoto, Kyle King, Reverend Lawn Gnome Hollywood,
Wonderbad, JT Chapman, José, Joseph Sheppard, Jack Shneidman, Comrade Amara, WealthForThe99Percent,
Sp00p, and Trailer Park Communist. Cheers everyone, agus slán go fóill.