To overcome capitalism, we must accept the magnitude of the task at hand and abandon certain illusions. We should engage with the political goals of classical socialists, such as the rule of the class-conscious proletariat and revolutionary upheaval. These goals were integral to the thinking of Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg, yet today they are often ignored or dismissed too easily because they are currently unthinkable and even incomprehensible. However, this may be the only way to achieve socialism. Or perhaps not. In any case, to pose these questions meaningfully, we must first develop agency and awareness, as Felix Ahls argues.
*
Current world politics, played out in the form of open violence, reveal the barbarism characteristic of capitalism in the harsh light of day and at night, when the sky is illuminated by bombs and burning oil depots. Terms such as ‘war’ and ‘imperialism’ have once again become part of everyday life, just as discussions about capitalism have increased since the 2008 financial crisis.
Unsurprisingly, phenomena typical of capitalism are also becoming more apparent in the ideological sphere, such as the rise of the radical right or the Left’s return to its socialist past.
Capital without socialism
As I understand it, socialists such as Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg viewed capitalist society as revolutionary because it constantly undermines its own material foundations, creating the potential for a working-class movement to advance progressive ideas. These socialists saw themselves as products of their time and did not claim to possess eternal truths about capitalism and socialism. Unlike today, they faced a society that included an increasingly socialist-led labor movement capable of transforming society and itself. For the time being, however, barbarism triumphed over socialism. Apparently, capitalism does not always include a labor movement, social progress, or the potential for socialism.
Depending on its own agency and consciousness, the working class produces different capitalist societies. Therefore, their contradictions do not manifest in the same way at all times. Socialists such as Luxemburg viewed the socialist movement as the active consciousness of the self-contradiction of capitalist society. From this perspective, the movement is also internally contradictory – not the positive alternative to capitalism, but rather the conscious part of the existing order that can develop it further toward socialism.
Return as self-criticism
If we consider such a development possible, then a revolutionary transformation is possible as well. Even in this era, which is opposed to progressive transformation, there must be a socialist strategy based on this fundamental assumption. This strategy must work within the existing system and be grounded in real conditions, including our own weaknesses.
In this regard, I find it helpful that the Left refers to concepts like socialism and socialists like Marx and Luxemburg. Beyond self-affirmation, symbolic appropriation, or dogmatic quotation, seriously returning to these roots would teach us humility in the face of the magnitude of our tasks. Ideally, “ruthless self-criticism” would strengthen our ability to act within the contradictions of capitalist society.
To critique this return to the past, consider an article by Luxemburg from 1903 written on the anniversary of Marx’s death. It is likely the only text in which she uses the term “revolutionary Realpolitik.”
“If we understand Realpolitik as a politics that sets attainable goals and knows how to achieve them with the most effective means and shortest route, then proletarian class politics differs from bourgeois politics in that bourgeois politics is real from the standpoint of immediate material success, while socialist politics is real from the standpoint of historical developmental trends. […] Proletarian Realpolitik is revolutionary in that, through all its individual endeavors, it transcends the framework of the existing order within which it operates. It consciously regards itself as only the preliminary stage of the act that will make it the politics of the ruling and revolutionary proletariat.”
If we are to refer to Luxemburg and use her writings to guide us in our current endeavors, we must also consider the practical implications. This does not mean treating them as instructions, but rather understanding how those consequences arose at that time and how different they are from the politics of the Left today.
Prerequisites for social revolution
The discrepancy between the positive references to Luxemburg and socialism in general found in relevant left-wing organizations – particularly Die Linke and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation – and these organizations’ actual theoretical and practical positions seems obvious to me. The socialist left’s fundamental view that capitalism does not allow for rational, needs-oriented social organization is based on the analyses of Marx and Luxemburg, among other things. However, the political goals and strategies of the ‘classical’ representatives of socialism are rarely discussed. For Luxemburg and many socialists of her time, the rule of the class-conscious, organized proletariat – including in the form of the socialist party – was always a prerequisite for social revolution, that is, for overcoming the capitalist mode of production.
During Luxemburg’s time, amid the SPD’s growing power, there was an intense debate about ways to overcome capitalism. This resulted in two views: one that reforms of the existing order constitute the purpose of politics because they represent the construction of socialism (‘revisionism’), and the other that reforms are a means to the end of the proletariat seizing power. Luxemburg argued that the revisionist position effectively rejected socialism in practice while still declaring it a goal.
Regarding this return to the past, the Left is inconsistent when it accepts the social analysis of revolutionary socialism only to the extent that it supports its current positions, ignoring its further implications. Today’s strategic debate within the Left seems to be an unconscious expression of our failure, falling even short of ‘classical’ revisionism, which, to its opponents, was seen as an expression of the movement’s success.
Contradictions and illusions
Perhaps we can learn from past strategic debates what kinds of questions a movement can raise – one with the agency and consciousness to confront itself and society with their contradictions and develop them further. Then, the goal of building a powerful enough movement to do so today begins to emerge to raise practical questions commensurate with the magnitude of the problem: overcoming capitalism. In order to understand the kind of capitalist society we are dealing with, we must be able to change it. We must become an active part that wants to be more than it is in order to become more than it is.
An alternative would be to be consistent in a different way, accepting the impossibility of revolutionary transformation and no longer harboring illusions under the banner of socialism. According to Luxemburg, the Marxian and Marxist analysis of capital is unthinkable without “the bridge that Marx built between the proletarian movement, as it grows elementarily from today’s society, and socialism. This bridge was class struggle for the seizure of political power.” Rejecting social progress – socialism – as a possibility is somewhat justified given the absence of this proletarian movement. The vast majority of the Left stands for this alternative, albeit unacknowledged.
The political debate then revolves around securing livelihoods, making education and housing affordable, ensuring access to healthcare, fairly distributing wealth, and preventing war and the destruction of the natural foundations of life. In essence, the debate centers on preserving these conditions in a stable manner while making them more equitable, democratic, and free. This scenario itself seems rather illusory and contradicts the analyses of most on the Left. Is it all just illusions and wishful thinking on all sides?
Illusions under the rubble
The party Die Linke has titled the recently begun debate on its new program: “Hope. Future. Socialism.” I am participating in building the party into an organization that takes its analyses seriously, assesses its capabilities accordingly, and pursues a long-term strategy. For me, this means proving over the coming years and decades that the party is the legitimate political representative of the working classes. This requires structures of direct solidarity that organize people, as well as a clear and firm demarcation from the administrators of the status quo. However, organizational strength must be accompanied by an understanding of the foundations of our society. Thus, the party must find ways to provide internal and external education.
One plausible approach is to use debates based on concrete conflicts to raise awareness of the systemic barriers that limit reforms. No matter how many hospital strikes are won, they cannot overcome the role of the healthcare system in capital accumulation. Privatization and economization cannot be countered through strikes under the current balance of power without a socialist workers’ movement. The solidarity and capacity for action of the successful strikers will erode again, and their successes will only be temporary, illusory solutions. The hope is to develop and organize these conflicts into political struggles. Even the most precise criticism and reasonable proposals can achieve little if they lack a material basis or if the time is not right. Above all, they must have a power base.
As Luxemburg predicted in 1916, socialism was buried under the rubble of two world wars. The theory and practice of this movement are often plucked from it like loose pages. It is our responsibility to ensure that the rubble, which continues to pile up, buries not only people, but also illusions. Only then can we build agency and consciousness in the long term, enabling us to intervene in history rather than merely endure it.