The entire strength of the modern labor movement rests on theoretic knowledge.
rosa luxemburg
Globalization, postmodernity, the information age, digital capitalism, labor flexibility, precariousness: All terms that point to the transformations of capitalism in the current era but which, in their uses and meanings, fall prey to the theoretical-ideological dominance of contemporary conservatism. In the face of this, leftist thought is unable to emerge from the political defeat it has suffered in recent decades. But it is not only a defeat in class struggle, it is something deeper. Its theoretical-political foundations have been questioned—in a certain way, displaced—by the expansion and consolidation of a new mode of capitalism, with new political and ideological underpinnings and foundations, and in the face of which, as leftists, we are still trying to take our first critical steps.
Both revolutionary socialist and reformist social democratic thought, which dominated the debate and the political programs of the left in the twentieth century, have become, supposedly, “outdated,” obsolete in the face of the new ways of constituting social conflict and class struggle. The now urgent need for a political and theoretical re-foundation of the left is evident. It is not only the case that many of its leaders, parties, unions, movements, are today explicitly or implicitly embracing neoliberal postulates. Faced with the almost absolute power of a singular ideology (conservative, neoliberal), it would seem that there is no other option but to adapt to it, even from positions that could open some space for a social progressivism, but which, nevertheless, does not question either the social and political bases or the ideological and comprehensive bases of the neoliberal doctrine.
Confronted with this political defeat of critical thinking, the left has tended to take refuge in its ideological discourses, trying to reinvent itself from the humanist principles of its philosophy. This serves as a foundation from which it gives meaning to its political praxis, at whatever level it may occur. The left and critical thinking, thus, find solace in their always valid and legitimate ethical principles and moral values concerning the human being, society, and the proper way to act in it. However, they are still ethical principles, not political ones.
If a young elementary school child, embodying the innocence that defines them, were to ask a leftist militant, be it a grassroots member or, more
This is, undoubtedly, a totally unquestionable argument from an ethical and moral point of view. But it is also an argument not far from the one that any Miss Universe contestant would answer when faced with a similar question.1 The truth is that, beyond the corny and emptiness of this answer, it must be acknowledged that politicians, both on the left and the right, in the present political landscape, wouldn’t offer more profound answers if confronted with the same question. They would say that it is for the social good, to advance social justice, and so on, a long peroration of good intentions. In the end, and in the best of cases, it is a set of humanist ideals. Of dreams and utopias—valid, legitimate, necessary and unquestionable—yet undoubtedly insufficient in today’s context, as they remain just that: mere dreams and utopias.
Faced with this situation of the left, the basic question seems to be the same as the one faced in the mid-nineteenth century: What is the strategic sense—that is, the horizons of reason that give transcendence to a political program of the left2—that give sustenance to the praxis of its militants and leaders and allow them to go beyond themselves? What are those theoretical-political premises (and not only philosophical ones) from which all of us—militants, leaders, and social classes themselves—can presently utilize to construct a sense of transcendence extending beyond the ethical principles and moral values of humanism? In our view, this would mandate establishing comprehensive frameworks about social and historical reality (its theoretical and political principles), from which the left and social classes can formulate a political strategy for transformation and social emancipation.
Obviously, we are not addressing the academic theories of contemporary society per se, but rather their potential application as comprehension categories for supporting transformative practices within that reality. Faced with
To do this, we believe that it is necessary to reframe that child’s initial question. The question isn’t so much about what for an individual, identifying as a leftist, holds a particular office and political commitment today. Rather, it involves turning the question around and asking why that militant or leftist leader believes that, from the field of politics, they can make progress toward realizing the answer they initially provide: making a positive difference in our current social realities. In essence, why does this militant or political leader of the left believe it is possible to attain such ideals and humanist utopias?
At this point, the response takes us beyond the realm of ideals and abstract idealism, steering us toward the domain of materialist thought and philosophy. It is about supporting the “why” in a Theory of History that refers to historical processes and social subjects that make this utopia of humanist ideals possible. Consequently, the historical possibility of the socialist project would no longer be based only on its ideals, but would have theoretical and political foundations. These foundations not only provide why it is possible but also why it is necessary a socialist project of transformation and social emancipation.
On the one hand, it would be based on a theoretical argument, rooted in a political philosophy of the subject matter. Consequently, it embodies a material and historical perspective for comprehending and interpreting the world and its everyday nature. And, on the other hand, it would allow the identification of social subjects, equally historical and mundane, capacity of materially constructing that utopia, from their historical and circumstantial conditions.
Another clarification is in order here: The fact that we can distinguish and identify subjects with the material capacity to execute such a political program does not necessarily imply that they possess the power to enact it. This differentiation between the capacity to perform an action and the actual power to do so is neither trivial nor superficial. The former pertains to the subject’s inherent material conditions and capacities, while the latter is contingent upon the historical conditions in which the subject operates. This, in turn, involves the capacities and powers of other subjects with whom they interact in an ongoing struggle to safeguard their respective material and worldly interests. Capacity
Paraphrasing Silvio Rodríguez, the Cuban singer songwriter, we can assert that History is made by hand and without permission. And that is the point. Firstly, History (the dream) is made by historical actors. And, on the other hand, these dreams and utopias are built from historical contexts, full of conflicts, struggles, interests and materialities, risks, uncertainties and with and against (without the permission) of other equally historical and material subjects.
Due to this historical materiality of the social world, the socialist project, whether revolutionary or reformist, requires being supported by a theory of History that explains its possibilities of construction and transformation. Ultimately, it involves the making of History, extending beyond its historicities. Idealisms (dreams and utopias) do not materialize based on their goodness, desirability, or universal acceptance. Instead, their realization depends on material and historical conditions that either possible or impossible them. It is never a matter of capacity to bring them to fruition but always a matter of power to do them.
It is paradoxical, moreover, that it is precisely the fact that these interests become possible (a question of power), that is, materialize as concrete facts, which ends up, in many cases, making them equally acceptable, although not necessarily desirable. The historical materialization of these principles and values, their materialization in the social structure, as vectors of the foundational matrix of society, is what ends up making them acceptable. There is, at the end of the day, a form of pedagogy, of education of society and its populations in those principles and values, which makes them act according to those material interests. They are not accepted because they are desirable purely and simply, but because that acceptability is achieved, has been made possible by and from their very imposition as social praxis, and therefore, that it has been done from positions of power, from concrete and specific material interests, particular, not global, proper to certain sectors, classes, genders, races within society, positioned in positions and locus of power within the political, social and economic structure of society.
Neoliberalism, for example, is currently accepted (and, in some cases, even projected as desirable) not because of the goodness of its proposals but because it was imposed and materialized as a project, because it was built from a social practice, from which its acceptance and its current potency as a desirable project was founded. But this construction was made from positions of power. It was imposed from the outcome in its favor of a particular class struggle, where the defeated included not only specific subjects (such as workers, industrial capitalists, middle classes, small and medium traders, state
At the end of the day, it is not about ideals but about interests, concrete projects, and material conditions—specifically, structural and historical conditions. These conditions make the aforementioned possible and form the bedrock that creates and sustains the historical and material possibility of a project.
However, the concept of possibility carries a philosophical significance of no lesser importance. It signifies that no project is given or preordained; instead, every project is actively constructed by concrete subjects. This construction does not occur in a social or ahistorical vacuum but, rather, within the context of an ongoing struggle with other subjects, who pursue alternative “ideals,” aiming for the materialization of equally material and worldly interests. In essence, praxis becomes the arena of politics, construction, transformation, and, consequently, theorization.
Returning to our initial reflection, the question, then, centers on the theoretical-political (or philosophical) frameworks from which a leftist politician today derives the historical feasibility of their project. In essence, why does a leftist politician believe that their socialist (or social-democratic, as the case may be, considering them equivalent for our purposes) project is historically and materially possible? The response, in this instance, cannot and should not be confined to the field of principles and ideals alone. It necessitates grounding on the level of theories and philosophies of history. It is within this realm that the left finds itself grappling with a substantial void, entangled in a defeat from which it has yet to emerge.3
It Is not the desirability of a project (its humanist philosophy) that gives it political meaning; rather, it is the material foundations of the historical necessity of that project that gives it political meaning. Thus, socialism and social
However, no theory of history resolves the question of how these transformations can be made possible. Following Luxemburg, this necessity can materialize if the subjects (classes) are constituted not only with the capacity to do so but, above all, are constituted as subjects with the power to make it possible. If the capacity of a certain class rests on the objective contradictions of capitalism, the power to actualize this capacity involves its formation as a class with consciousness in itself and for itself. And it is in this process, which entails constructing the social and political consciousness of class, where the paramount significance of the theoretical dimension becomes apparent.
On this point, Marxism, or more specifically, Marx himself, provided us with an answer. However, today, that theory is being scrutinized and questioned, not due to potential fallacies, but because it experienced a political defeat. Hence, the initial step is to reclaim that political stance from which it was displaced. It is a moment to reignite with politics, to recommence a struggle for transformation. Yet, to undertake this, we require theoretical underpinnings that not only provide a sense of transcendence but also offer a perspective of historical possibility.
In response to the child’s initial question, we would say: we do politics because we firmly believe that another world is not only desirable but also possible. This prompts the need to delineate the distinction between the possible and the desirable.
If we assert that another world is possible, it is because we are based on a theory that identifies material forces, not just individual wills, that can drive it. Specifically, we recognize a material realm of struggle from which the construction of this alternative world is possible. It is not merely a matter of voluntarism, but always involves material and historical possibilities, which are built and rebuilt trough social praxis.
In articulating this stance, we deliberately distance ourselves from the conservatism of the possible. Unlike the conservative view that regards politics as the art of the possible, that is, the possible as limitations to politics, we advocate for a perspective where politics is viewed as the art of making it possible, that is, the possible as praxis political. The former takes a conservative, conformist
In this line of reflection, we must unravel what the possible means for us and what is a possibility in the realm of history. Socialism is not the fruit of a historical determination but is a possibility of History. The material processes—the material structures that construct History—do not determine it but arise as possibilities. And it is precisely because there is the possibility of socialism in History that we do politics—that is, we develop a political praxis that makes it possible. If socialism were already determined by material structures, then politics, the art of making it possible, would be meaningless; there would be no point in doing politics, nothing more to do than to sit and wait for the evolution of history, which will inevitably lead us to socialism. In the best of cases, the meaning of politics would be to facilitate that historical determination, not to actively construct it.
The crucial point is that History doesn’t progress in a predetermined manner but unfolds through struggles whose outcome remains undecided, wrought within the very course of the struggle itself. History is the product of the class struggle, yet it is a struggle whose conclusion remains open-ended. This is precisely why we do politics—to render that outcome possible and no other. However, for this very reason, we require a theory, and a philosophy of history that elucidates why socialism is necessary and fundamentally possible.
This inevitably leads us to rethink Marx and undertake a re-foundation of Marxism rooted in Marx and previous iterations of Marxist thought. It is not a question of post, neo, trans Marxist proposals but rather to re-found Marxism from its own roots, essentially making Marxism by returning to Marx. In this context, the pivotal concept is not merely Marxism itself but the active process of making Marxism.
For this, it is necessary to return to the elemental idea-force of Marxism: the founding thesis of the revolutionary character of Marx’s thought. And it is revolutionary not because it is radically situated against capital, but because it is situated from a political philosophy, a theory of praxis, where the very meaning of theory, philosophy, politics, and history is reconfigured. It is the return to the theses on Feuerbach, in which the importance for Marx of the Theory-Praxis link is synthesized.
On the one hand, the validity of a theory is not merely an academic issue but fundamentally a political one. Its sense of truth is not demonstrated
On the other hand, the conditions in which this praxis unfolds and which the theory seeks to theorize are not pre-existing but, instead, are in a constant state of construction and transformation. This dynamic evolution is a direct consequence of the specific trajectory of social praxis during each historical moment. Within this praxis, individuals possess the possibility (both the capacity and power) to make and transform such historical circumstances.
Lastly, we must revisit Marx’s most renowned and frequently cited thesis: that theory serves not only as a means of comprehending history but also as a tool for its transformation. In other words, it enables intervention in history.
Within these three arguments resides the integral connection between Theory and Praxis, embodying a revolutionary essence. From our viewpoint, this conception of history embraces possible horizons, framing the future as a realm of historical possibility (in the words of Zemelman).
What is paradoxical is that this dual principle of theories, serving as a framework for understanding and as a model for praxis and transformation, is also at play in the realm of right-wing theories and philosophies, such as liberalism, among others. All liberal theories have consistently been employed for both comprehending and actively influencing society, guiding its trajectory. These theoretical frameworks propose ways of organizing society, whether from an economic, political, or cultural standpoint. A couple of examples can be found in the field of economic, such as in popular theories of economic development that have not merely functioned to comprehend capital accumulation in advanced economies but have also operated as theoretical frameworks to impose their perspectives on the structuring of the economy, labor, politics, and populations within Third World societies.
Likewise, in recent decades, the neoliberal economic doctrine not only constitutes a framework for comprehending production and distribution processes; more significantly, it functions as a program of intervention, particularly in the construction of a new political economy. Neoliberalism serves as the theoretical foundation for the conservative political agenda that has set the groundwork for the process of global capital accumulation.
What is relevant, in any case, is that all liberal theories have always had a political sense, as orienting a political and social praxis that contributed to consolidate a mode of domination and exploitation. In the face of this, we understand that critical theories must go beyond understanding and unraveling these modes of construction and use of theories for the purpose of
It is in this context that this book is inserted. It is a political-intellectual effort that seeks to contribute to the formulation of a political theory on the need for social change, one that hopes to lead to a program of social transformation in the present times. We seek to contribute to the foundation of the historical need for socialism, not from the level of its ethical principles and moral values, neither from its humanist philosophy or the desirable that it may present, but from a political perspective that allows us to unveil the material bases and structural foundations of the possibility of this political program of social transformation. We want to move from the foundation of the need for socialism in its desirability to a foundation in its historical possibility as a political program.
In our understanding, the challenge is to theoretically sustain a policy of socialist transformation that articulates the humanist perspective of the project of social emancipation, while maintaining a materialist philosophy of history. It is, in short, a theoretical contribution that points to how to make the desirable possible, how to make historical necessity a historical possibility.
This happens, in the first place, by understanding that the possible is constructed—that is, it is not given but becomes possible from its own historical conditions, not as determinations but as the foundation of that possibility. In this sense, if class struggle is the space from where History moves and is structured, then it is in that same space from where we must base the historical possibility of the socialist program, as a necessary and desirable program.
Luxemburg grounds the historical inevitability of socialism in the Marxist thesis on the anarchy of capital and capitalism, manifested in their propensities towards recurrent crises and the consolidation of economic and political power. We position the issue of inequality as an integral domain of this tumultuous nature and a factor contributing to the cyclical crises of capital accumulation. Hence, we suggest concentrating on the analysis and comprehension of social inequality as one of the factors that could propel us forward in the aforementioned theoretical-political project.
In fact, inequality serves as a gateway to transcending capitalism, given its role as a social realm and a mode of organizing society that has been a constant throughout the formation of all human civilizations to date. Specifically, each society has been upheld by a distinctive combination and arrangement of what we term the fundamental forms of social inequality, namely, class, gender, and race inequality. Why do we assert that the class-gender-race triad constitutes these elemental forms?
- 1.
Class is significant because, in each social structure, classes constitute the framework through which the labor process is organized, thereby shaping the conditions for the material reproduction of the population. - 2.Gender plays a crucial role as the means by which the issues of social and biological reproduction of the species are organized within each society.
- 3.Race is pivotal as the manner through which, in every social formation, the question of the struggle between ethnicities, groups, and cultures (and consequently, the social and political construction of the “other”) is addressed. These aspects have consistently played a role in the organization of material production and social reproduction.
Capitalism corresponds to a historical form of organization of the economy, politics, culture, and populations that, when intricately combined in a particular way, constitute the elementary forms of social inequality. This makes them, at the same time, the elementary forms of constituting and making individuals as social subjects, embodying social categories of class, gender, and race.
- 1.At the theoretical level: Involves a theoretical critique of capitalism and its foundational principles. This entails theorizing about the elementary forms of social inequality as structuring elements of the foundational relationship of capitalism—the capital-labor relation—and, consequently, the inherent social conflict, the class struggle.
- 2.At the political level: Entails contributing to a program of political and social emancipation—a path towards human liberation from these fundamental forms of social inequality.
At the theoretical level, the focus here is on the necessity for a comprehensive framework or theory that elucidates social inequality as an inherent structuring process within society. In this regard, the book serves as a contribution to a theory of social inequality, rooted in a philosophical and political perspective of the world and society. It fundamentally aligns with Marx and Luxemburg’s
From this standpoint, this book contributes to unraveling the historical foundations of inequality, conceptualized not solely as social differentiation but also as processes and dynamics of social oppression. These processes shape classes, genders, and races, rendering them socially and politically unequal and distinct—positioned in various and conflicting roles within the social structure. These positions, in turn, arise from the interconnections and relationships established among them. They manifest as social relations characterized by domination, exploitation, and social exclusion, playing a pivotal role in the constitution of subjects as unequal subjects. These relations give rise to social conflict and the ongoing struggle between these categories in terms of their conflicting interests and the rights structured by these relations.
Our perspective on inequality suggests that the social subject (class, gender, race) is formed through two interrelated processes or dimensions. Firstly, it is shaped by the convergence and interweaving (the conjunction-imbrication) of various processes and social relations that structure social inequality, encompassing domination, exploitation, and exclusion. These elements are present in each dimension of inequality and serve as the foundational relationships and processes underlying every form of social inequality. Secondly, it is influenced by the combination and interweaving (the conjunction-imbrication) of various domains of social inequality, namely class, gender, and race. These constitute the fundamental fields and forms of inequality.
Within each field of inequality (race, class, gender), there is a reproduction of relations characterized by domination, exploitation, and social exclusion. Each of these social relations is shaped by the interplay and overlap of each social field: race, class, and gender.
The conjunction-imbrication of these two moments of inequality—the elementals forms of inequality, and the processes and relations that structure them—gives shape to the modes of social oppression. These modes, in turn, constitute the fundamental subjects that struggle among themselves; some strive to reproduce this structure of inequality and oppression, while others attempt to dismantle or destructure them. From our perspective and political positioning, it constitutes the basis for the struggles for social emancipation, in each and every one of these fields of constitution of the elementary forms of social inequality.
Thus, our theoretical-political perspective on inequality is grounded in the notion that social struggle (the struggle between classes, genders, races) is not merely a confrontation against the other, but rather against the
When contemplating slavery, we can ask ourselves if it is conceivable a master-slave system that isn’t rooted in the oppression of the former over the latter? Clearly not, as both social categories, the master and the slave, are products of a slave system. Similarly, why should we think that it is possible to establish a social construct of gender (marked by gender equity and equality) without contemplating the liberation (emancipation) of individuals from the shackles of gender oppression, namely, patriarchy?
Just as master-slave inequality as a system of oppression can only be eliminated with the abolition of slavery, gender inequality can only be overcome on the basis of the destructuring (abolition) of the patriarchal system that gives rise to gender inequality. It is not by making the master good and empowering the slave, neither is it by constructing modes of equity in the master-slave relationship, that the problem of the subjugation of the slave by the master is solved. It is not a matter of there being good masters, who know how to behave towards their slaves. The issue is structural and is based on the social forms, relations, and structures from which the master-slave relationship is founded and, therefore, the constitution of some as masters and others as slaves. And it is this structure and structural relations that must be destructured and abolished at their very root.
The inequality between men and women represents a manifestation of this oppressive and subjugating structure. These structures constitute power dynamics, relations of dominance, exploitation, and oppression that give rise to concrete subjects: men and women positioned as unequal entities across various dimensions, including power and the economy. It is ineffective to solely address the patriarchal values and machismo ingrained in men without transforming the structures and systems of relations that construct these patriarchal forms of both men and women. Feminism must remain cognizant that its objective is not only the pursuit of equality but, more fundamentally, a struggle for emancipation and liberation.
Here lies the radical nature of our proposition: because we understand the issues of inequality and oppression as comprehensive and total realities, then, the struggle for emancipation is an all-encompassing struggle. Consequently, the battle against inequality is inherently a pursuit of liberation, extending
The struggle for equality transforms into a struggle for liberation from the shackles of oppression, from those chains that tether subjects to structural positions, molding them into oppressed and subjugated entities. Inequality has deprived us of our freedom because it thrives on a foundational, inherent inequality: we face uneven circumstances in terms of freedom. The lack of equal freedom is the root cause of inequalities in other societal realms. However, this original inequality in freedom is not a natural state; it has been historically constructed. Some individuals have deprived others of their freedom. Hence, the fight against inequality is synonymous with a struggle for emancipation and liberation.
Inequality unfolds as a historical process that constitutes both oppressors and the oppressed (classes, genders, nationalities, races), delineating the foundations of their conflict. This perpetual dynamic gives rise to the historical possibility of a project of emancipation from those chains and social relations that fix them in such positions of inequality—some as oppressors and others as oppressed. Consequently, the struggle for emancipation doesn’t revolve around the subject itself but rather targets the structures of social relations rooted in exploitation, domination, and exclusion, upon which the oppressive system is built. It is a confrontational struggle between historical subjects—classes, genders, races, nationalities—in determined historical and structural circumstances.
The political role of theory is to reveal both the structural and historical conditions, along with the modes of political formation of the subjects involved in class struggle. These dual functions of theory can only be cultivated through active engagement in the struggle itself, rather than from the confines of an academic setting or the offices of public institutions, including those affiliated with leftist parties. Struggle and knowledge (theory) emerge from the perspective and circumstances of the oppressed, the exploited, the dominated, the subjugated—those from below.
That is the purpose of the book. We neither claim to possess the answers to these questions nor do we pretend to. Our satisfaction in our work, however, lies in two aspects: firstly, raising questions that we deem relevant and essential for advance on such path; and secondly, offering analytical frameworks,
And with this, we neither want to denigrate nor disrespect this contestant or the Miss Universe competition; however, we wish to illustrate, by taking the matter to an extreme situation and comparison, the theoretical-political weakness of critical thinking in the contemporary left, both in its reformist wing as well as in its revolutionary wing.
In this sense, we are referring to political programs, distinct from government programs. These are ideas forces that surpass immediate circumstances, aiming to transform society rather than merely govern it.
The answers that Marxism elaborated in the past are insufficient today. This does not stem from the shortcomings of Marxism as a theoretical body in itself or as a philosophy of history, but because society, the social reality to which those Marxist theories alluded at the time of their writing, was transformed due to the influence of conservative and right-wing projects that shaped alternative modes of capitalism, consequently altering the constitution and formation of classes and class conflict within capitalism.