From Engels to Bezos: What is "Class Collaboration"?
Alliance between members of opposing classes doesn't necessarily represent reaction. How can we tell?
I have noticed a growing trend of the term “class collaboration” being wielded indiscriminately. This critique is increasingly levied against anyone who does not express overt hostility towards every individual member of the bourgeoisie. Such a blanket approach fails to consider the nuances of individual motivations and actions. It assumes a monolithic and universally malicious intent across an entire social class, which is an oversimplification at best.
It is crucial, especially when considering historical or current relationships, to differentiate between the bourgeoisie as a collective entity and its individual members. Evaluating the individuals’ agendas within the ruling class can shed light on whether their actions further their class interests or defy them. Engels’ support of Marx’s work is a testament to the fact that not every person from a privileged class necessarily upholds the status quo. Some may actively work against it, driven by a broader vision for societal transformation.
But what is “class collaboration,” and what tension distinguishes it?
Working with Capitalists
“Class collaboration” refers to the idea that distinct social classes, particularly the proletariat (the subordinate, working class) and the bourgeoisie (the ruling, owning, capitalist class), can set aside their inherent class antagonisms to work cooperatively. This cooperation is predicated on the belief that the deep-seated contradictions of capitalism can be smoothed over or resolved through mutual concessions rather than through a radical restructuring of the economic and social systems.
The economic basis of the class struggle, reduced to its simplest terms, amounts to this: If the worker gets more of his product in the form of wages, the boss must get less in the form of profits. If the boss gets more, the worker gets less. What is good for the boss is bad for the worker. What is good for the worker is bad for the boss
This is true in America just as it is in other countries. In spite of this fact, we hear politicians and labor leaders declaring that "the interests of capital and labor are identical." They assert: "What is good for the boss is good for the worker and what is bad for the one is bad for the other."
President Green at the 1925 convention of the American Federation of Labor declared that in America "there is no need for the class war, no need for the class struggle."
- Bertram D. Wolfe, How Class Collaboration Works (1926)
Historically, class collaboration has been viewed with skepticism. Many have posited that such collaboration often leads the working class to be co-opted or pacified by the capitalists, preventing genuine class struggle and, thus, genuine change.
Wolfe articulates a critique that a privileged strata of the American working class (the “labor aristocracy”) is more or less bribed to advocate for class collaboration. Today, one might call this group the “professional-managerial class,” however, Wolfe (and Lenin before him) are more accurate in their terminology; the “labor aristocracy” is not a qualitative class but a quantitative strata that is in a position of comfort that implies the system straightforwardly works for them.
This leads down a path very different from one of the first questions people ask about “class collaboration”: “Wasn’t Friedrich Engels a capitalist?”
For the uninitiated, Engels, whose family was involved in textile manufacturing, owned factories, and employed workers – while often financially supporting Karl Marx, regarded by many as The Main Communist™. Conservative critics could argue that this financial support from a member of the ruling, owning class compromises the authenticity or integrity of communist ideals.
Leftists might use Engels as an excuse, however. This line of argument is convenient because it allows critics to portray themselves as “the real communists” who “hold no sacred cows” while defending someone for taking money from someone like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or George Soros. “Why else would they fund a communist!?”
However, the critique is based on a misinterpretation. Engels’ financial support of Marx was not an act of class collaboration; it was an individual from the bourgeoisie whose personal motivations contradicted his class interests. Engels worked to progress beyond capitalism; however, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros work explicitly to preserve it.
Moral Conflation
The fundamental error is the conflation of individuals from the bourgeoisie with the bourgeoisie as an entity. A serious, nuanced definition of “class collaboration” involves distinctions, the most fundamental of which is the setting aside of class struggle to compromise with the ruling capitalist class. This type of collaboration is rooted in the incorrect belief that capitalism's contradictions are not mathematical realities but instead the conflict of different classes’ ideals and morals.
Thus, Engels providing financial support to Marx doesn't exemplify class collaboration, as the result was to bolster Marx, his analysis, and his activities to the detriment of his own class. If one simply must label Engels’ actions, it would be more apt to describe him as a “class traitor.” But even that term doesn't sit right with me, as it trends too close to a moral critique. The way he supported Marx's work, Engels acted against his immediate class interests. Further, labeling someone a traitor for pursuing societal progress feels misplaced, as in the true long-term, the resolution of social class is in the interest of all social classes.
Many don't understand this; preserving capitalism is technically only a short-term interest for the ruling capitalist class, and they consistently think in that short-term! In the long run, the dissolution of class distinctions would benefit everyone, including the current ruling class.
The point of communism is not to make the rich poor but to make the poor rich. We live in a vast and abundant world in which a rational mode of production would not appropriate based on scarcity. There’s a reason the “envy” critique takes hold so readily: when one’s belly is empty, resentments form for those who have had a meal. The prime drive here isn’t “envy,” though; it’s hunger. Still, those who fear the hungry find emotional safety in dismissing it as “envy.”
Similarly, the “greed” criticism assumes that capitalists are just bad people who need a new set of morals – or to be punished for their current set. Neither of these criticisms properly accounts for material class interests, which, if class were resolved, would not be a valid concern.
Lenin and Kautsky: The State's Role
Another historical conflict that underscores the nuances of class engagement is between Vladimir Lenin and Karl Kautsky. Lenin posited that the state's primary function was to uphold the dominance of a particular class. In contrast, Kautsky believed the state could mediate conflicts between classes. This distinction serves as a straightforward expression of class collaboration's true meaning.
Keeping with Marx, Lenin viewed the state as a tool of class oppression. In his works, especially State and Revolution, he argued that the state arose as an instrument to manage and suppress class antagonisms, but always in favor of the ruling class. In a capitalist society, he believed that the state inherently serves the bourgeoisie's interests.
On the other hand, Karl Kautsky developed a different perspective after the death of Engels. He leaned towards a more reformist stance, suggesting that socialism could be achieved through democratic means and that the state could mediate class conflicts. While he didn't entirely reject the notion of class struggle, he believed in the possibility of peaceful transitions and the state's role in facilitating this, which I would argue acts as a buffer that prevents class struggle.
An important example of Lenin working with members of the ruling capitalist class was in 1917 when Lenin and other Russian revolutionaries were in exile. With Russia destabilized due to the ongoing war and the February Revolution, Germany saw an opportunity to further weaken Russia by facilitating the return of vocal war opponent Lenin. During World War I, Germany was structured as an imperial monarchy with a capitalist economy, and these decisions were made based purely on servicing its agenda. They hoped his return and potential rise to power would accelerate Russia's exit from World War I, freeing up German resources from the Eastern Front.
To this end, Germany arranged for Lenin and other Bolsheviks to travel in a sealed train through Germany, Sweden, and Finland back to Petrograd (St. Petersburg) in Russia. This was a pragmatic choice for Lenin, an opportunity to return to Russia during a crucial revolutionary period. This enabled class struggle and, ultimately, the establishment of a socialist superpower, and thus, we must see this with nuance rather than declare, “Lenin worked with an imperial capitalist state, so he was bad!”
It is the distinction of which class’s interests are overall served that determines if something is “class collaboration” in any sense where the term has any critical importance. Again, we can see that the distinction that matters is the class line, the distinction between material, qualitative differences in relationship to power via the ownership of the means of production.
Conclusion
As with any term, “class collaboration” can be used incorrectly or colloquially. However, a genuine understanding of the subject of its critique requires an informed and nuanced perspective.
If we compare Engels with figures like Soros or Bezos, we can see a vast difference in motivations. While Engels used his wealth to support the theoretical foundation of communism directly, these magnates use their resources in ways that further consolidate their power and maintain the status quo. Their philanthropic endeavors come with strings attached that further their interests within a capitalist framework. This distinction is key.
Regardless of their class background, individuals can and do make decisions that oppose, modify, or transcend the expected norms of their class. This does not imply a blanket exoneration or condemnation of any individual. Lenin was correct to accept the German elite’s help to go back to Russia because the agenda serviced was ultimately not the German elite’s!
This is why, although it is critical to understand what is being accomplished by those who do work with members of the bourgeoisie, judgment should not be made until that analysis has been performed.