Workers! Class Comrades!

We are entering a period dominated by the dynamics of inter-imperialist war. In addition to the numerous existing wars that sow terror and devastation, our period is marked by a global militarist race, and the development of a war economy that it requires.

The war between Russia and Ukraine marked the beginning of our current period of inter-imperialist war, and the war between the United States and Iran has confirmed it: states are grouping themselves into the warring factions of imperialist capital, led by the United States and China, in a powerful movement that dictates their decisions. 

The economic, political, and social consequences are spreading everywhere; nothing remains untouched. 

The ultimate cause of this inter-imperialist war is world capitalism. World capitalism, through its constant revolutionization of society and the competition it entails, forged these nation-states into big alliances, and set them against one another. As a result of world capitalism, imperialism — the struggle for redistribution of power between capitalists — has become the necessary policy of every nation.  At the top of these armies of capitalist nations sits big capital, who directs it like a general, followed by the lieutenants of the middle and petit-bourgeoisie. It is therefore the innermost nature of capitalist competition which drives inter-imperialist war. Amidst cycles of expansion in investment, business, and crises of capital, this competition not only creates a regular pattern of destruction and trade wars, but also necessarily drives the dynamics of armed belligerence.

As they prepare for war and wage it, every state and every nation must intensify the exploitation and domination of the working class. This entails daily and future sacrifices, both on  the  military  front  and  in the rear, in the form of increasing existential insecurity and the murder of  enormous numbers of  workers  through military means. Through the work and discipline demanded of us, rising precariousness and daily alienation, our lives are taken away for the sake of capitalist profit. To accept this or look the other way is foolish and suicidal. 

For workers around the world, the conflict between these two blocs means only one thing: intensified exploitation at home and terror and death on the front lines. And all this while climate chaos and environmental degradation intensify, just like the arms race and its tactical and strategic nuclear manifestations, endangering the very existence of vital life processes on the planet.

This presents workers with a choice: either to compromise with the emerging inter-imperialist war, or confront it.

Both sides claim that workers must accept imposed sacrifices in the name of the national interest — that if they don’t march behind the captains of industry, they will be ruined along with them. But in truth, both sides only fight for the right to exploit a greater portion of the earth and, in turn, a greater portion of the working class. Sacrifice for the "national interests" merely stands for capitalist interests.

Therefore, it is the first duty of the worker who understands their class interest to oppose inter-imperialist war, and its ultimate cause: world capitalism.  We must oppose competition amongst workers with the international solidarity of the entire working class.

This means: no participation in any government or state institution; not cooperating or compromising with any nationalist, regardless of the nations they support, and regardless of their motivations for supporting them. And above all, organizing the global struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

Do not be deceived: we do not oppose war out of love for capitalist peace. For workers, the struggle against imperialist war can only be the struggle against the world capitalist system. Workers must wage their own war, a social war, against the capitalist system that forces us to wage war against one another. If we do not do so, we  condemn ourselves to remaining more and more exploited and controlled, more subjugated and beaten down, more disoriented and thus, more ripe for the slaughter.

Initially, our struggle will begin on the defensive. Sectors of the class and the population resist war through evasion of military service or desertion. It advances when workers fight through strikes and demonstrations against wage cuts, longer working hours, inflation, housing costs, and social security costs; it retreats when it is fragmented or dispersed, co-opted by political parties, trade unions, and social forces which attempt to employ it for their own ends. But the more that the struggle perseveres, expands, and overcomes these obstacles, the more the workers unite in  the struggle against the capitalists’ economic,  political,  and military measures — the more, in other words, each individual act of class struggle converges into mass action — the more necessary it becomes to direct the attack against the basis of world capitalism itself.

Our ultimate goal, toward which every instance of class struggle and mass action is merely an individual step, is the world revolution.

If this is not achieved, capitalism will lead us into more and more local and regional wars, and eventually, a Third World War. 

The choice is clear:

Either we suffer destruction and destitution, or we overthrow world capitalism!

Against the lie that it is “good and right to die one’s country,”¹ we say: 

Down with World Capitalism! Up with World Revolution!

- LAW (AN, MS, SS)

Around the world, various forms of proletarian resistance are emerging. Recent examples include those in India  (Noida, and the construction sector in particular) and that of the workers and employees of Samsung Electronics in South Korea, where, since April 23, there have been alternating episodes of strikes and demonstrations with periods of normal work and negotiations between unions and company management. 

After the South Korean government threatened to invoke emergency administration, it seems like state, employer and union discipline has successfully kept workers within the boundaries of capitalist normality. In this case, the orderly demonstrations of South Korean workers do not show their strength; rather, they show the degree to which Korean proletarians are still regimented by the trade unions and employers.

As we noted in the previous issue, these movements share common characteristics as well as specific ones.  The  dynamics of mounting pressures — accelerated by the war economy and the consequences of the war in Iran-Ormuz — continue to influence the emergence of these protest struggles. Now, the participants and others who have witnessed what has happened can consider the union issue. While many still dedicate their efforts towards unionism, what is readily apparent is that unionism only modulates workers' struggle in a way favorable to the reproduction of capitalism.   This is the common link among all the trade union sectors.  Therefore, the contradiction is as follows: the movement can either maintain the struggle, expand it, and exercise increasing self-control over it, or let the negotiators of the union apparatus take control.

In other mobilizations of working-class and white-collar sectors, in addition to the weight of labor and class divisions and the particular characteristics of companies and sectors, these same underlying patterns can be observed. In China, numerous but scattered demonstrations of protest and discontent are reported, as well as in Italy, the U.S., Canada, the UK, Spain, Argentina. There, we see union strikes and (on rare occasions) certain outbursts of social unrest that still fall within the framework of alternative/grassroots unionism. In many cases, corporate arrogance is so blatant — following years of neglect on the part of the working class — that conflicts arise only so that unions and employers can negotiate agreements; in others, the struggle goes further, rooted in degraded working conditions that no contract can possibly “fix.” Likewise, there is a phenomenon that the class is beginning to understand: inflation has rapidly negated increases, and employer and government agreements cut direct, indirect, and deferred wages (pensions, where they exist and for those who have them). On the other hand, precariousness is spreading further and further and affecting sectors that were once less affected by it, due to this existential insecurity of the workforce, which competes with others of its class to try to make a living.  There are  instances  of mobilizations  by sectors  of young, precarious workers, which do not follow the traditional  lines of democratic or trade unionism.

These are the harsh and complex realities of the class struggle, at a time when capital is compelled to accelerate militarism and the demand for more and more profits. We are not facing a revolutionary movement, but we do see a dynamism in the class struggle which has not been seen in years.

I. Korea

May 15th

 “Tens of thousands of Samsung workers, up to 37,000 according to initial estimates, gathered this Thursday, April 23, at the Pyeongtaek industrial complex (South Korea) for a massive day of protest ahead of the strike call, according to reports from the Korean press and international agencies. The mobilization, held at the world’s largest microchip plant, is a show of force against the management of the tech multinational amid a lack of agreement on reforming the compensation system. According to Phone Arena, the majority union has warned that, if its demands are not met, it will launch an 18-day total strike starting May 21, which threatens to destabilize the global technology supply chain amid an explosion in demand for artificial intelligence.

The union, which has tripled its membership since 2024 to over 90,000 members, representing two-thirds of Samsung’s workforce in the country,  demands center on removing the cap on performance bonuses, currently limited to 50% of base pay. The workers are demanding that 15% of the company’s operating profit be allocated to bonuses for the workforce, in addition to a 7% increase in base salaries. For its part, Samsung management has rejected these figures, offering a bonus plan based on 10% of profits and additional funds earmarked exclusively for the memory division—a counteroffer deemed insufficient by the workers’ representatives.

The conflict is exacerbated by the stark contrast with its main competitor, SK Hynix, which has already removed the bonus cap in a salary restructuring that has widened the income gap between the two workforces. Choi Seung-ho, leader of the main union at Samsung Electronics, has noted that the rapid growth of unionization reflects a demand for structural change, warning of the exodus of engineers to rivals such as Micron or Tesla due to the loss of purchasing power and the precarious nature of incentives at Samsung.”…” A prolonged and effective strike at Samsung’s plants would have immediate and lasting repercussions on the international semiconductor market, affecting device manufacturers worldwide.”¹

So far, there is no agreement between the unions and the company, and the Prime Minister steps in:

“The main union at South Korean chipmaker Samsung Electronics agreed on Saturday to resume negotiations with the company starting Monday, three days before the scheduled start of a strike that could cost the country’s economy billions of euros.

The union and company management agreed to resume talks after Samsung agreed to replace its chief negotiator, Kim Hyung-ro, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap.

The announcement comes after Samsung Electronics Executive Chairman Lee Jae-yong publicly apologized on Saturday for the concern caused by the company’s “internal” issues.

The negotiations are expected to be the parties’ last chance to avoid an 18-day strike that could involve tens of thousands of the company’s employees. 

(...) We are willing to engage in dialogue after June 7,” said union leader Choi Seung-ho, referring to the day after the scheduled end of the strike. “We intend to exercise the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution,” he stated, according to remarks reported by the Yonhap News Agency.

The day before, in what was seen as management’s last-ditch effort to avert the walkout, the company delivered a proposal via letter calling for “direct dialogue,” stating that it seeks “a mutually beneficial labor relationship” and noting that during recent talks “no agreement was reached.”²

We read further:

“South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min Seok has urged Samsung and the tech giant’s union to reach an agreement at the negotiating table as soon as possible to prevent a strike scheduled for the 21st, a protest that could have a very serious economic impact on the country and would lead the government to consider initiating ‘emergency arbitration to protect the economy.’”

..."According to South Korea’s official Yonhap news agency, management and the union remain far apart on the issue of performance bonuses tied to the company’s profits in the artificial intelligence (AI)-related semiconductor business.

The union is demanding that performance bonuses be fixed and amount to 15 percent of the operating profit generated by the semiconductor division. For its part, Samsung proposes introducing some flexibility into the current bonus scheme, supplemented by a system of additional compensation.”³

May 21st

For now, the strike has been called off.

"The strike at Samsung's Manufacturing Division has been postponed for now. Union leader Choi Seung-ho and Samsung representative Yeo Myung-koo signed an agreement halting the mobilizations. Minutes before it was set to begin this Thursday morning in South Korea, the strike involved 48,000 workers in the device division and was scheduled to last until June 7, potentially causing estimated losses of nearly $70 million for the company (...) According to the terms announced by the group on Thursday, wages will increase by an average of 6.2% overall, with additional benefits.

In particular, a special bonus fund will be established, equivalent to 10.5% of the profits from the flagship semiconductor division, with no maximum payment limit, but contingent upon meeting ambitious annual operating profit targets (...)Meanwhile, workers have until May 27 to vote on the Agreement on Incentives and Bonuses for Manufacturing Sector Workers.

Labor Minister Kim Young-hoon expressed gratitude for both parties’ willingness to continue negotiating.”’⁴

On May 21st, the union and the employers’ association shake hands, and now all that remains is to vote on the agreement, which, despite skepticism from the business sector, is praised by the government.

The strike deal, which has not yet been ratified, mainly benefits workers in the chip division. Other workers who are not so lucky to receive the agreed upon bonuses may vote to oppose the strike. Samsung workers in other countries such as India gain nothing. In short, this is a corporate labor movement in which a group of workers sought improvements — such as receiving company stock, housing subsidies, and higher wages — and succeeded. Bonuses are tied to performance. Reuters reports that the strike has been averted and calls it “a victory for both the company and the South Korean economy.”

Note from LAW: 

In point 14 of our fundamental positions, The Objective of the Proletarian Revolution, we stated: “The revolution does not consist in handing over wealth to the masses as private consumers, nor in the mere abolition of legal private property in the abstract. It is the collective appropriation by the working class, in the name of society, of the means of production, goods, and services, and the reorganization of social life beyond exchange value, profit, competition, wage labor, and state power. This implies production to meet social needs, conscious regulation by associated producers, and transitional measures to prevent the return of exploitation and class rule. The councils will continue the collective and mass management of production and distribution by the producers on the basis of working time. Once this management reaches a global scale, the definitive abolition of exchange value, wage labor, and, with it, classes and class society can be carried out.” Within the framework of such positions,  and of  communist  criticism  of the role  of the family and its  private  activities  in capitalist  society,  we offer this critique of the views of the Democratic Labor Time Initiative (IDA) regarding communist socialization and private activities.

I. The IDA’s Mistaken Notion of Communism

Recently, a debate arose between Hermann Lueer and  IDA  regarding  the  transition  to communism. Earlier this year, the IDA responded to the question of how domestic labor should be treated under communism, and proposed that after a communist revolution, domestic work should be compensated with social products.¹ On February 7th, Lueer responded with a critique of this proposal.² 

Lueer argued that without truly socializing domestic work (food production, community life, child-rearing, etc.), the allocation of social products for private work would create an imbalance between production and distribution.

Now, the IDA has offered a response to Lueer. There write that in fact, private labor is social labor:

“About eight weeks ago, Hermann Lueer published a critique of our text on the socialization of private reproductive work. His article, titled ‘Social vs. Private Reproductive Work,’ accuses us of reducing the Marxist calculation of labor time to absurdity. The starting point of this critique is our reflection on how private reproductive labor—especially in the realm of child-rearing, but also in domestic care and care in general—could be incorporated into the calculation of labor time… Our proposal was now to also recognize private reproductive labor as socially necessary labor, compensating it with vouchers, because de facto it is.”

The IDA accused Lueer of failing to recognize the important role of domestic labor in capitalist society. In doing so, they form part of the chorus of thinkers who claim that Marx (and by extension, Lueer) neglected the question of domestic labor. Before the IDA, there have been a whole host of bourgeois activists who have advocated that uncompensated household labor should be compensated.

For workers, the question of the reorganization of the household in a communist society is not an urgent concern. What is an urgent concern, however, is understanding how the  domestic economy relates to capitalism.

Should workers view the struggle against capitalism as something that will preserve the bourgeois family, but pay for with social products? 

We answer: no. Compensating private labor in a communist system would not only avoid addressing the issue of the double burden on families (on women, in particular) but in doing so, bring all the poverty of the bourgeois family into a communist society In a communist society, producers should have the freedom to work as much as they wish in the home, but it should be an option, not the norm, and should not be considered a social activity. 

Even if domestic labor were treated as a social activity and rewarded as such, and somehow it did not cause an imbalance in production and consumption, an even greater problem immediately arises: how would society account for how labor is actually spent in the home? When labor is performed in common, this is a non-issue. But if private labor is not measured, the products which each household receives will be unaccounted for, ie., rationed. The question then becomes: how could a household’s ration be determined? Such a ration will never actually correspond to the amount of private reproductive labor in each household. Therefore, remuneration either trends towards under or overcompensating private labor. In the first case, the system would not treat labor as “de facto social,” and in the second case the system would become a social burden. In this case, both issues stem from the same root: while in a truly socialist society, social product is accountable to the producers, introducing private remuneration creates a system which can never truly correspond to the conscious will of the producers themselves.

The IDA’s system thus hits two insurmountable contradictions: private labor doesn’t actually contribute to the pool of social products, and with an unmonitored system of remuneration, the system would fall into imbalances, resulting in either its functional obsolescence or total collapse.

Under capitalism, compensating private labor with social benefit is a non-issue, because the social product workers receive is merely a portion of what they produce, and adding extra product to their wage through social benefit does not threaten the generation of surplus-value. But under communism, where producers receive more or less what they give to society, minus what is necessary for means of production and works, there is no extra product which society could draw on to remunerate private labor. Whether the IDA realizes it or not, their conception of domestic labor ultimately derives from assumptions they take from capitalist society.

Returning to the first issue of LAW, we wrote there that “communist criticism must include private life without sentimentalizing it.” The IDA’s argument in favor of the social nature of private labor is, ultimately, moralistic. It comes from a bourgeois morality, which considers that the problem with private life is that it is also not paid for.

II. The Debate So Far

In its latest article, the IDA argues: “Our proposal was now to also recognize private reproductive labor as socially necessary labor, compensating it with vouchers, because in fact it is.”

While Hermann Lueer rightly maintains that these tasks and activities must be socialized, which is consistent with council communism and, in particular, with the GIC. Recognizing... is not the same as socializing. If it is not socialized, it remains private work or a private activity. This is what happens in many cases under capitalism. IDA attempts to apply the “reimbursement factor” (FIK) calculation method referred to by the GIC to this type of private, non-socialized work, and thus criticizes Hermann Lueer:

“But to suggest that extending the FIK to private reproductive labor would necessarily lead to opacity and a state economy is nothing more than a mere insinuation and a pseudoscientific argument.”

IDA is mistaken and fails to prove its claim. Lueer is right, and IDA labels his argument as pseudoscientific... in short, a colossal error on IDA’s part, just as when she claims that Marx did not address domestic labor, making a concession to the feminism that repeats this (just like the “communizers,” who repeat Silvia Federici’s fallacious nonsense against Marx’s supposed oversights).

IDA does not know what Marx and genuine communism represent, and shows no desire to investigate it. (2)

The GIC correctly argued:

“The process of growth of ‘distribution according to need’ operates within fixed limits and is a conscious act on the part of society, while the rate of this growth is determined primarily by the ‘level of development’ of the consumers. The faster they learn to manage the social product with moderation—that is, not to consume it unnecessarily—the faster distribution can be socialized.

For the calculation of total production, it matters little whether there are many or few public enterprises. As soon as an enterprise that previously allocated its product to individual consumption in exchange for labor-money becomes public, the total budget for public enterprises increases and that of ‘private’ enterprises is progressively reduced.” (Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution).

Therefore: all private activity that is today essential for the physical reproduction of workers must be transformed into social activity, and from then on be accounted for in calculating the average social labor time.

The IDA says: we agree, but then takes a turn and asserts that socialization is not necessary for remuneration:

 “One of Lueer’s arguments remains essentially correct: if private reproductive labor were remunerated, it would still be ‘de facto private,’ since it is not subject to any social planning, any collective organization, or any public control [how would it be measured then?] […], but at the same time it should be treated ‘as if it had the status of social production.’

It is true that private reproductive labor cannot be directly organized in the same way as corporate labor. That is why it is all the more urgent to clarify how socially necessary labor is carried out in the private sphere.”

The IDA insists that:

“In our opinion, the calculation of the working day is not an obstacle to the remuneration of private reproductive labor—regardless of the structure of the private sphere—but, on the contrary, can constitute an objective basis for integrating this aspect into the self-management of producers”

IDA is mistaken regarding what Hermann Lueer rightly argues; they say “yes: we agree,” but then resort to the idealistic and absurd demand to remunerate private activities that, in many cases, not even capital remunerates with a wage... In the case of domestic activities, we must socialize them and do away with the family structure — that is the fundamental point.