Originally published in De Acero No. 1, Stage II, in March 2026.

ON THE 'POLITICAL SUBJECT' AND IDEOLOGICAL POSTMODERNISM

Ideological postmodernism has become the new reaction, the bourgeoisie's new way of squandering, from within the workers' movement, anything that could become revolutionary.

This fact, observable in any workers' organisation or even in organisations of a ‘social’ nature, seems to go unnoticed by many who call themselves revolutionaries. However, combating it is one of the most pressing tasks for drawing a clear line between those who support social transformation and those who are nothing more than unprincipled opportunists.

This new revisionism has attempted to reformulate all concepts linked to a scientific analysis of reality in order to replace them with feelings and dogmas of faith incapable of transforming anything.

One of the central pillars of this revision has been to create confusion around the so-called ‘political subject’, a concept we will address in this article, as it serves the spokespeople of postmodernism as a Trojan horse to undermine any semblance of an objective view of reality.

THE POLITICAL SUBJECT AND MARXISM

First, let's talk about the political subject itself. It is not uncommon to see many spokespeople of the new postmodern wave talk about things like ‘the new political subject of the left’ or ‘the transformation of the political subject’, giving this term a meaning that has nothing to do with reality.

But what exactly do they mean?

his concept can refer to very different realities, mainly depending on the perspective—scientific or otherwise—from which it is considered. In general terms, the political subject is usually defined as the social agent called upon to be the leading force in a specific political change or process—the group at which an ideology is aimed, with the intention of turning it into its main ‘bearer’ within society.

Depending on who uses it and for what purpose, it can refer to a group or an individual, to completely opposing groups; it can be linked to material conditions or limited to the realm of ‘ideas and feelings’.

We advocate a materialist view of things, linked to material reality and its laws. It is clear that the political subject will vary depending on specific objectives, the social position it occupies, and the historical role of the ideology that seeks to define it. Likewise, it will be crucial whether these currents of thought play a reactionary or progressive role in society.

Only a materialist, scientific perspective can address this issue, as Marxism and the theory of class struggle already did.

When Marx and Engels spoke of the working class as the class destined to bury capitalism, they were preceded by a precise analysis of the development of human history and a shrewd critique of all the futile attempts to explain human development based on “eternal and absolute ideas” (something largely revived by current postmodernism).

They discovered the determining character of class struggle in society, the importance of individuals' economic position in relation to the means of production, and their class affiliation, which determines their interests and revolutionary potential.

They defined the working class as the only social group capable, due to its material conditions, of carrying the struggle to bury the capitalist system to its ultimate consequences because of its antagonistic position with the bourgeoisie.

That is to say, due to its material conditions, in a system with increasingly acute contradictions, it had to be replaced by new social relations of production, those of socialism.

As we can see, his analysis was not based on any absurd sentimentality, nor on any "scale of oppressions" or an identity politics based on "self-perception" or "intersectionality". If we want to talk about a political subject, it is pointless to start from feelings or religious morality.

No one today disputes, for example, the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in the French Revolution, nor its reactionary role after the conquest of the state and the beginnings of the workers' movement. Even the most reactionary historiography cannot deny that it was the material conditions of this class that allowed it to lead this revolutionary process.

This was not the case for the peasantry, who, despite forming the social backbone of the liberal revolutions and suffering the worst effects of the Ancien Régime, along with other classes such as the emerging proletariat, could not fulfil this leading role in the early bourgeois-democratic revolutions.

It was the unfolding of history and the class struggle that would later change the course of events.

The bourgeoisie, who had promised heaven after achieving their dominant position, would not only continue to oppress these classes but would not even fully meet their demands, allying themselves with older elements of society in order to preserve their newly acquired privileges, thus exhausting their revolutionary potential.

The same applies to socialist revolutions.

What allowed the October Revolution, for example, to triumph? The hegemonic role of the working class, which became the political leader of the vast majority of the oppressed masses. The material conditions, both objective and subjective, of this class (which we will explain later) endowed it with the capacity to lead this process, which ultimately established socialism in Russia and abolished the exploitation of man by man.

All these experiences are nothing less than proof of the accuracy of the Marxist analysis of class struggle and social development.

But what does postmodernism propose in opposition to all this?

THE NEW POLITICAL SUBJECT OF POSTMODERNISM

Postmodernism seeks to separate the idea from matter, to reduce everything to the subjective, including the political subject. For them, all prior analysis is superfluous, “a thing of the past".

We have become accustomed to seeing spokespeople for this new ideology debate the existence of the working class and whether its existence is relevant to current politics.

A good example of this would be Podemos, which at its founding decided to bury anything related to class struggle, replacing it with the struggle of citizens against the "establishment". Over time, in order to adapt to the new postmodern wave, they ended up changing this contradiction and began to talk about the revolution of ethnic or sexual minorities, or of women in general.

In the logical development of their opportunism, they finally abandoned this idea as well, denying biological sex and the existence of the female sex, in accordance with queer theory.

As we can see, ideological postmodernism has gone a step further than classical social democracy. Although it does not (always) explicitly deny the capital-labour contradiction, which is the main one, it lumps it together with an infinite number of "equally important" contradictions, ensuring that none of them is decisive and that they clash with one another.

They frame all these “struggles”—whites against blacks, men against women, heterosexuals against homosexuals, old against young, etc.—with an antagonistic facade, an absurd framework in which any group can become that “political subject", in which there will always be the possibility that there is a more oppressed group onto which the main contradiction can be transferred, thus granting it an antagonistic role in relation to the rest of society.

The premise of "If you are proletarian, your enemy is the bourgeois” is followed by "If you are black, your enemy is the white person,” "If you are homosexual, your enemy is the heterosexual person,” "If you are vegan, your enemy is meat-eaters”… A full-blown free-for-all, with a clear reactionary undertone.

This confusion stems from a profoundly idealistic and individualistic vision, which, instead of focusing on material conditions, is based on the most absurd subjectivity, resulting in demobilisation and decline.

This leads us to a truly worrying scenario, in which the individual is "everything", and workers watch as all their historical gains crumble without any resistance.

Postmodernism has not only managed to erase the class struggle from the collective imagination but also the very idea that a social group can lead a revolution that changes things, since its revolution is “within each individual" and does not imply the transformation of anything.

When Antonio Maestre allows himself the luxury of saying that this leading role is now found in environmental movements and “non-trans-exclusionary” [1]feminism, or in a 10-year-old trans girl, it is because he does not see the real possibility of a revolution that would bury the current system.

Quite the contrary, he firmly believes that capitalism can and should be reformed to become a comfortable capitalism for all “oppressed” groups, something totally impossible.

THE REVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF THE WORKING CLASS

Postmodernity has replaced the collective with the individual, the material with the ideal, to bury any kind of revolution and keep everything the same.

But how do we know that the proletariat is still the group called to lead the revolution?

Let's see how Lenin precisely answered this question in "The State and Revolution":

The overthrow of bourgeois domination can only be carried out by the proletariat, as a special class whose economic conditions of existence prepare it for this overthrow and give it the means and strength to effect it. While the bourgeoisie divides and disperses the peasantry and all the petty-bourgeois strata, it unites and organizes the proletariat. Only the proletariat—by virtue of its economic role in large-scale production—is capable of leading all the working and exploited masses, whom the bourgeoisie frequently exploits, enslaves, and oppresses no less, if not more, than the proletarians themselves but who are incapable of fighting on their own to achieve their own liberation. [2].

As we see, Lenin doesn't speak of any scale of oppressions (if a postmodernist were to wake up in Tsarist Russia, they wouldn't have enough paper to list all the "oppressions"), nor does he start from the feelings or "self-perception" of any group. The first assertion stems from material reality.

Only the proletariat, increasingly cohesive in production—directly tied to it and increasingly impoverished, deprived of the wealth it creates—in contrast to the other classes in continuous disintegration, can become the political leader of all the working and exploited masses.

Even the most oppressed and enslaved classes or social groups must remain in the shadow of the proletariat, because they themselves lack the conditions to break free from their chains.

Do these conditions still exist? Is there another social group better positioned to lead a revolutionary process? Do the figures of the worker and the bourgeois even still exist?

If we understand that belonging to one class or another is determined by your position with respect to the means of production—that is, whether you own them or not—we can only affirm that today both classes form the economic and social backbone of any country.

The vestigial classes or groups of previous modes of production are integrated into everyday life, and in most advanced countries, they have already done so completely.

Today, the working class is the majority class worldwide; [3]it is the class that, even in this moment of social demobilisation, continues to demonstrate the capacity to organise and lead struggles around the globe.

The contradictions between classes continue to determine social and political life in every corner of the planet, and all attempts to erase this fundamental difference are revealed as mere fantasies when a crisis or national problem arises.

Are there layers between these two main classes? There are, for example, impoverished layers within the bourgeoisie, such as the petty bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, the financial oligarchy constitutes the most powerful stratum.

Likewise, there are more impoverished layers within the proletariat, such as the lumpenproletariat, or those with greater privileges, such as the labour aristocracy. Intermediate layers also end up in the ranks of one or the other main class in critical moments.

The idea that workers no longer exist because there are salaried employees who "earn a lot" or "like a bourgeois"—such as CEOs, although in the vast majority of cases they own shares in the company itself— [4]is absurd, since this elite represents a minority both in Spain and worldwide, compared to the majority of workers.

To illustrate, in an advanced country like ours, only a third of salaried workers earn more than twice the minimum wage, [5]and let's not forget the devastating effects of rising inflation in recent years.

Furthermore, as we saw during the crisis, and as a general trend, the increasing proportion of the population in salaried employment is a constant, [6]while the share of the self-employed in the workforce is steadily declining.

The proletariat is not only the class deprived of the very wealth it creates, but it also does not own the means of production. In other words, it has nothing to lose but its chains, unlike, for example, the petty bourgeoisie.

Moreover, it shares the workplace with other workers, from whom it learns the benefits of organisation, discipline, and hierarchy. No other social class shares these unique conditions of existence, which endow workers with a revolutionary capacity demonstrated in all the revolutionary experiences of the last century and also in the present day.

In Spain, it is true that the process of deindustrialisation has led to the disappearance of industrial plants where increasingly large numbers of workers were concentrated. These plants are now located either in the dominant countries within the EU (Germany or France) or, in most cases, in developing countries, such as India, Morocco, or even China, despite its particular development as a major power.

Industry does not disappear, nor does the industrial working class.

Moreover, although the working class may disperse into workplaces with fewer workers, it is a fact that all these workplaces are increasingly concentrated in the hands of the same companies, which decide the future of millions of workers worldwide.

Let's look at the Spanish case.

We are told that the blue-collar worker is already a myth, that the working class has lost its transformative capacity, and that this role must now be assumed by minorities, environmentalism, or feminism.

First, while it is true that the number of industrial workers in Spain has decreased, they have not ceased to exist, nor do they represent a minority compared to the "political subjects" proposed by progressives, groups that in many cases do not even reach 1% of the population. Furthermore, salaried workers in general represent the largest class in our country, whose numbers increase year after year.

Secondly, it would be absurd to claim that industrial workers have lost “all their transformative capacity", considering the dozens of conflicts led by organised workers defending their jobs that have made headlines in recent years, including the recent metalworkers' strike in Cadiz.

These workers remain an example of resistance, something we don't find in postmodern “struggles” sponsored by large corporations, which lack mobilisation and, even more so, confrontation with the state.

To analyse the transformative capacity of a group, shouldn't we look at these elements? Or is it enough that many people on Twitter use the same hashtag for a struggle to be considered significant in any way?

THE 'CONQUESTS' OF POSTMODERNISM

What has hegemonic feminism actually achieved by focusing on women in the abstract as the political subject and now even denying their existence? Has it in any way solved the inequality suffered by the vast majority of women, working women? Or has it legitimated capitalist exploitation under the guise of the empowered woman?

Has the struggle for minorities, for example, ethnic minorities, managed to solve the problems of immigration and integration in Spain? Or does it promote the fragmentation and division of workers based on their origin?

The history of the new postmodern political subject is the history of demobilisation, of abandoning the class struggle, and of a fraternal embrace with the ruling class.

Is it because the ruling class also includes women, racialised people, queer identities and people who recycle and don't eat meat that we must show solidarity with them?

The Spanish working class, despite the destruction of the labour movement and the demobilising role of Podemos and the major unions, continues to demonstrate its potential to be on the front lines of the struggle. Therefore, it is so necessary to recover not only the class perspective but also the revolutionary vision of the struggle, which postmodernism so desperately tries to distort.

If our goal is to achieve a different society, to bury this capitalist system that continues to place the burden of its failures on the shoulders of the workers, what path should we follow?

On the one hand, we find the postmodern proposal: individual performance, self-determination, relativising everything based on the most subjective viewpoint… a revolution “in our heads".

If we look back at history, or at the international level if you prefer, we will see that it is not possible to change things without organisation, without combativeness, without mass mobilisation, from strikes to political struggles for the seizure of power and, above all, without a strong leadership linked to the interests of the masses, that is, without the Communist Party.

What social class but the proletariat, producer of national wealth, knowledgeable about the benefits of organisation, discipline, and struggle, and increasingly numerous in Spain, will be able to lead the decisive struggles for change in our country?

---

CONCLUSION

It is true that some sectors today suffer the effects of capitalism more than the proletariat. The most visible example is the lumpenproletariat, a fragmented layer of people disconnected from production and marginalised in society.

Can this social stratum, fragmented and separated from economic and social life, undertake the task of becoming the political leader of the rest of the working masses? History and the current situation indicate quite the opposite.

It would be equally absurd to believe that the revolution in Spain will come from the most impoverished petty bourgeoisie, fearful of losing the few means of production they possess and whose members relate to each other through competition and fragmentation.

Let's not even talk about minority groups, which don't even represent 1% of the population, or those composed of members of the ruling class, who above all seek maximum profit.

Only the working class objectively presents optimal conditions to fulfil that role, regardless of trends and political correctness. The cult of the lumpenproletariat and minorities to which progressives have accustomed us is nothing more than a new way of concealing and distorting the class struggle.

The revolution of minorities or the individual is a preposterous notion more related to the pursuit of votes and the survival of a weak electoral left than to genuine transformative prospects.

Furthermore, this effort to atomise the political subject serves to make us all "good and bad", ultimately justifying the most complacent and comfortable reformism for the bourgeoisie.

Now, fighting for socialism is no longer "so important"—in fact, it's even reactionary, because it ignores the countless oppressions invented by these self-proclaimed theorists.

The class struggle remains the principal struggle today, encompassing a series of legitimate struggles with transformative potential that must serve the revolution, not be pitted against each other for the benefit of postmodernism and capitalism.

There are partial struggles that do have revolutionary potential. There are groups and minorities with legitimate demands that coincide with the proletariat's interest in burying capitalism.

But only the hegemony of the proletariat can guarantee that these struggles serve something beyond themselves and discard the reactionary and postmodern elements that infect everything that could once have been revolutionary.

Without a strong workers' organisation, capable of integrating these struggles and standing up to the dictatorship of political correctness, there can be no talk of revolution in Spain.

Without an organised working class, there is no guarantee of a future.

---

REFERENCES

[1] Antonio Maestre, «El sujeto político revolucionario es una niña trans», El Diario, 4 de julio de 2020. Disponible en: https://www.eldiario.es/opinion/zona-critica/sujeto-politico-revolucionario-nina-trans_129_6081601.html.

[2] Vladimir Ilich Lenin, El Estado y la revolución. Universidad Obrera, 2020. Disponible en: https://universidadobrerablog.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/el-estado-y-la-revolucic3b3n.pdf.

[3] Banco Mundial, «Trabajadores asalariados (empleados), total (% del empleo total)», 1991-2019. Disponible en: https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/SL.EMP.WORK.ZS.

[4] Ignacio Garay, «¿Qué participación tienen en sus propias empresas los altos ejecutivos del Ibex?», Finect, 30 de julio de 2018. Disponible en: https://www.finect.com/usuario/Chirene97/articulos/que-participacion-empresas-altos-ejecutivos-ibex.

[5] Redacción, «Los trabajadores que más cobran en España: 3.152,5 euros brutos al mes», Las Provincias, 1 de diciembre de 2021. Disponible en: https://www.lasprovincias.es/economia/salario-medio-espana-20211201095607-nt.html.

[6] INE, «Tasas de salarización por sexo y rama de actividad», 2008-2021. Madrid. Disponible en: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=4203&L=0.