Concept of “Class for Self” and the Communist Party

March 2023  ​​Source: *Socialism Studies* , 2022, No. 6

Author: Zhang Youkui PhD in Philosophy and is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, Xiamen University.

[Abstract] The concept of ” class ” is a derivative of Hegelian philosophy proposed by Marx. It refers to the proletariat that, in the process of the full correctly understands class relations, organizes itself, and thus undertakes the historical task of eliminating classes and realizing human liberation. As a product of the full development and self-negotiation of class contradictions, the class for itself differs from ordinary classes in that its class interests are not economic rights stipulated by private property relations, but rather the realization of human liberation through the re-appropriation of the essence of human labor; its class consciousness is not the self-identification of its members with their social status, but a scientific theory of correctly understanding the essence of class relations; and the leadership of the Communist Party is not an external means for the proletariat to become a class for itself, but rather the highest symbol and internal constitution of the proletariat as a historical subject.

[Keywords] Marxism; class-for-itself; proletariat; Communist Party

Marxism is a scientific theory with a distinct class stance, and the concept of the “class-for-itself” is a crucial one in Marxism’s exposition of the historical mission of the proletariat. Its importance lies not only in placing the proletariat within the context of human development and assigning it a historical mission, but also in clarifying the intrinsic relationship between the Communist Party and the proletariat . “The immediate aim of the Communists is…to make the proletariat a class, to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie, and for the proletariat to seize power. “

Previous researchers have clearly defined this concept in their conclusions, pointing out the specific provisions of the “class-for-itself” in terms of historical mission, class consciousness, and party leadership. However, due to a lack of explanation of the dialectical connotation of the concept itself, the intrinsic connection between these aspects needs further clarification. This clarification is of great significance for correctly grasping the class nature of the proletarian movement.

I. The Historical Evolution of the Concept of “Class for Self”

As a concept derived from abstract categories, “class as a self” has its inherent dialectical logic on the one hand, and on the other hand, it contains the realistic orientation of Marx’s understanding of class struggle. Previous studies have often focused on the latter while neglecting the former. The process from Marx’s introduction of “class as a self” to Mao Zedong’s definition of the concept is also a process in which the concept unfolds itself in practice.

(I) The Formulation of the Concept: “For-the-self” and the Proletariat

To understand the ” self- for-the-class, ” one must understand “self-for-itself.” “Self-for-itself” is Hegel’s abstract category of the state of being in logic; it is the self-realization of being by transcending its own internal contradictions and grasping its own defining characteristics. Through self-connection and re-grasping of the defining characteristics of being, being becomes a self-for-itself that has realized its own essence. As the realization of the essence of being, self-for-itself is the re-grasping of external defining characteristics, which appear as contradictory oppositions, into being as being defined by the subject itself. This basic understanding of the concept of “self-for-itself” constitutes the logical connotation of “self-for-itself” in the self-for-the-class.

By adapting the concept of “for-itself,” Marx refers to the proletariat—those who, in their struggle, transcend the pursuit of wages and other labor rights, unite to wage political struggle, and pursue class interests— as “a class for-itself.” Based on whether they are “for-itself,” Marx divides the struggle between workers and capitalists into two stages. The first stage is when workers unite to wage wages and other labor rights in an economic struggle. Although workers, due to ” the rule …created equal status and common interests,” and united as a class for common interests, these interests are still merely ” the common interest of wages against the boss ,” not a class interest “more important than maintaining wages.” Therefore, although at this stage the workers have become a class in relation to capital, a link in this production relation, they are “not yet a class for-itself.” Only in the second stage, when the workers’ ” interests become class interests “—that is, when their understanding of interests transcends the individual’s wage interests as a link in production under the rule of capital, and they engage in class-to-class political struggle from the class standpoint of the proletariat as human beings—do the proletariat become a class for-itself.

Marx, based on the class interests of a class as a whole and the party organizations formed to realize those interests, divided wage laborers, who shared the same ownership of the means of production and labor relations, into two groups with different interests, thus creating two subjective aspects of organizational forms.

 These two aspects constitute the successive developmental stages of the class movement. To understand this dialectical unity between similarity and difference, it is necessary to understand Marx’s dialectical understanding of class relations. “Private property, as private property, as wealth, must maintain its own existence, and therefore must also maintain its opposite —the existence of the proletariat.” In this contradictory relationship, individual wage laborers are the objects of capital’s expropriation for accumulation, constituting the inherent link in maintaining this production relation. Within this relation, they realize their own definition as workers, and thus the struggle for wages becomes a spontaneous choice for their actions. Around this self-identification with their shared production position, wage laborers naturally form certain interest groups, namely, the spontaneous association of workers. From this specific historical perspective, capitalism, as a direct expropriation of labor, is both a negation of human beings themselves and a source of “spiritual and physical poverty” and “dehumanization” for the workers. To achieve a negation of this negation, the fundamental solution lies in eliminating the exploitative relationship between capital and labor in social production. Therefore, although workers’ unions differ from communist organizations, guided by correct theory, workers who initially united to protect wages inevitably deepened their understanding of the nature of their struggle and its relationship to themselves during the struggle process. Thus, under the guidance of correct theory, they evolved from labor unions fighting for wage interests into communist parties with the fundamental aim of eliminating private ownership.

(II) Understanding the Concept: From Class Consciousness to “Three Understandings”

After Marx, Lenin, in his practice of the workers’ movement, explained the dialectical relationship between the spontaneous movement of the proletariat as a class in itself and the conscious struggle of a class for itself, and proposed the “indoctrination theory” as a way for a class for itself to form; Mao Zedong, on the basis of Marxism, defined the concept of “class for itself”.

Regarding the relationship between the spontaneity and consciousness of the workers’ movement, Lenin deepened the understanding of the necessity for the proletariat to become a class for itself. Building upon the Marxist definition of the proletariat as “a social class ” Lenin pointed out that workers’ efforts to protect wages, on the one hand, reflected the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie arising from labor and capital; on the other hand, this economic struggle to protect wages, to a certain extent, played a role in consolidating capitalist relations of production.

Therefore, while the workers’ economic struggle ” can become the starting point for arousing class consciousness, developing trade union struggles, and spreading socialism, ” this spontaneity inevitably ” prepares the foundation for turning the workers’ movement .” To completely eliminate the ” irreconcilable antagonism between the workers and the entire modern political and social system ,” it is necessary to educate and organize workers into a proletariat for itself during their spontaneous economic struggle, thereby launching a class-to-class political struggle.

Regarding the question of how to awaken the consciousness of the working class, Lenin presented “indoctrination” as a concrete path for the proletariat to become a class of its own, explaining the intrinsic connection between the proletariat and its political organization.

In Marx’s historical context, due to the full exposure and increasing sharpness of class contradictions, it seemed that members of all social strata would naturally “recognize the condition of this class.” However, Lenin, in the concrete practice of the revolution, noted that conscious class struggle was “far more extensive and complex” than spontaneous workers’ movements , and that the intuitive experience of individual workers alone was insufficient to penetrate the full picture of this contradictory relationship within the capitalist relations of production. Therefore, the Party’s task was to “raise the workers to the level of social democratic political consciousness” through communists “using the initial political consciousness given to the workers by economic struggle.” As revolutionary education for the working-class proletariat based on real relations, external indoctrination thus acquired the intrinsic significance of subject-generating processes.

Mao Zedong clearly defined the concept of “class as a self,” pointing out that it refers to the proletariat, educated in Marxist scientific theory, who “understands the essence of capitalist society, the exploitative relations of social classes, and the historical tasks of the proletariat.” As the subject of cognition, the proletariat’s “three understandings” did not originate from individual proletarians’ summaries of intuitive experience, but rather from the theoretical education of proletarian elements organized into a political party. As a scientific theoretical understanding, this theoretical education ultimately stemmed from social practice under the conditions of capitalist relations, and from the specific production and life experiences of the proletariat within this practice. This understanding not only aligns with Mao Zedong’s epistemology of “discovering truth through practice, and verifying and developing truth through practice ,” but also inherits and develops Lenin ‘s views on proletarian consciousness and “indoctrination” based on Marx’s understanding of class relations. This transforms a dynamic historical process continuously generated within the revolutionary “practice-cognition-practice” cycle.

As can be seen from the process of concept formation and understanding, “class as a self” is not Marx flaunting the abstract concepts of Hegel’s dialectics, but a theoretical concept with practical significance. The historical task of human self-liberation, the emergence of class consciousness, and the leadership of the Party are three intrinsically linked parts that constitute the conceptual connotation of “class as a self . “

II. The proletariat as a class for itself is one whose historical task is the liberation of humankind  

In Marx ‘s theoretical interpretation, the proletariat, as a class-for-itself, undertakes the historical task of human liberation. “The historical mission of this class is to overthrow the capitalist mode of production and ultimately eliminate classes .”

This view of Marx embodies his scientific analysis of social reality. The class interests and stance of a class-for-itself are the result of the full development of class contradictions. Only from the class standpoint of the proletariat can a class-for-itself emerge, thereby realizing the historical task of the proletariat and human self-liberation.

(I) Human liberation is the result of the full development of class contradictions and the demand for their resolution.

A class for itself is a proletariat whose class interest is the liberation of human beings. Unlike ordinary classes that pursue their own specific interests, the class have universal significance. This universality can be inferred from Marx’s distinction between a class for itself and ordinary classes. “These people unite to form a class for itself. The interests they defend become the interests of the class. ” If this unity is merely a means , then this unity cannot be more important than protecting wages, and Marx would not have considered the “class for itself” as a class group essentially distinct from the working class, thus rendering the definition of a class for itself meaningless. Based on this transcendence of individual interests, Marx pointed out that the interest of a class for itself lies in achieving human liberation through the abolition of classes: “The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of all classes… In the course of its development, the working class will create an association that eliminates classes and class antagonisms to replace the old civil society . “

This shift from particular interests to universal interests is the inevitable result of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. In this contradictory movement, the class-for-itself constitutes the historical subject of human self-liberation. “What an individual is depends on the material conditions under which he or she produces…and production itself presupposes interaction between individuals. ” Real people are defined by material relations of production.

Class relations are the reflection of material production in the historical stage of private ownership in human relations. The contradictory movement of material production, on the one hand, makes people individuals constrained by class relations; on the other hand, this development constitutes “the history of the development of the individual’s own power” and the material conditions for human liberation. Capitalism is the mark of the maturity of these conditions for liberation because it exposes the essential contradictions of social relations within the fully developed contradictions of relations of production. This essential nature lies in the thoroughness of its development of the relations of production between man and his or her objects.

 “According to Marx’s theory, the essential characteristics of capitalism are twofold : (1) commodity production is the universal form of production… (2) not only do the products of labor have commodity forms, but labor itself, namely human labor power, also has commodity forms. “

 Labor, as “human self-generating action,” is the objectification of human essence in the objective world, while capital, as the accumulation of labor , is “human being-for-itself-generation within the scope of externalization or as externalized human being.” “Workers produce capital, capital produces workers, and thus workers produce themselves , and human being as workers, as commodities, is the product of this whole movement. “

Capital, as the thorough or complete development of private ownership, is both a great development of the socialization of production, constituting a great increase in human power at the overall level of human society; and a thorough manifestation of the private ownership relations of production that realize this development through the expropriation of labor. Accompanying this manifestation is the forging of the subject power of self-negation of contradiction, namely, the formation of ” a class that does not need to maintain any special class interests except against the ruling class .” In this great development of material production and the inherent contradiction of human being being negated in it , the proletariat, as a class-for-itself, becomes the historical subject of the further development of human society.

(II) Eliminating class relations and achieving human liberation is the historical task of classes as they are.

By examining the historical task of the proletariat in light of the concept of a “class for itself,” we can see that the logic of “oppression-anti-oppression” struggle between people is insufficient to explain the core content of the mission undertaken by the proletariat as a class for itself, as defined by Marx. “The antagonism between the proletariat and the propertied class, as long as it is not understood as the antagonism between labor and capital, remains an insignificant antagonism, an antagonism not understood in its active and internal relations. ” The fundamental historical task of the proletariat as a class for itself lies in the elimination of this class relationship and the liberation of humanity on the basis of this elimination.

The proletariat becoming a class for itself is the result of the full development of class contradictions and their demand for resolution. “For itself” is key to understanding this dialectical logic .

As the economic basis and material condition of class contradictions, the fundamental contradiction of capitalist relations of production lies in the inherent determination of labor as the realization of human essence and capital as an object of appropriation and expropriation of this realization. “And this determination, as a direct or existing determination, is quality ,” that is, the essence of things. In this reality, “human being,” as an abstract concept, is realized and determined as the concrete worker.

 “Capital,” on the one hand, as a negation of human being, constitutes the determination of human being within it; on the other hand, as the object of the externalized realization of human essential power, capital constitutes the real condition for human liberation .

Thus, although labor and capital are in an antagonistic relationship, capital, as the negative is not as external to and unrelated to the worker as laborers, as it appears. Rather, it is itself a relational construct of humanity in the production process, a product of human social practice. Therefore, the sublation of contradiction lies in subverting the externality between labor and capital as the product of labor, “making ‘the other’ an intrinsic organic component of ‘this,'” and allowing humanity’s “exchange, production, and the ways in which they engage in mutual relations to be once again under their own control.” This renewed grasp of the defining nature of its own object as a subject is existence-for-itself, and such class movement is the practice of the class-for-itself realizing its historical task. Through the abstract category of “for-itself,” Marx explained the real path to human liberation .

Therefore, the position of the proletariat as a class for itself is also the position of human liberation in class relations. Capital deprives both sides of the class of their social subjectivity as human beings ; the capitalist becomes “personified capital,” and the laborer becomes “personified labor time.”

Thus, in the wage labor relations of capitalist production, on the one hand, there is the opposition of the labor rights inherent in the production relations of capital—that is, the economic struggle over the appropriation of surplus value and the labor rights such as wages. This class contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working class is a manifestation of the inherent contradiction of the production relations. On the other hand, there is the interest of the proletariat as human beings—that is, the re-mastery of labor production, its essential objective activity, so that “under the conditions of a true community, each person obtains his/her freedom in and through his/her association.” When the production of things is no longer for the accumulation of capital but for the sake of people, people are liberated from their dependence on things.

Third, the class as a class is the proletariat that correctly understands class relations.

As existence evolves into existence for itself, the movement of the proletariat to become a class for itself is the movement of humanity returning to its self, and ultimately achieving self-liberation from class relations. From an epistemological perspective, this consciousness arises from class consciousness, that is, a scientific understanding of the essence of class relations. The class consciousness of a class for itself is not the subjective consciousness of class members, but a correct understanding reflecting the essence of class relations. It is a grasp of the essence of class contradictions, thus possessing both scientific and revolutionary qualities. The full development of class contradictions provides the material conditions for the emergence of class consciousness. Only in the historical stage of the emergence of the proletariat, and only when class members stand on the proletarian position, will class consciousness arise, making them the historical subjects of eliminating classes.

(i) Class consciousness as a class is a correct understanding of class relations.

As a correct understanding reflecting the essence of class relations, class consciousness arises as a result of the contradictory movement of production relations. Previous research has only explained the class consciousness of self-aware classes from the subjective level of awakening consciousness.

This treats the potential of self-aware classes as a reflection of certain individual interests at the political and ideological superstructure level, and further views specific phenomena such as the formation of nationwide and political organizational connections as “general requirements” of self-aware classes.

It places the construction of self- aware classes within a contingent context of specific interests in contemporary society, severing the necessary connection between the manifestations of the superstructure of self-aware classes and their material conditions. The historical mission and class interests of the proletariat originate from the contradictory relations of material production, and class consciousness is an active reflection of this historical condition. Only by starting from this specific condition that gives rise to class relations can we explain why class consciousness is a correct understanding of class relations.

The reason class consciousness is a correct reflection of class relations lies in its grasp of the contradictory nature of these relations; this nature is only revealed when the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production develops to its highest stage.

Consciousness can only be a consciously perceived existence at any given time, and people’s existence is their real-life process. As social consciousness, class consciousness is an objective reflection of a given social existence. At each historical stage of the development of class relations, different social groups will inevitably have different understandings due to their different class positions. However, since the nature of private ownership has not yet been revealed in its development, these understandings cannot correctly reflect this relationship; they merely constitute a stage in the development of class consciousness , reflecting the development of class contradictions in a specific time and space. “In its essence, it cannot have a very clear form, nor can it consciously influence historical events .”

Only when it develops to the capitalist stage of production in which the proletariat exists, due to the revelation of the nature of class relations, can a correct understanding of the nature of these relations—that is, class consciousness in its true sense—be generated.

The scientific nature of class consciousness lies in its grasp of the essence of class contradictions. Therefore, as a theoretical guide for resolving contradictions based on a correct understanding of contradictions, class consciousness is also revolutionary consciousness. Through the connotation of “reflection,” the concept of “class as a self” explains the dialectical unity of scientific and revolutionary aspects in class consciousness. “

For Marx, science means uncovering the essence hidden behind such phenomena. ” This essential understanding is the process of grasping one’s own defining characteristics in cognition, that is, the “reflection” of the knowing subject with itself as the object of cognition. “The self-connection in the essential stage is the form of identity or self-reflection. ” This is the subject’s self-connection to its own defining characteristics in cognition, that is, the cognition of being-for-itself as the subject. Specifically, for the class as a self, it is the proletariat’s self-cognition of its own objective defining characteristics as a class as a subject. The process of the emergence of class consciousness is also the process of the proletariat, as the subject of existence, developing towards being-for-itself. As a cognition of the essential defining characteristics of humanity in this historical stage, class consciousness possesses scientific nature.

As a correct understanding of the inherent contradiction between humanity and its own objective labor, this correct understanding is necessarily a “revolutionary science” that ” originates from historical movement and fully and consciously participates in historical movement .” As a grasp of its own essence and contradictions, this “reflection” cannot remain merely a description of this opposition, but must necessarily involve the resolution of the contradictions. Therefore, class consciousness develops from the scientific nature of cognition into a revolutionary nature in class action, becoming the theoretical guide for the proletariat to eliminate class relations.

( ii ) Only the proletariat can correctly understand class relations and become a class for itself.

As a social consciousness that accurately reflects class contradictions, class consciousness forms a dialectical interaction with its material relations: this understanding can only arise within these class relations, and the emergence of this understanding, in turn, constitutes the historical condition for the elimination of these relations. A class as a whole is both an objective product of these material development relations and a cognitive subject arising from these developments.

A correct understanding of class relations can only arise from the existence of the proletariat. Only in the capitalist relations of production— the “most developed and most diverse historical organization of production” of private property—can private property reveal its historical essence of developing itself through the appropriation of labor: the “production of surplus value” and the “sucking of surplus labor.”

 It is precisely in this thorough appropriation of abstract labor that an essential understanding of this relationship arises. “From this class arises the consciousness that a thorough revolution must be carried out, that is, the consciousness of communism; this consciousness can certainly also form in other classes , provided they recognize the condition of this class. ” The consciousness “arising from this class” does not refer to subjective consciousness arising from class members, but rather to the correct understanding of capitalist relations of production that has arisen within the proletariat. Only a ” perfectly clear understanding of the interrelationships between all classes in modern society ” constitutes “true class consciousness.” This links the subjectivity of class consciousness with the objectivity of its generation .

The emergence of class consciousness constitutes the objective conditions for the proletariat to become a class of its own, thereby eliminating class relations and realizing the historical development of humankind. “The existence of revolutionary thought in a given era presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class. ” In social relations , capital production, according to the definition of commodities , “produces people as beings dehumanized both spiritually and physically,” turning ” the majority of humanity into people completely ‘without property.'” A correct understanding of this existential definition constitutes the premise . Due to a comprehensive grasp of the antagonistic contradiction between labor and capital, this “thoroughly revolutionary consciousness” regarding the elimination of classes is also a correct understanding of class relations.

The process of the emergence of a class as a self is the process of elevating this understanding from the individual level to the historical subject level of the class, and making it the consciousness of “I” at this social level . This requires the education and organization of the Communist Party.

IV. The class as it is is the proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party.

Classical Marxist writers- Marx, Engels, Lenin- viewed the establishment of the Communist Party as the highest symbol of a class as a whole. However, based on their understanding of the class composition of its members, the relationship between the two was often seen as external, leading to a series of erroneous perceptions about the relationship between the Communist Party and the proletariat. In fact, the Communist Party, as the objective condition for overcoming class contradictions, is the intermediary through which the proletariat becomes a class as a whole; the leadership of the Party is an intrinsic component of the proletariat’s “becoming a class .”

From the perspective of the consciousness of a class as a whole, it is precisely the Communists, based on their grasp of the proletarian relations of production, who educated and organized the proletariat, making it the historical subject in the process of human social development.

( I ) The establishment of the Communist Party is the highest expression of a class for itself.

In the formulation of classical Marxist writers, a class-for-itself is the product of workers uniting due to their own consciousness, and the founding of the Communist Party is the highest . The “highest manifestation” of a class-for-itself is the establishment of revolutionary theory, the establishment of the proletarian party, that is, the Communist Party, the vanguard of the working class struggle. Marx proposed the concept of a “class-for-itself” in his discussion of workers uniting into a political party, stating that “the proletariat must unite as a class in the struggle against the bourgeoisie ,” and the ultimate result of this unity is the founding . Engels emphasized that for the proletariat to achieve revolutionary victory , “it must (Marx and I have maintained this position since 1847) form a special party, different from and opposed to all other parties, a conscious class party .”

Lenin emphasized that the Communist Party is the product of the combination of Marxist theory and the proletarian movement, the organized force and highest organizational form of the working class.

As the highest symbol of the proletariat’s conscious state of being a class-for-itself, the Party’s advanced nature relative to the general masses cannot be understood solely from the advanced nature of its individual members or its technical aspects such as organizational management, nor from the specific labor interests of individual members of the class masses. Instead, it should be analyzed from the perspective of the class contradictions inherent in the relations of production. Analyzing the Party solely from the perspective of its organizational or theoretical advancement easily overlooks the material conditions under which the Communist Party emerged as a proletarian political organization and a historical product, thus understanding the Party as a “messenger without a messiah” and falling into idealism in historical perspective.

Understanding the Party solely from the perspective of the labor interests of its members, in the context of constantly evolving division of labor, can only degenerate the understanding of the Party into a political organization of a certain interest group, thereby dissolving its historical content regarding human liberation and ultimately losing its advanced nature.

Therefore, only through analysis from the materialist conception of history of class movement can the Party’s advanced nature and the inevitability of its connection with the proletariat be correctly explained, and only then can the Communist Party be explained as the highest expression of the proletariat as a class-for-itself.

As a political superstructure, the Party’s advanced nature arises from the development of production relations and class contradictions that form the economic base . The historical legitimacy of the Communist Party’s leadership over the class movement lies in the fundamental resolution of the contradiction between humanity and its own objective nature. The principle that ” Communists always represent the interests of the movement as a whole ” is based on the Communist Party’s understanding of “the conditions, process, and general results of the proletarian movement.” Therefore , although Communist Party members often do not belong to the proletariat in terms of their class composition, the Communist Party is an integral part of the proletarian movement, guiding the proletariat as a class-for-itself to accomplish its historical tasks through its advanced theory and organization.

( II ) The leadership of the Party is an inherent component of the class as a whole.

From the perspective of the movement of the proletariat as a class for itself to recognize its own class interests and fulfill its historical mission, the leadership of the Party cannot be understood as an external means in the process of the proletariat becoming a class for itself; the Communist Party itself is an intrinsic component of the class for itself.

If we define the Communist Party as a political organization external to class relations based on the externality of its members’ class composition, then following Lenin’s theory of “indoctrination ” might mistakenly lead us to believe that the Communist Party is a product external to the workers’ movement. The view that “no one can refute the fact that the theoretical foundation of socialism must be laid by intellectuals, not factory workers; if this is what is meant by ‘external indoctrination,’ then there is no debate” ignores the intrinsic connection between the Communist Party as a class representative and the proletariat. This results in explanations of class-for-itself, while emphasizing the leadership role of the Communist Party, often limiting the understanding of class-for-itself to the proletarian masses under the dictates of capitalist relations. It discusses class in isolation, organization in isolation, failing to explain the necessary connection between the proletariat as a class-for-itself and the organizational leadership of its political representatives over the class.

The dialectical relationship between “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself” defines the internal composition of the Communist Party as a self-aware class from the perspective of abstract categories.

As a process of self-realization, the realization of self-aware existence is the process of re-establishing a connection between itself and the negation of its own inherent nature. The transformation of laborers into the proletariat is a result of the development of private ownership as a production relation to the stage of capitalist production; wage labor under capitalist conditions, as the objectification of human beings, is an external manifestation of human essence. This inevitable internal composition of the Communist Party as a self-aware proletariat lies in the fact that, as the advanced part of the proletarian movement, the Communist Party constitutes the “mediating form between theory and practice” of the movement.

The externality instilled is only the externality of Communists as individuals in terms of class composition, not their externality in terms of class position and relationship with workers.

Like the class it represents, the emergence of party organizations is also “rooted in modern economic relations… socialism and class struggle arise in parallel.”

On the one hand, the existence of the proletariat as a ” revolutionary class ” constitutes the premise for the “existence of revolutionary thought in a given era,” and class antagonism in the relations of production is the material basis for the Communist Party organization and Marxism as its guiding theory. On the other hand, “revolutionary theory” guides the “revolutionary movement,” and the Party organization, as the carrier of its guiding theory, guides the development of the revolutionary movement. This makes the process of the proletariat becoming a class of its own under the leadership of the Party a two-way shaping process: it is both a process of shaping wage laborers into cognitive subjects who correctly grasp class relations as a class of their own, and a process of reshaping the class stance of educators, making socialist and communist elements into Communist Party members. The path for the proletariat to become a class of its own is not the indoctrination of some kind of knowledge, but the actual movement of the class movement itself; it is not that the proletariat engages in class struggle after becoming a class of its own, but that the proletariat becomes a class of its own in the practice of class struggle. As an inherent component of a class of its own, the Communist Party itself is a result of the class movement, and it is because of its advanced understanding of the movement and its corresponding organizational advancement that the Communist Party becomes the leading core and inherent component of the proletariat.