WORKERS OF GERMANY
The Marxist analysis is rooted in the idea of class struggle and the dependency of individuals on their roles and positions in production. To understand how these principles manifest in modern life, we interviewed three workers from Germany, each holding different political views. But first, let's consider the context of the country itself.
Germany is the largest economy in the European Union, with a population of approximately 84 million people and an average life expectancy of 81 years. Its economy includes a strong industrial base and a significant service sector.
However, despite its economic stability, the country faces serious challenges. An economic downturn and recession have left 2.8 million people unemployed, accounting for 6% of the population. The automotive industry crisis, driven by competition with China, is leading to job cuts and factory closures. The demographic crisis is intensifying: by 2050, the proportion of elderly people will reach one-third of the population, and the working-age population is expected to shrink by 23%. The increasing number of migrants (3.48 million refugees, with about 30% of the population having a migrant background) is accompanied by a rise in crime and social tensions, fueling the popularity of right-wing nationalist parties such as the AfD and Die Heimat.
So, we spoke with three workers of differing views to explore how German economic realities are affecting their lives.
19-Year-Old Carpenter, Conservative
Our first interviewee is a young German man from a town in Lower Saxony. He combines his work as a carpenter and studies in this field with part-time work as a security guard. Identifying himself as a conservative, he is tolerant of the capitalist system, seeing in it an opportunity for a stable life. However, his main income does not cover all his expenses, and having an extra job has become a norm for him. He started working as a paperboy at 15 and became a security guard at 16, earning €13 per hour. Currently, he works as a carpenter four days a week for 8 hours a day and works as a security guard on weekends.
Working as a carpenter in a small company with a predominantly male team of 20-25 people, he notes that most of his colleagues have right-wing conservative views. The workers are mostly Germans, with the exception of one Ukrainian employee. The workers discuss religion and politics, but only superficially. Most of his colleagues call themselves Christians, but according to his words, they are mostly agnostics. His duties include installing doors, windows, laying floors, and other physically demanding tasks. While safety protocols are followed, working outdoors in winter and exposure to dust create health risks. According to him, the profession is tough: many leave it by the age of 50-55 due to joint problems and general negative impact on their health.
32-Year-Old Deliverer, Anarchist
The second interviewee lives in the capital of Germany and combines his work as a deliverer with a Master's degree in paleontology. He defines his views as anarcho-communist, believing in the necessity of decentralizing power and collective management. Before his current job, he worked in subway tunnel cleaning, delivered food, and did various jobs through a student portal. Now, he earns €15 per hour delivering laundry for laundromats, wine for restaurants, and other goods on electric cargo bikes. His workweek consists of 10-15 hours, sometimes up to 20 hours. Weather conditions, especially in winter or when it rains, also sometimes cause difficulties. The team consists of 10 people aged 16 to 30, including the boss, who also does deliveries.
Unlike the previous worker, this one notes that most of his colleagues, including the boss, hold left-wing views, ranging from socialist to left radical. However, political discussions are rare because in reality deliverers have few opportunities for close interaction among each other.
39-Year-Old Social Worker from Ukraine, Communist
The third participant is a migrant from Ukraine, for some time he also lived in Russia, and has now been living in Germany for over five years, in a village in Baden-Württemberg. His professional journey includes teaching history, working as a parquet installer, security guard, shop assistant, and even a casino dealer. After moving to Germany, he worked in a logistics center and completed voluntary federal service.
He is currently a social worker, training to be a social pedagogue. He works with teenagers coming from dysfunctional families aged 11 to 18, combining this role with a dual study program where study hours are included in working hours. His duties involve helping teenagers with their daily life issues, paperwork, organizing leisure activities, and controlling their behavior.
His workweek is 40 hours, some of which are dedicated to studying. His colleagues are people of various religious and political views. There is no religious discrimination observed. For example, one colleague is a deeply religious Christian, and among the teenagers in the group, there are many Muslims, mostly from Afghanistan and Syria. As an example of respect for religious views, meal preparation takes into account everyone’s needs: meat dishes are always offered in "halal" versions, as well as with pork. Politics are discussed from time to time, with topics including migration and Germany's historical past, such as life in the GDR and FRG. Colleagues have very diverse views, including even far-right ones.
Prices and Salaries
It is worth noting that the minimum monthly cost of living in Germany for a single person is €966. The social support system allows individuals to file annual income and expense declarations, receiving tax refunds or additional assistance when necessary. To better understand the situation in this country, here are the prices of goods in Germany in typical supermarkets:
Food makes up a significant portion of expenses. For example, bread can cost around €1 (500 g), a dozen eggs are €2, and meat such as chicken (300 g) costs €5. Fish products vary: 100 g of salmon costs €2.80, and shrimp are €2. Vegetables are also notably priced, with potatoes at €3 per kilogram and carrots reaching €5.50. Fruits such as clementines cost €3 per kilogram, and grapes are €4. The cheapest cheese ranges from €0.85 to €3.39. Milk (1 L) is €1, juice is €2.50, and coffee (200 g) is €11.
Transportation and the internet are also major expense categories. The Deutschland-Ticket, allowing access to public transport across the country, costs €50 per month. Gasoline is about €1.70 per liter. Internet in Germany is relatively expensive and not particularly high-quality, starting at €15 for 20 GB (without unlimited access to social media), while unlimited mobile data can cost up to €80. Streaming platforms such as Netflix and Spotify range from €5 to €20.
Germany is also one of the countries with high taxation. Income tax ranges from 14% to 45%. Health insurance is between 7% and 15%, pension contributions are 18.6%, and unemployment insurance is 2.6%. Additionally, there is a mandatory radio tax of €18.36 per month, and church tax, if one belongs to a denomination, amounts to 8-9%.
The carpenter trainee earns €700 from his main job and an additional €480 from security guard shifts. After completing his training, his salary from his main job will increase to €2,000. His main expenses include renting a room in a shared apartment for €425, food costing €250–350 per month, a Deutschland-Ticket subscription for €50, mobile data for €15, and Netflix for €5. His health insurance is still covered by a family plan, significantly reducing his monthly expenses.
The anarchist master’s student, who combines delivery work with studying, earns about €1,000 per month. He pays €300 per semester for his studies, which already includes Deutschland-Ticket. His main expenses are rent with utilities and internet for €450, health insurance for €70, and food for €250. He spends €50 on clothing and laundry and €100–150 on entertainment each month.
After completing his three-year training, the starting salary for a social pedagogue will be €1,800 net (€2,800 gross), but for now, he earns €1,200 during his training. Gaining professional experience, in 10 years his salary can reach €4,000. Currently, he rents an apartment for €500, pays €100 for utilities, and purchases Deutschland-Ticket for €50.
Labour Unions and Strikes
Conservative: "They just want to work less and earn more."
The young carpenter mentioned that in his field, labour unions like Gewerkschaft help improve working conditions and increase wages. However, he has not encountered strikes among carpenters, though he has heard of similar actions in the transport sector, particularly among bus and train drivers.
When asked about worker self-organization, he believes it's unlikely to be effective in his field. The main issues like stress and measurement errors cannot be solved in this way. Nevertheless, he thinks strikes can be successful in general. For instance, he recalls cases in Germany where workers managed to reduce working hours and secure pay raises. However, such actions require persistence; for example, prolonged strikes in the transport sector led to better conditions but caused significant inconvenience for passengers, such as constant train delays.
He views strikes with some skepticism, suggesting they often reflect workers' desire to work less while earning more. Although this statement was made with a touch of irony, it reflects a reality: workers indeed organize strikes to shorten working hours and increase payment — those are their natural economic interests. If they do not defend their rights and push for better conditions, employers who are focused on maximizing profits could worsen working conditions to extremes. In such a scenario, workers risk becoming mere tools of production, receiving only enough to sustain their labor capacity as long as it remains valid on the market.
Anarchist: "They want to ban strikes so workers can’t defend themselves."
The anarchist also shared his thoughts on the state of labour unions and strikes in Germany. According to him, Germany has associations such as Verband Mittelständischer Unternehmen and Verband der Automobilindustrie, which protect the interests of medium-sized businesses and large corporations. These organizations actively oppose strikes, especially when they threaten established market structures. For example, the automobile association is actively lobbying traditional car use, resisting any changes in mobility approach.
He noted that liberal and conservative parties seek to introduce laws banning strikes in key sectors, such as railway companies, arguing these industries are vital to society, making strikes unacceptable. However, he believes this is not about caring for citizens but about restricting workers' rights. At the same time, no measures to improve workers' status — such as granting benefits or increasing pensions — are proposed. Instead, legislation is becoming stricter, depriving workers of their ability to defend their interests.
He also mentioned that politically motivated strikes are prohibited in Germany, creating additional pressure on workers. People cannot protest against government decisions, and any attempts at political action may result in sanctions. Additionally, he recalled that many communist and anarchist labour unions were banned in the past, making them practically non-existent today. Most existing labour unions are supported by social democrats or even right-wing organizations.
In Germany, workers often struggle to convey their demands to management, especially in large international companies. Such corporations actively interfere with employees' attempts to organize collective actions or create Betriebsrat (works councils), which are legally required for companies of a certain size. However, employers often hinder their formation through intimidation and firing activists, creating an atmosphere of fear that prevents workers from fighting for their rights and better working conditions.
Speaking about his field, the anarchist mentioned a Delivery labour union that gained visibility after cases of migrant exploitation were exposed in companies like Lieferando and Gorilla. Workers began organizing to fight for better working conditions but faced resistance. Many were fired, and some companies, unable to withstand the pressure, went bankrupt or left the market. Although strikes in this sector were once frequent, they are now rare.
He recalled protests lasting several months, where workers blocked logistics centers to halt deliveries, demanding higher wages and improved conditions. The primary cause of these strikes was the inability to live on current wages, especially given rising housing costs. Migrants are particularly vulnerable since their residency status depends on employment contracts. Employers exploited this by forcing them to work more for the same pay. Despite this, the results of the protests were controversial. Some companies raised wages, improved uniforms, or reduced physical workloads, but many promises have not been fulfilled.
Regarding support for other strikes, the anarchist noted that workers in his profession often sympathize with actions in other fields, such as healthcare, education, and childcare. Personally, he is cautious with participation in labour unions or strikes, thinking it’s important to consider their goals and available support. He is willing to support such actions in his free time but recognizes that participation may lead to financial difficulties.
Communist: "Resistance attempts are often suppressed."
The social worker shared his experiences and views on labour unions and strikes in Germany, mentioning intermediary firms known as "Zeit-firms" (Zeit-Personal International GmbH). These companies act as intermediaries between large corporations and workers. For instance, some certain company does not hire employees directly but collaborates with an intermediary firm that pays workers, let’s say, €12.50 per hour, keeping a significant margin from the funds allocated by the corporation. The main goal of such intermediaries is to prevent workers from being hired directly by corporations, keeping them dependent on temporary contracts.
He emphasized that “Zeit-firms” have effectively gained government support. Moreover, these companies often circumvent labor laws, creating conditions that leave workers vulnerable. The social worker admitted he had personally encountered such practices and stressed the critical need for labour unions in such cases.
He also mentioned logistics centers, where the system is designed to suppress any labour union activity. One lawyer who attempted to organize a union was quickly fired, along with those who had contact with him. This system of fear and control deprives workers of the opportunity to fight for their rights, despite obvious issues in working conditions.
At the same time, he noted that labour unions in Germany still have some influence, especially such large organizations like Verdi and IG Metall. These groups can organize massive strikes involving hundreds of thousands of participants, achieving reduced working hours, higher wages, and better conditions.
When asked about his willingness to engage in labour unions, he responded that it seems unlikely in his field. Employers pay exactly what is legally required and do not aim to extract direct profits, making it challenging to identify a clear "enemy" to fight against. However, he stressed that in logistics centers and other sectors where exploitation is more overt, labour unions are highly necessary.
Class consciousness and Common Interests
The question about with which social groups they share the most and the least common interests shows a general trend: their sympathies primarily lie with wage workers with similar economic conditions.
The carpenter acknowledges that his interests are closest to those of industrial workers and service sector employees. He understands that they all face similar economic circumstances and challenges. In his view, the owners of large companies share the least in common with his interests, as their primary goal is maintaining their privileged position within the existing system. However, he emphasizes that his views are not aimed at changing the system itself.
The deliverer also believes that he has no shared interests with the owners of large companies. As an anarchist, he naturally holds a negative view of the police and the military. He feels the closest connection with employees in the service sector because their work situation is similar to his own. At the same time, he notes that in real life, he has little contact with industrial workers.
The social worker approaches this question from the perspective of class struggle. For him, it does not matter whether people work in the service sector or in manufacturing — they all belong to the same class of wage workers. He believes that dividing the labour market into segments is of secondary importance, as the problems and challenges workers face in different industries are essentially the same. They are all proletarians forced to fight for their rights under economic pressure.
Attitude Toward Wars
We asked workers about their attitudes toward modern wars. The carpenter views wars as an evil to be avoided, preferring conflicts to be resolved peacefully. In his opinion, the primary beneficiaries of wars are the arms industry and large businesses that profit from military conflicts.
The deliverer shares this perspective, emphasizing that wars serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy, not ordinary people. He believes that workers should not be forced to participate in wars against their will but recognizes revolutionary struggles as progressive if their goals align with communist or anarchist ideals.
The social worker, being Ukrainian, responded that war is not in his interest. It is a tool of the ruling class in capitalist countries, used to consolidate the power of elites and generate profit. All three agree that wars benefit only a narrow circle of people, while it is predominantly the working class that suffers.
Does the German Government represent Interests of the Majority?
All three interviewees express skepticism about whether the government truly represents the interests of the majority, though their perspectives are rooted in different arguments.
The carpenter states: "In principle, our government is elected democratically, but their actions often don’t meet the expectations of ordinary people."
The deliverer takes a more critical stance: "Most government representatives are careerists who usually all come from the same organizations or political parties. Many of them come from privileged families, sometimes even dynasties. Very few have migrant backgrounds or have faced the kinds of hardships familiar to ordinary people."
The social worker views elections from a communist perspective. From a Marxist standpoint, bourgeois democracy primarily serves the interests of capitalists. Elections take place in conditions where economic and ideological power is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which limits the working class's real ability to influence politics. Moreover, Marxists emphasize that true democracy is only possible with the active participation of the working class in directly managing production and the state — something bourgeois elections cannot provide. As Lenin wrote: "To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class will oppress and crush the people in parliament — that is the true essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies but also in the most democratic republics."
How Can Workers’ Lives Be Improved?
The carpenter acknowledges that improving workers' lives is a goal shared by many. He points out that politicians often promise higher wages and shorter working hours, but he sees no real solutions being implemented. "How exactly can this be done? If I knew the answer, I’d probably become a politician or someone with great ideas. But honestly, I don’t know how to make it happen."
The deliverer believes that the key to improving workers’ lives lies in active struggle, especially through strikes. He highlights the fragility of the modern economy, where logistics play a crucial role. In his view, the most vulnerable link is transportation: blocking ports or trade routes can cause significant damage to the economy, allowing workers to dictate their terms. He also mentions the importance of digitalization and suggests that even a temporary shutdown of stock markets could significantly impact the system. The deliverer emphasizes organized action targeting key structures of the capitalist economy.
The social worker ties improving working conditions to organized struggle, particularly through unions. He uses Germany as an example, where there are strong labour unions that manage to achieve shorter working hours and higher wages through mass strikes. The government improves working and living conditions not on its own initiative, but under pressure from the masses. Thus, he emphasizes the need for collective efforts and organized resistance.
From a Marxist perspective, improving workers’ lives within the capitalist system is only possible to a limited extent, as its foundation lies in the exploitation of labour for profit. In the short term, workers can indeed improve their conditions through collective struggle. Unions, mass strikes, and other forms of resistance enable gains such as wage increases, reduced working hours, and better working conditions. Political struggle is also important, including the formation of workers' parties that represent proletarian interests in government and the fight for social reforms.
However, such measures only temporarily mitigate exploitation without addressing its root causes. Moreover, these methods are effective only under specific conditions and not universally applicable in every situation or country. True improvement in workers’ lives is possible only through a fundamental transformation of society, which, in turn, requires the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
Collective Ownership of Means of Production
In light of this, we asked our interviewees how they would feel about factories being transferred to collective ownership under the control of the working class. The carpenter expressed doubt about the idea: "It sounds strange and completely unfamiliar. I can’t imagine how people would react to such changes, especially if it happened suddenly, like overnight. I don’t know how this would affect society."
This skepticism is understandable, particularly among workers raised and living within a capitalist system, where private ownership is perceived as the natural foundation of economic and social life. However, Marxism argues that such views change under the influence of historical circumstances. When society faces a severe economic and political crisis, established ideological norms begin to break down, and the masses start seeking fundamental solutions to social problems.
In the absence of a strong labor movement and widespread propaganda by a communist party, it is unrealistic to expect workers to independently recognize the necessity of collective ownership. The priority for most workers in such conditions is the struggle for immediate improvements in their conditions and legislative reforms. These are the nearest and most comprehensible goals within their everyday experience.
Marxism, however, emphasizes that the ultimate goal of the workers’ movement should be the realization of the necessity of revolutionary transformation of society. Only through active propaganda and worker organization can they be prepared to understand and fight for the collective ownership of large enterprises as one of the key steps toward building a socialist society. This process cannot be instant; it requires time, struggle, and the formation of a new social consciousness capable of overcoming the limitations of capitalist ideology. But even now, there are individuals among ordinary workers who recognize the need for a fundamental transformation of the production system.
The anarchist advocates for a decentralized society based on a network of autonomous communities cooperating with one another. "Production," he explains, "should aim to meet people’s needs. At the same time, it must respect the environment, avoid exploiting it, take only what is truly necessary, and restore what was taken. For example, if you use wood, you should plant more trees than you cut down. The economy should be decentralized: each community can be autonomous but cooperate with others to exchange resources. Some communities may choose a modest lifestyle, while others may opt for a higher level of comfort, but they can coexist while respecting nature and one another."
We, as communists, thought it’s important to clarify his view on the question of ownership: Should every enterprise belong to the workers of this particular enterprise or to society as a whole? His response revealed that his position is rooted in the idea of aligning productive capacities with societal interests: "I believe an enterprise should always serve society. People shouldn’t own what they don’t personally need. For example, factories are meant for production, but their owner should be the society. At the initial stage, this might be difficult to implement, so the enterprise could belong to the collective. Here, anarchists and communists share a similar view: collectives can take control of production to deliver its fruits to the people rather than corporations. This implies that collectives within a single enterprise will cooperate with others, exchanging necessary resources — all this without bosses, so people can manage production independently."
We cannot help but note that his views have considerable similarities to our own, especially in that he aspires to an ideal where production serves society and people are free from exploitation and oppression. Nevertheless, a key question arises: how can this ideal be realized in the modern world?
Today, considering technological progress, even producing something as simple as bread requires the labor of millions — from mining coal and ore to smelting metal, building machinery, and using it to plow fields and bake bread. This complex societal labor process includes every detail of production and requires coordination, distribution, and accounting for efforts on a societal scale.
The anarchist idea of autonomous communities, as appealing as it may seem, confronts the objective necessity of labor integration across the entire economy. Without unified planning and collective ownership of the means of production, it becomes impossible to effectively account for the interests of all participants and direct resources to meet society’s needs as a whole.
Thus, it becomes evident: either the ideal of autonomous communities will clash with the realities of economic laws, or there will arise the realization of the need to unify all means of production within a single framework of ownership, consciously managed according to the plan. Only such an approach can ensure true equality and freedom for all workers.
Involving All Able-Bodied Individuals in Productive Labor
Another question we always find interesting to ask our interviewees is: How would you feel about all able-bodied people being involved in productive labor? For example, working 10 days a month in production and spending the other 20 days on science, art, education, or management?
The carpenter believes that: "This would be completely inefficient. People have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, if someone isn’t interested in science or art, why force them to engage in it? The same goes for physical work: if someone wants to work at a computer or analyze data, it’s better to let them excel in their field. I think interest and engagement in a chosen subject are key to becoming good at it. For instance, if you put an ordinary worker who fixes windows into a science or art class, they’ll be completely out of place. Mixing everyone and treating them the same way won’t allow people to develop their unique strengths in areas where they are actually good. It’s extremely unproductive."
The deliverer, in contrast, is more sympathetic to the idea, although he sees certain challenges: "Not everyone might like the idea of having to work a set number of hours. I support the idea that everyone should contribute to society, but people have different levels of energy and capacity for labor. Some people just won’t be able to do it." He adds: "If we’re talking about all able-bodied people, then the question becomes, who decides who is able-bodied and who isn’t? But, in theory, I like the idea that everyone contributes something to society and gets something in return."
The social worker also supports the idea but, like the carpenter, touches on the topic of productivity: "Overall, I think it’s not a bad idea, but it needs to be done smartly so that efficiency doesn’t suffer too much. There’s a theory that it takes 10,000 hours for someone to become truly proficient in a skill. I don’t know how accurate that is, but there’s probably some truth to it: you need a certain amount of repetition or experience to do something well." He adds: "From that perspective, if I start doing something I’m not very good at but it’s necessary for society to function properly — and everyone understands in whose interests we’re moving forward —then it needs to be organized wisely. Everything must be carefully planned to ensure it works efficiently while fulfilling its social function, and not carried out in a sloppy manner."
We also asked each interviewee what job they would like to do and what hobbies they would pursue if they had enough time and resources. Their answers were not only interesting but also directly tied to their earlier thoughts on the distribution of labour and time for personal development.
The deliverer expressed a desire to change jobs several times over his life because he values well-rounded development: "I think I’d probably change jobs a few times because I’m the kind of person who doesn’t like doing the same thing all their life. I appreciate being more diverse in my abilities, getting education in different fields, and coming back to something when I feel ready. Maybe I’d switch tasks at work. I also like the idea of giving people broad education and, for example, having managers spend hours in the production sector. It would help them understand the challenges workers face, develop more empathy, and better understand how to support employees and improve communication. It would also reduce hierarchies to some extent. Of course, there are people who genuinely love their specialization, but even they should try something new. I think people aren’t meant to stick to just one field for their entire life."
For hobbies, the deliverer would choose crafts involving natural materials: "I’m very interested in working with natural materials. I’d probably spend time creating things from natural materials and trying to replace synthetic ones. Some synthetic materials require a lot of energy to produce, whereas we could use renewable natural resources. Some resources are non-renewable, but others can be used continually if replenished."
Interestingly, the carpenter also does not see the need to work as a carpenter for his entire life, showing the contradiction in his views: "Honestly, I want to change jobs because of the income level. I don’t plan to be a carpenter forever because I think I can find a job I like and make more money. I’d really like to do something related to theology or philosophy."
As for hobbies, he responded: "I’d like to study history and architecture, record everything I learn, and maybe share it. Journalism seems interesting to me."
The social worker, in response to this question, pointed to his previous profession as a historian, which he left due to low payment: "I’d like to be a historian-researcher. I’m particularly interested in research work, specifically in areas like foreign policy and the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs in the 1930s and 1940s."
Under capitalism, all of our interviewees are deprived of the opportunity to work where they truly want to and lack the time and resources to pursue activities close to their personalities. If labor is considered a fundamental need for humans and a condition for their comprehensive development, subjecting people to the division of labor leaves them constrained and unable to fulfill this vital human need.
Engaging all able-bodied individuals in productive labor, regardless of the portion of this necessary work, is an important step toward liberating every person. This would allow everyone to dedicate more time to science, art, or any other activity that contributes to their personal development. With the current development of productive forces, it is already possible to create enough products to provide everyone with education and time for free activity. As technologies and production automation continue to advance, the time needed for the production of essential goods will further decrease. Moreover, the equal involvement of all able-bodied people in productive labor would significantly reduce the time each individual must dedicate to necessary work, bringing it to a minimum.
We, Communists, do not argue that everyone must be forced to engage in art or study subjects they find uninteresting. However, as long as society must dedicate time to producing the means of life for its reproduction, no able-bodied person has the right to shift this responsibility onto others. Everyone must contribute their share to collective labor to free time for all.
This requirement goes beyond simple sense of justice or cultural development goals — it is dictated by the very nature of productive forces. Under capitalism, labour changes constantly but chaotically, as forced adjustments. As industry develops and new goods enter the market, the structure of the economy shifts. Some enterprises go out of business, making some specialists no longer needed, while new technologies demand new skills. People are forced to change professions, learn new skills and adapt, often at the cost of their stability and well-being. Communists consider it necessary to make this process of labour change conscious and planned, to guarantee everyone the right to work and to obtain the necessary qualifications at the expense of society.
In a future society that aims to meet everyone’s needs and reduce working hours for all, labor change will become a deliberate and organized process. This will require polytechnic education, enabling individuals to master new activities within production itself.
Moreover, increasing the number of people engaged in non-productive labour, such as education and healthcare, will significantly ease the burden on specialists in these fields. Instead of overworking and constantly facing stress, workers will have the chance to focus on the quality of their work. This will not only improve the level of services provided but also enhance workers' satisfaction, as their daily and monthly workloads will be evenly distributed.
Such a society will thus become not only more just but also more productive. It will provide everyone with opportunities for comprehensive development, eliminating inequality in access to free time and self-realization, ultimately raising overall well-being.
Accounting for Labour and Distribution
Continuing the discussion of fundamental communist principles, we asked our interviewees how they would feel about a system in which the production of each good accounted for the time spent creating it, and each person received as many benefits as they contributed to society. Their responses were diverse and revealed interesting perspectives on this concept.
The carpenter expressed doubts about the fairness and efficiency of the proposed system: "Currently, we have money, and I can do whatever I want with it," he says. "I believe this is a freedom that people should have. No one should get something just because someone else decides they should. Money is an intermediary between the amount of time you spend working and what you can acquire. This system gives us more freedom in making decisions." His position reflects a conventional understanding of freedom through the lens of market relations, where money is perceived as a universal tool for fulfilling needs.
The deliverer approached the question more analytically. He acknowledges that accounting for working time could serve as a basis for the distribution of goods but emphasizes the importance of considering the intensity and complexity of labor: "For instance, a person performing heavy and exhausting work might spend less time on it than someone engaged in lighter activities, but their contribution would be equivalent," he noted. The deliverer also stressed the need for flexibility and adaptability in the system. In his view, modern technologies, such as artificial intelligence, could help address societal needs, but it would be unrealistic to assume that all evolving needs can be predicted in a single, unchangeable plan.
The social worker, as a supporter of communist ideals, favours the proposed system without additional comments. His position implies agreement with the principle of distributing goods based on labour contributions, aligning with the foundations of communist economics.
The responses of our interviewees specifically addressed the distribution of goods. The deliverer highlighted the importance of considering working conditions, particularly in hazardous and demanding jobs, which makes the idea of equality more flexible and fair. His perspective aligns with the view that as long as differences in the complexity and arduousness of labour exist, they must be accounted for in a distribution system.
As for the carpenter’s position, his attachment to money as a means of freedom reflects deeply ingrained market-based perceptions. However, it is important to note that under capitalism, money is not a direct equivalent of the labour time expended but a commodity that only indirectly reflects the value of labour. Moreover, workers do not receive money for the labour itself or its products but as payment for their labour power. This allows capitalists to appropriate the remaining value created by workers in the goods they produce. Thus, money in the current system cannot be considered equivalent to the principle of distribution based on labour.
In a communist system all created products will belong to the workers. Distribution would be based on labor contributions, after deducting resources allocated to public funds for the support of children, retirees, and individuals with disabilities, as well as for education and healthcare. Such a system would provide transparent distribution, directly controlled by the workers themselves.
The Elimination of State Borders
Our interviewees expressed differing opinions regarding the elimination of state borders.
The carpenter supports the existence of borders, arguing that they help preserve cultural differences, which he values. "If everyone could travel as tourists, that would be wonderful. But if you remove all borders, it would lead to chaos," he states. His position reflects concerns about potential societal destabilization and the preservation of cultural diversity. The carpenter’s view demonstrates a commitment to a more conservative approach, where borders are seen as tools for maintaining order and protection.
The deliverer, in contrast, views the elimination of borders as a natural and logical idea that would help people overcome existing barriers. "Even many who are not revolutionaries would agree with this, especially those who have faced issues with visas and borders," he says. The anarchist also highlights social inequality, noting that privileged individuals often resist this idea, unwilling to share the same benefits with others.
The social worker, sharing communist views, sees the elimination of borders as part of the transition from socialism to communism. He notes that the disappearance of state borders is possible only when states, as instruments of class oppression, lose their function. "This will be possible in the bright communist future, but for now, we are far from this stage," he adds.
Repression for Beliefs and Nationality?
The question of repression for beliefs, religion, nationality, and preferences elicited varied opinions from our interviewees. Interestingly, the carpenter in his response focused on migrants, emphasizing that his concerns are not about their cultural or national characteristics but the behavior of certain individuals: "I have nothing against most migrants. I’m against those who break the law. I don’t even think they’re taking our jobs or taking anything from us. Many of them work, and that’s great. The problem is those who come here to exploit Germany and our social system out of laziness. And, of course, it’s wrong to come to a foreign country and break its laws. That’s why I’m against some migrants."
Currently, in Germany, as in other European countries, this issue is becoming increasingly pressing. This, in turn, fuels the popularity of right-wing nationalist sentiments, especially among young people.
After our interviews, a terrorist attack involving a migrant occurred in Germany. In Magdeburg, during a Christmas market, a migrant man drove into a crowd of people at high speed. Five people died, and more than 200 were injured.
The next day, a rally led by the right-wing AfD party was held, with around 3,500 participants. "We demand real answers," said AfD leader Alice Weidel. "Anyone who despises the citizens of our country has no place here."
However, according to available data, the migrant who committed the attack was not a radical Islamic refugee. Videos of interviews with him circulating online portray him as an activist helping former Muslims. The perpetrator, a 50-year-old doctor from Saudi Arabia, had been living in Germany since 2006. Reports indicate he had become increasingly radicalized—not as an Islamist, but as an Islamophobe who despised German authorities and sympathized with the AfD. This claim was rejected by AfD representatives at the rally. According to the Daily Mail, he had already threatened murder and suicide in 2014, threatened judges in 2015 while attempting to acquire a weapon, and accused them of racism.
Thus, we believe that such cases are unrelated to Germany’s migration policy or the acceptance of refugees from third-world countries. This criminal with higher education could have moved to Germany from any other country or even been born there. Nevertheless, by focusing on his migrant background, right-wing forces attempt to inflame nationalist sentiments in the country.
In our view, the migration problem has deeper roots. Of course, many Germans are unhappy that migrants come to the country and receive state benefits. However, no country in the world today can be considered isolated in its economy: the market has become global, and capitalism has become imperialist. First-world countries profit from peripheral nations, turning them into neo-colonies for profits, invading these states, or supporting coups to control key resources and governments.
In this context, solving the issues of migration and terrorism is only possible by dismantling the capitalist system that creates these problems.
Is it safe to freely express opinions in German Society?
The question of safety and freedom in expressing one’s opinions elicited varied responses from our interviewees, reflecting their personal experiences and perceptions of the social environment.
The conservative carpenter said that he generally feels safe and free to express his views. This may be related both to the nature of his views and to his lack of active participation in public or political spheres.
The anarchist deliverer expressed a more complex view on this issue. He noted that openly expressing opinions in society can involve risks: "People might criticize you for your views," he said, highlighting social pressure. Additionally, he pointed to the possibility of government interest in openly declared ideas, which could lead to repression. This drives many people to avoid publicly expressing their beliefs and to remain anonymous, particularly if their convictions fall outside of societal norms or contradict official positions.
The social worker pointed to the biases and stereotypes that exist in German society toward communist views. While he does not fear physical threats, such as attacks by neo-Nazis for expressing his beliefs, he still hesitates to openly discuss them. "The reason is the entrenched stereotypes associating communism with dictatorship, violence, and piles of skulls rather than with the idea of rejecting private ownership of the means of production," he explained. According to him, these perceptions have been instilled in generations of people, making many unwilling or unable to engage with communist ideas objectively. This creates a barrier to freely discussing such topics.
Discussing Left Movement with Anarchist
During our conversation with the anarchist, we couldn’t help but mention the topic of the leftist movement in Germany and the interaction between anarchists and communists. The discussion turned out to be interesting, and we would like to share the original part of this interview with our readers.
How would you describe your political views?
"Mainly radical left, closer to anarcho-communism."
Can you share how you came to hold these views?
"I think it all started in childhood when I began questioning authority and state structures. Most people believe that these authorities should be in place and that they must be protected, just like the state, even if it is flawed. But I thought about how state power is not always used for good. We need to ask why there is abuse of power by the government, police, soldiers who threaten other countries, invade them, and so on.
I came to believe that people should have more freedom to pursue their life goals rather than live under constant control by authorities who tell them what to do and limit their goals based on their social status. I felt it would be better if people could grow in an environment with free education that doesn’t depend on their social position, and their achievements in life shouldn’t be limited by that status.
I spent a lot of time reflecting on these ideas, and one day I met local like-minded individuals. We started thinking about creating a political group to read materials together, discuss our goals, and decide where to focus our efforts. We had different ideas: some leaned toward social-democratic views, others were closer to radical communist or anarchist ideas. But we tried to find common goals, determine why we were working together, what we wanted to achieve, and how to interact with other groups, participate in initiatives, and attend protests as a united front.
The main focus was on anti-fascist and anti-capitalist activities. However, over time, disagreements and conflicts arose, and I began working on other projects that seemed more suitable to me."
Are you currently part of any political organization?
"No, I am not engaged in active politics at the moment. I decided to take a break during the pandemic to rethink my views and strengthen my mental health. Previously, political activism was quite stressful. I witnessed violence and aggression and participated in dozens of protests. Sometimes it’s important to take a pause, recover, and gain more knowledge and theoretical preparation to return to activism later."
How would you describe the current political situation in Germany? You mentioned the rise of right-wing parties, and what about the left?
"The left movement is quite weak and split up; they have almost no political power, practically nothing. Many people aren’t interested in politics and don’t strive for change. They might have opinions or views on something, but they’re not ready to fight for them or start political activism.
At the same time, fascism is growing. The rhetoric has become more aggressive, and there’s increasing violence against politicians. For example, there have been several attacks on politicians, and a few years ago, a conservative politician from the CDU was killed. He was murdered for opposing the right-wing and stating that migrants are welcome in this country. Some fascists planned his assassination, and he was shot.
This moment was a signal to many politicians that the threats are growing. However, despite this murder, conservatives and liberals have only increased their hatred toward migrants, blaming them for economic problems and other changes in the country."
How would you describe the anarchist or communist movement in Germany today?
"They are going through tough times. The movement is fragmented and divided on several issues, such as the conflict in Palestine and Israel. There’s little communication between groups and many internal conflicts. While there are plenty of people who share these views, most of them are not involved in any activity."
Is it becoming more dangerous to be a communist or anarchist in Germany?
"Yes, due to the rise of the right. Every time fascism is mentioned, conservatives and liberals argue that leftists must also be fought. They try to equate the threat from the left and the right, but this rhetoric is dangerous because the right is often armed and ready to kill."
Do you think communists and anarchists should also learn to defend themselves like the right does?
"Yes, definitely. I think it’s very important to know how to protect yourself."
When people think of Marxists, they often picture someone who is sitting and reading books all day.
"No, that’s not true. Training is very important. It doesn’t have to be martial arts or anything similar. Some people might want to do that, but I think it’s helpful to conduct at least some training before protests to know how to act in certain situations."
What do you think could help the leftist movement today?
"More communication and mobilization. There needs to be dialogue with other organizations, the creation of initiatives, finding common goals, and supporting each other. People often don’t participate because of repression. If a few groups bear the full weight of repression, they weaken. We need to involve more people to distribute the burden and protect each other."
Do you think anarchists can cooperate with communists?
"I think so. Not everyone will agree with me, but I believe there’s no major problem with it. Their ultimate goal might be roughly the same. The methods of achieving it may differ, but it’s also important to unite to be stronger in the fight against large groups of opponents, including state structures, right-wing organizations, fascism, and so on. If these groups ally with corporations and receive support from capital, they have much more power. We need to be more united to defend each other and only then discuss disagreements."
What are the main differences and obstacles preventing communists and anarchists from uniting and cooperating?
"I think the main problem is that anarchists don’t want leaders or authorities over them telling them what to do. Some communists want political parties, while anarchists usually don’t. They don’t like party flags, for example. There are other issues, but they need more detailed discussion."
How can anarchists build a new society without a state or government?
"Through decentralization and the creation of communities that collaborate with one another."
And how can they fight capitalists while remaining decentralized?
"There needs to be many small groups attacking them in different places. They won’t be able to defend themselves everywhere at once. This requires prior organization to coordinate actions."
Since most of our readers are communists, is there anything you, as an anarchist, would like to convey to them? Any remarks or suggestions?
"I think there needs to be more communication between the sides. Some communists might think anarchists don’t respect communist leaders. But many anarchists respect communists like Lenin or Marx for their ideas and theories. Of course, Stalin is respected less. But it’s important for both sides to compromise. Sometimes people are too radical in their views and unwilling to find common ground. Compromise can mean achieving shared goals by working with those you don’t agree with 100%."
We, the authors of the channel, also believe that, in theory, anarchists and communists can collaborate. Ideological disagreements about the future society and the ways to build it do not mean we cannot work together within a common framework where paths intersect. However, the question remains: which specific groups will participate in this collaboration, and under what conditions?
Are there any organized, mass, or even ideologically driven movements among anarchists and communists that engage in practical activities and are interested in cooperation? In a situation where some anarchists focus solely on opposing the police while some communists delve deeply into studying Hegel, it is difficult to speak of meaningful collaboration.
For us, as Communists, the question of possible partnership is linked to the struggle of the working class for its basic interests, and we do not intend to compromise this struggle for anything else. Therefore, we consider all aspects of cooperation exclusively within the context of this struggle and movement.
On Personal Beliefs
At the end of our interview, we asked each of our participants about their views on religion and the meaning of their lives.
The carpenter is a Protestant Christian. He is unsure about whether church and state should be separated and does not believe that science contradicts religion. His aspirations in life are tied to having a good family, being happy and healthy, doing good for society, and serving God. "I hope," he said, "this is reflected in my actions. But I know it should be. Sometimes I get distracted by the world and other things. Nothing should be more important than God. This doesn’t mean you should live in a monastery and only pray. It means you should honor God in everything you do. This can include working 40 hours a week because it benefits society. And God said, ‘Whatever good you do for your neighbor, you do the same for Me.’ So, by doing good for society, you are also doing good for God."
The other two participants — the deliverer and the social worker — are atheists. The deliverer noted that "religion as an institution suppresses people and their views, imposing rules on them that they cannot challenge."
Both supported the separation of church and state but did not believe it was necessary to promote atheism in education. As the deliverer put it: "If you provide neutral education that includes different perspectives, you don’t need to impose anything on people."
When asked about the purpose of life, the deliverer said: "I believe people are born to find the answer to why they exist. It’s a process of discovery: why do we exist, why do other beings exist, why do they live in certain places? In addition, people exist for a limited time, and they should use that time to better understand this question. I think I’d like to see future generations grow up in a better world and work on creating a better society. I’d like to see happier people around me, for their living conditions to improve, and for the mistakes we make now not to be repeated. People need to better understand the consequences of their actions. We have the intellect to think about consequences, but we often act against it. I’d like people to move closer to understanding their actions and to avoid doing harm."
The social worker, answering the same questions, said: "Honestly, after my divorce, I feel lonely. I want to start a new family, but on the other hand, it’s also important for me to play a social role. I’m convinced that humanity’s future is tied to communism, and at the very least, it promises a bright future. For me, societal progress is the most important thing."
With every interview with workers around the world, we realize that we have more in common than differences. Yes, workers may have different opinions on social issues and seek various ways to achieve their interests, but we have yet to meet anyone who actually desires war, oppression, or exploitation.
We will continue our social research and share our findings with you so that you can hear the voices of ordinary people from different professions, nations, and ages.