Basic political positions that express the nature of the proletariat as a universal class and whose negation means the passage of a tendency or method of analysis to the opposite class camp.
Meaning of class boundaries
The axes that define class boundaries are fundamentally two: internationalism and centralism. Internationalism expresses the universal nature of the proletariat in its most obvious geographical sense: the unity of interests of the class regardless of where it is exploited; centralism, its nature as a historical unity determined by its future and its program, not by the divisions, fractures and scars that, at every moment, reflect the alienation inherent and inevitable in a society divided into classes.
Thus, in decadence, when supporting any inter-bourgeois conflict can no longer have a progressive meaning, taking sides in any war between two bourgeois fractions or any two states can only be a negation of the most basic internationalism, turning whoever defends it into a recruiter for the imperialist slaughter. There is no other possible tactic in the face of any internal confrontation within the ruling class, or between it and factions or groups that support alternative forms of state capitalism, than revolutionary defeatism.
And in the same way, when an organization or current postulates the need to divide the struggles or political expressions of the class according to situations given by the contingent conditions of exploitation (type of contract, hiring company, etc.) or by "identities" defined by the discriminations suffered (race, nationality, sex, age group, etc.), it is in reality accepting the existence of permanently differentiated interests.
In both cases the universality of the program would disappear, and with it the character of universal class. In the first, universality would be replaced by a mere shifting sum of particular interests born of the organization of labor that capital decides at each moment. In the second, the class program would be subordinated to the interests of supposed political subjects (race, nation, sex, generation) that would transcend the class division of society.
To top it all, some versions -such as so-called "class feminism"- attempt to reconcile class with identity division. The revolutionary political subject would be defined by the "intersection" of two "identities", that of class and that of sex, generating two differentiated political subjects with their own more or less compatible programs and organizations (the female and the male proletariat); but the proletariat is not an "identity", and "class culture", let alone "female class culture" or "male class culture", is far from class consciousness.
Class consciousness is not based on the particularity of certain conditions or experiences but on the universality of exploitation, which is what drives a program, a perspective based on the affirmation of generic, universal human needs... the only perspective that carries the only mode of production that can overcome capitalism: communism, which is in turn the end of all exploitation and oppression within the species.
The road that leads to crossing class boundaries passes through various forms of opportunism, but it is always fed by a weakening of communist morality: confidence in the capacity of the universal working class to impose the satisfaction of human needs as the ordering criterion of society and its productive metabolism.