Are racial and sexual oppression on the same level as class oppression?

[GPDP]

As I am taking sociology classes, I have come across the idea that racial, sexual, gender-based, and class oppression are all mere manifestations of power and inequality, with all aspects being pretty much equally important. This seems to be the case most clearly within post-modernist thought, at least as far as I've studied it.

Of course, as leftists we all deplore all these inequalities, but many of us hold the line that at the bottom of it all is class oppression, and that the other oppressions, while important, are ultimately a result of class society, an attempt to divide workers among arbitrary lines in order to keep them from uniting. But surely sexism predates capitalism by thousands of years, does it not? How much of today's sexism is a part of capitalism, and how much stems from prejudices dating back to ancient society? Were those also a product of their respective class societies? And what about racism? Did it develop alongside capitalism?

Some answers would be quite helpful...

[jake williams]

It's not a very easy question to answer, for a number of reasons. It sort of gets you into the whole identity politics clusterfuck, and anything you say is going to piss a lot of people off. It's also analytically complicated. It's a bit of semantics too. Maybe you choose to identify racism with colonialism and neo-colonialism, and Africans are obviously in general more oppressed than the American white working class. Or maybe you think imperialism is just a function of capitalism, and so it's just a form of class oppression and the racial context is just superficial. Gender is even more difficult, and you have to start looking at a lot of the specificities of how oppression and power work.

I don't really know how you would go about answering the question.

[JimmyJazz]

I don't have any really deep answer. But I would think that the two most important, simple points to make are:

1) Class can be eliminated as a social category; race and gender (etc.) cannot. You can create a society where everyone has equal access to the means of production (or is equal in whatever respect would make it a "classless" society by your definition of "class"). But you cannot get rid of differences in skin color, physical sexual make-up, etc.--although you can certainly fight the absurd social inequalities and theories of inferiority that people build on these tiny differences, you cannot get rid of the differences themselves. But class you really can get rid of.

2) Class struggle has a rational, economic basis, for all the classes involved, whether they are ruling or ruled, exploiting or exploited. Racial tensions and gender oppressions, otoh, have an entirely social basis. They are 100% dependent on history. Think about it this way: if history had gone another way, people with white skin might have ended up as slaves for people with darker skin. And we do know of certain societies where women wield the most power (usually small, tribal ones--but the point is that they exist). Most importantly, we can imagine history/society having gone in such a way that certain differences such as sex, skin color, etc., simply were not seen as important dividing lines in the process of distributing power throughout society. However, you cannot imagine a situation where people are OK with being poor rather than rich, OK with being exploited rather than not exploited. And you cannot imagine a society where the rich/exploiters would not attempt to hold on to their position. Make some experimental societies however, drop any kind of people into these two roles, and 100 times out of 100, you will get some form of class struggle between them. For both groups, it's simply the rational thing to do, based on an ongoing (not historical) relationship between them.

Dunno if this helps at all.

[Module]

Racial and sexual oppression occours essentially through class oppression. You can't separate social oppression from class oppression.
Class oppression is it's basis. Those who meaningfully suffer from racism, sexism etc., who are genuinely oppressed by it are working class people.
I can't be bothered going into more depth at the moment, but yep.

Edit: woops, actually I admittedly didn't read the OP properly before I made this post :p so I will make a proper reply...


But surely sexism predates capitalism by thousands of years, does it not? How much of today's sexism is a part of capitalism, and how much stems from prejudices dating back to ancient society? Were those also a product of their respective class societies? And what about racism? Did it develop alongside capitalism?No form of social oppression is inherent to capitalist society. Social oppression is upheld, however, by political and economic inequality. It is used to justify and reinforces unequal social and economic relationships, as it has always done. Whilst sexism obviously did not originate from capitalism, it remains to be a major force in our social structure, which is upheld only in the existence of socio-economic relationships for which it is useful in supporting. The same goes for racism. The only way social equality can be achieved is economic equality being achieved.
Those individuals who are economically the most powerful are those who are socially the most powerful. Social values stem from economic structure.
I also think it's important to emphasise that social discrimination, from these social values I just mentioned that stem from economic structure, need not be based upon biological differences, such as race or sex, as they have 'traditionally' been. Social discrimination is essentially class discrimination and vice versa; class snobbery is, by itself, one of the most important forms of social discrimination that exist, and is, by and large, the channel of discrimination by which racial and sexual stereotypes are maintained.
To have an accurate perspective upon social discrimination, one must always view it in relation to class. You can't say that class discrimination is on a different 'level' to social discrimination because it's not in any way a matter of degree, the key is just recognising the relationship that social discrimination has to class discrimination and the capitalist system.
I hope this is a better answer to the OP... and yes.

For the person below.. (didn't want to make a new post)

I think that it is rooted in prejudices existing in ancient society, where women were seen as "inferior" because they weren't strong enough to hunt or do most of the "important" work.Nope. It has never been a matter of ability to do "important" work. Women were always strong enough to do "important" work..
I don't want to sound like a patronising git but Origins of the Family by Engels is a book relevant to this, you might find interesting to read.

[Invincible Summer]

Of course, as leftists we all deplore all these inequalities, but many of us hold the line that at the bottom of it all is class oppression, and that the other oppressions, while important, are ultimately a result of class society, an attempt to divide workers among arbitrary lines in order to keep them from uniting. But surely sexism predates capitalism by thousands of years, does it not? How much of today's sexism is a part of capitalism, and how much stems from prejudices dating back to ancient society? Were those also a product of their respective class societies? And what about racism? Did it develop alongside capitalism?

Some answers would be quite helpful...

The question is difficult to deal with, as they are all intertwined.

In reference to sexism predating capitalism, I think that it is rooted in prejudices existing in ancient society, where women were seen as "inferior" because they weren't strong enough to hunt or do most of the "important" work. Religion picked up on these prejudices and incorporated patriarchal values into their beliefs; therefore, as societies adopted various religions and grew, these beliefs simply became commonplace.

I have no sources to back up what I've just said, but it makes sense to me.

[GPDP]

Thank you all for these thoughtful answers.

I guess my next question is, what do we do about people who resist racist and sexist oppression through identity politics? By this, I mean non-socialist/anarchist feminists, queer rights advocates, black power groups, the chicano movement... I do realize many of these groups have their roots in the working class, but it seems to me, again as far as I've encountered them, that the allegiances of people belonging to these demographics lie with the groups that they identify with, rather than, say, the working class as a whole. I'm sure that's not always the case, of course, but it just seems as if there's a tendency towards reformism or separatism among these groups. Maybe these tendencies are in the minority, maybe they're not. I can't say for sure. Perhaps someone could enlighten me further on this point.

[Philosophical Materialist]

But surely sexism predates capitalism by thousands of years, does it not?

Yes it does, but it does not predate class society. Sexism arose with the concept of private property in those tribal systems which abandoned primitive communism. The necessity of controlling access to females for prestige, and to control the reproduction process assisted the control of nepotistic groups within wider tribal groups. So it came that women became property of the male, whether husband or father. Engels is essential reading for anyone wishing to read about the formation of the state, private property and family. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

Capitalism is the current manifestation of class society and female subjugation.


Thank you all for these thoughtful answers.

I guess my next question is, what do we do about people who resist racist and sexist oppression through identity politics? By this, I mean non-socialist/anarchist feminists, queer rights advocates, black power groups, the chicano movement... I do realize many of these groups have their roots in the working class, but it seems to me, again as far as I've encountered them, that the allegiances of people belonging to these demographics lie with the groups that they identify with, rather than, say, the working class as a whole.

It is true that there is a limited scope in their political consciousness. I think the key for socialists and anarchists is to engage, debate, support and ally ourselves with these groups when they're furthering progressive struggles. In dialogue with these groups, comrades can bring in revolutionary socialist analysis that can broaden the world view and political consciousness of those persisting in identity politics.

[JimmyJazz]

Thank you all for these thoughtful answers.

I guess my next question is, what do we do about people who resist racist and sexist oppression through identity politics? By this, I mean non-socialist/anarchist feminists, queer rights advocates, black power groups, the chicano movement... I do realize many of these groups have their roots in the working class, but it seems to me, again as far as I've encountered them, that the allegiances of people belonging to these demographics lie with the groups that they identify with, rather than, say, the working class as a whole. I'm sure that's not always the case, of course, but it just seems as if there's a tendency towards reformism or separatism among these groups. Maybe these tendencies are in the minority, maybe they're not. I can't say for sure. Perhaps someone could enlighten me further on this point.

Left-wing answers to this will be as varied as left-wing answers to the national question. Because it's essentially the same question.

[rogue]

So, if capitalism is overthrown, then racism and sexism will be defeated?

[Blackscare]

To me, class oppression is institutional and race/gender/sexual oppression is cultural. So they need to be addressed in different ways. Revolution won't somehow make everybody more personally enlightened even if they rally around egalitarian economic views.

[ifeelyou]

To me, class oppression is institutional and race/gender/sexual oppression is cultural. So they need to be addressed in different ways. Revolution won't somehow make everybody more personally enlightened even if they rally around egalitarian economic views.

If racism, sexism/misogyny, and homophobia are more cultural (which I certainly agree that they are embedded in culture, but also in social institutions and structures), what is your opinion on concepts like institutional/structural racism, sexism, and homophobia?

[apathy maybe]

1) Class can be eliminated as a social category; race and gender (etc.) cannot. You can create a society where everyone has equal access to the means of production (or is equal in whatever respect would make it a "classless" society by your definition of "class"). But you cannot get rid of differences in skin color, physical sexual make-up, etc.--although you can certainly fight the absurd social inequalities and theories of inferiority that people build on these tiny differences, you cannot get rid of the differences themselves. But class you really can get rid of.

I would suggest that capitalism tends towards social equality. You can get rid of sexism, racism etc., while economic classes still exist. It is obviously taking time, but enlightenment ideas are essential for capitalism to survive.

Of course, these problems could probably be eliminated faster in a more economically equal society. Oh, but just because we get rid of economic classes, doesn't mean that prejudice will disappear over night.

Social and economic equality are two separate things for most purposes.

[jake williams]

Social and economic equality are two separate things for most purposes.
They're different things, but they're not unrelated things. As just one example, because there is an extant wealth inequality between blacks and whites in the US (all in general), and capitalism gives power to this wealth and prevents its redistribution, capitalism de facto is a racist system, just by the basic facts of the situation. To some extent it's a historical coincidence. It's probably theoretically possible that capitalism could exist without race, without the sort of ethnogeographical differences that contributed to the notion of race and the creation of racism, but in the real world capitalism is very closely related ro racism. Advocating capitalism requires supporting state maintenance of wealth inequality between white people and non-white people, and that requires racism I think.

And again, there are even more complications when you get into gender, which I think is more complicated ultimately.

[JimmyJazz]

Oh, but just because we get rid of economic classes, doesn't mean that prejudice will disappear over night.

Social and economic equality are two separate things for most purposes.

I completely agree. Nothing in my post was meant to suggest that class is the root cause of every other kind of oppression. It can be a contributing factor, but it is probably not the root cause (as though there is even one cause). It always bothers me when I hear leftist groups claiming more than they need to, by saying that socialism will result in a society without sexism, racism, prudishness, drudgery of any kind; why can't we just aim at a classless society for the obvious, direct reasons? It doesn't have to be a panacea, which is good, because it isn't.

My only point was that class is unique in that you can lay out a more or less clear vision for was a classless society would look like. Try laying out your detailed vision of a sexism-less society and see if you can get even one person to agree with you that such a society would be truly free of sexism.

[Circle E Society]

So, if capitalism is overthrown, then racism and sexism will be defeated?
No however with the fight of capitalism comes the fights that predate it IE partriarchy, gender roles, racism, sexism. Capitalism just institutionalized these things outright or covertly to keep the working class separated. If you want to win against classism you must overcome the aforementioned list and many other wrongful stereotypes, labels, and social breakdowns.

You cannot nor should you become color blind or blind to the differences between us all, however that is not to say that isnt beautiful. We need to learn to accept each other in an egalitarian manner because everyone should be equal and i think only when these points are tied in with classism because what is classism but oppression preventing equality.

[MarxSchmarx]

I would suggest that capitalism tends towards social equality. You can get rid of sexism, racism etc., while economic classes still exist. It is obviously taking time, but enlightenment ideas are essential for capitalism to survive.

Capitalists have, moreover, co-opted the phrase "social equality" for "equal opportunity". Genuine "social equality" is impossible under capitalism, if for no other reason than that capitalism (sometimes) rewards certain types of abilities more than others, and people differ in their abilities.

Capitalism is definitely an improvement compared to, say, slavery. Whether greater equity exists under capitalism than more primitive forms of social organization or under even feudalism is an open question. But in any event, I agree that capitalism has an ability to corrode the vestiges of the earlier order and lay the groundwork for a post-capitalist future.

[ifeelyou]

Thank you all for these thoughtful answers.

I guess my next question is, what do we do about people who resist racist and sexist oppression through identity politics? By this, I mean non-socialist/anarchist feminists, queer rights advocates, black power groups, the chicano movement... I do realize many of these groups have their roots in the working class, but it seems to me, again as far as I've encountered them, that the allegiances of people belonging to these demographics lie with the groups that they identify with, rather than, say, the working class as a whole. I'm sure that's not always the case, of course, but it just seems as if there's a tendency towards reformism or separatism among these groups. Maybe these tendencies are in the minority, maybe they're not. I can't say for sure. Perhaps someone could enlighten me further on this point.

I find this question to be somewhat troubling on a couple of levels. First, the formulation of your question concerns me because you pose the question in a way that paints those who participate in identity politics as seemingly clueless, and yourself (and by extension others more interested in class analyses) as more informed. This is evident by your asking "what do we do about people who..." The articulation of your question reads as paternalistic and self-righteous.

The second reason why I'm troubled by your question and perception of "identity politics" stems from what appears to be a lack of critical understanding of the history and complexities of identity based politics, and how coalition building has been extremely important to a great number of members who belong to such groups that would be characterized as identity oriented. Historical examples are plentiful, but I will only give you a few. Take a look at the Oxnard Strike of 1903 in which working class Japanese and Mexicans united together to achieve certain labor goals. Also, see queer theory. One of its most important tenets is not only coalitional politics but its theoretical emphasis on the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, class, etc. Another involves the fact that, during the Civil Rights Era, the Black Panthers and the Brown Berets were in constant dialogue with each other, discussing political strategies and objectives. In the early manifestations of gay liberation, the intention was not assimilationist, reformist, nor separatist. On the contrary, the intent was on smashing the heterosexist, capitalist, and patriarchal system that surrounds us in order to create a culture that would be inclusive of all non-normative forms of sexuality and gender. A final example is that of 3rd Wave Feminism, which, in part, developed from a critique by women of color who claimed that white women were obscuring the formers experiences. Examples of this kind of critique could be found in the book The Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color edited by Gloria Anzaldua and Cherie Morraga. This compilation of writing brought together important writings by different women from different ethnic/racial distinctions, sexual orientations, and class positions.

This is not to say that there were and are no limitations to identity politics, rather it's to show that things are much more complicated than saying identity groups like the Panthers, Queer Nation, etc. etc. are simply "reformist and separatist."

It seems to me that asking if race, gender, and sexuality are on the "same level" as class is not only divisive, but silly. Each of these is an important component of life that must not be dismissed.

*Sorry for the poor writing. I replied to your post quickly.

[GPDP]

Thanks for your response. That is precisely what I wanted to hear. I admit I am still learning about the many manifestations of social inequality and oppression in society. I'm taking a class on this right now, so I hope to come to understand the phenomenon of identity politics more closely in the near future.

If I sound patronizing, I apologize. Maybe it's because I just don't quite identify with such movements for a variety of reasons. I'm a Mexican immigrant living in Texas, but I've felt little personal or emotional connection to Mexican-Americans living here legally, other than sympathizing with them and wishing to help them. I just haven't been able to say I'm a fellow Mexican-American, and thus identify with them on that level, much like I can thoroughly sympathize with feminists without being able to identify with them in that way. If I help them, it will be because I am a fellow member of the working class, and I believe we should all be equal, free from racism and discrimination. Again, thank you for the clarifications.

[apathy maybe]

Capitalists have, moreover, co-opted the phrase "social equality" for "equal opportunity". Genuine "social equality" is impossible under capitalism, if for no other reason than that capitalism (sometimes) rewards certain types of abilities more than others, and people differ in their abilities.

This is a very good point, thanks for correcting me.

Liberalism as a political ideology is supportive of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome as such.

As you point out, social equality is basically impossible under a capitalism framework. (I would argue, that under any truly free system of society, 100% equality, with all folks being equal, is not only impossible, but undesirable. We do not want a drab gray communism! No, we want freedom, which comes from being independent of need. The communism that we must fight for, is that of letting people develop themselves to their fullest potential.)

[Melbourne Lefty]

Or maybe you think imperialism is just a function of capitalism, and so it's just a form of class oppression and the racial context is just superficial


Bingo.

Indentity politics is killing the left, we are supposed to be the ideology of the working class, race politics and class politics should never have mixed, and now that they have it needs to stop.

Class is the ONLY thing, race, gender, whatever else means nothing.

You can argue that some are more oppressed under capitalism than others, but its similar to some being drowned in a puddle and others in a lake, all are being drowned, it makes very little difference.

Teach people to think in terms of class before all else and the world can be changed, teach them to think of themselves in terms of race gender or sexuality and revolutionary left politics is doomed.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Liberalism as a political ideology is supportive of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome as such.

Equality of opportunity by definition leads to equality of outcome.

[apathy maybe]

Equality of opportunity by definition leads to equality of outcome.

No, no it doesn't...

Equality of outcome is everyone having the same. Equality of opportunity is everyone having the same opportunities.

That is, regardless of if your parents are dirt poor, you should have the same opportunity to attend a prestigious university as someone with rich parents (equality of opportunity). But, if you don't study, then you don't get in, regardless of if your parents are rich or poor. Equality of outcome would be that everyone who wants to go to the prestigious university can, even if they are idiots who can't add up two simple numbers (say 1 and 1, or 2 and 2).

Big difference.

As far as it goes, leftists should support equality of opportunity while we are still within a capitalist framework, and strive towards equality of outcome where legitimate. However, I don't feel that 100% equality of outcome (everyone being the same, and having the same jobs etc.) is either possible or desirable (as mentioned previously).

[Black Dagger]

Indentity politics is killing the left

Hmmm, let's see... politically conscious women, peoples of colour etc. are killing the left... yeah umm... nah?

If something is 'killing' 'the left' (whatever that is?) - i see no evidence that this is the political consciousness of the oppressed. But hey, easy target i guess.



we are supposed to be the ideology of the working class

We are? Come on, workers powers is not a religion - communists are not the 'keepers of truth'. There is no 'ideology of the working class' - at least there shouldn't be, that is practically the definition of sectarian. The role of communists is not create 'ideology' for 'the working class' to adopt, but to advance the prospect of revolution by supporting and participating in workers struggles and the struggles of the oppressed - i don't see why 'teach people what to think' needs to be on our list, it's a bit condescending.


Class is the ONLY thing, race, gender, whatever else means nothing.


I see! :lol: To you i guess? You'll get extra points if you said this and are not a white hetero male, otherwise - well... i'm sure you get enough grief from melbourne lefties.

Whilst i agree that ultimately it will be working people and not 'women' or 'black people' who destroy class society - your POV seems to miss the obvious fact that women and black folks are the working class - and therefore that 'social issues' are inextricably linked to our struggle against class society. That rather than being denied, this link must be reinforced again and again. White supremacy and patriarchy will never be destroyed as long as class society survives.



race politics and class politics should never have mixed, and now that they have it needs to stop.

Er... to what end? You can't have a class politics that's worth a damn if you ignore race issues - so either you're advocating a colourblind class politics (left-liberalism), one that ignores race issues (chauvinism) or the artificial separation of the two into a 'class politics' and 'race politics' - presumably with the latter devoid of any 'class politics' (which makes it liberalism or a form of race nationalism - why should we encourage these?). None of these options are good.

In short, pretending like race doesn't matter will only take us backwards (like over 50 years back!). I love history, but that is just conservatism.


You can argue that some are more oppressed under capitalism than others, but its similar to some being drowned in a puddle and others in a lake, all are being drowned, it makes very little difference.


I guess if you don't care about the well being of workers - people different to you? :blink:

But no, i don't think your analogy is apt at all - indeed the whole purpose of the analogy was to downplay the significance of racism etc. Of course it matters if we're all drowning but some of us are getting dragged under and away by rips, or only the white dudes are given lifejackets.


Teach people to think in terms of class before all else and the world can be changed, teach them to think of themselves in terms of race gender or sexuality and revolutionary left politics is doomed.

I disagree.

It is always better to tell someone the whole truth - not just what is expedient for you.

[Black Dagger]

Also in regards to the topic question - i think this is the wrong question to ask.

Being working class is not a form of social oppression - it represents your relationship to the means of production - specifically your subordination to capital, wage labour. This is a form of labour exploitation, not oppression in the sense that is used to describe structural racism and so forth. So that said, i think this question is bogus because 'class' and 'race' or 'sexual oppression' cannot really be compared - it's not a question of which 'level' one is on - they are on different axis entirely. In this society class is a constant engaged in all of these issues. That is not to say that abolishing class, the state and so forth will mean the abolition of racism or sexism etc. (though this is certainly a necessary step to that end), but rather it's death as a facet of classed oppression. Not the death of interpersonal racism, that is why social revolution is an important process - to keep us honest to our principals as communists - the liberation of all.

[benhur]

Hmmm, let's see... politically conscious women, peoples of colour etc. are killing the left... yeah umm... nah?

I am sure that wasn't the intended meaning. If these politically conscious people focus on feminism, racism etc. to the exclusion of the larger problem that is capitalism, then they're only playing into the hands of the capitalists. If my headache is only a symptom, I'd do well to focus on the cause instead. So to answer your question, these people may not be killing the left, but they certainly are diluting the real problem which is capitalism by wasting their energies and time on handling the effects/consequences.


If something is 'killing' 'the left' (whatever that is?) - i see no evidence that this is the political consciousness of the oppressed. But hey, easy target i guess

Nobody's being targeted here. But what is the nature of this 'political consciousness' of the oppressed? If it's about better race relations, equal pay for women...then wonderful as these demands are, they do NOT address the problems inherent in capitalism. Which means, what you call political consciousness of the oppressed is more a hindrance than a help in the fight against capitalism. Why? Because it takes our attention away from capitalism.


We are? Come on, workers powers is not a religion - communists are not the 'keepers of truth'. There is no 'ideology of the working class' - at least there shouldn't be, that is practically the definition of sectarian. The role of communists is not create 'ideology' for 'the working class' to adopt, but to advance the prospect of revolution by supporting and participating in workers struggles and the struggles of the oppressed - i don't see why 'teach people what to think' needs to be on our list, it's a bit condescending.

Our job is to convince workers that they're human beings, and that race and other labels are mere myths invented by the bourgeois to divide us. We must convince them that it's in their best interests to drop identity politics (because that again leads to the division of the working class), and be united. And this unity is impossible as long as workers cling to identity. Without this unity, bourgeois is always going to win.



I see! :lol: To you i guess? You'll get extra points if you said this and are not a white hetero male, otherwise - well... i'm sure you get enough grief from melbourne lefties.

I am brown, and feel this way. In fact, every non-white person should feel this way, they must cease to think in terms of race, nationality etc., and approach all problems as members of the working class. Else, what's the point in them being socialists at all, if they're going to have reactionary ideas like race, color and all that? Even if you argue against this by saying non-whites are the oppressed class, one can always say that identity politics is still no way out of that situation. It's only going to make matters worse, increase tensions between ethnic groups, and all that.


Whilst i agree that ultimately it will be working people and not 'women' or 'black people' who destroy class society - your POV seems to miss the obvious fact that women and black folks are the working class - and therefore that 'social issues' are inextricably linked to our struggle against class society. That rather than being denied, this link must be reinforced again and again. White supremacy and patriarchy will never be destroyed as long as class society survives.

Destruction of capitalism is the goal, everything else is a distraction.


Er... to what end? You can't have a class politics that's worth a damn if you ignore race issues - so either you're advocating a colourblind class politics (left-liberalism), one that ignores race issues (chauvinism) or the artificial separation of the two into a 'class politics' and 'race politics' - presumably with the latter devoid of any 'class politics' (which makes it liberalism or a form of race nationalism - why should we encourage these?). None of these options are good.

In short, pretending like race doesn't matter will only take us backwards (like over 50 years back!). I love history, but that is just conservatism.

The best way to get rid of racism by by getting rid of the concept of race. You can't have it both ways. One can't say it's okay for people to think in terms of race, color etc., and in the same breath fight racism as well. That's contradictory. As leftists, our job is to fight the race concept itself (which separates man from man), and NOT merely the consequence that's racism. Encouraging race politics could be suicidal for leftists.



I guess if you don't care about the well being of workers - people different to you? :blink:

But no, i don't think your analogy is apt at all - indeed the whole purpose of the analogy was to downplay the significance of racism etc. Of course it matters if we're all drowning but some of us are getting dragged under and away by rips, or only the white dudes are given lifejackets.

This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with social status.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Our job is to convince workers that they're human beings, and that race and other labels are mere myths invented by the bourgeois to divide us. We must convince them that it's in their best interests to drop identity politics (because that again leads to the division of the working class), and be united. And this unity is impossible as long as workers cling to identity. Without this unity, bourgeois is always going to win.


The best way to get rid of racism by by getting rid of the concept of race. You can't have it both ways. One can't say it's okay for people to think in terms of race, color etc., and in the same breath fight racism as well. That's contradictory. As leftists, our job is to fight the race concept itself (which separates man from man), and NOT merely the consequence that's racism. Encouraging race politics could be suicidal for leftists.

Thanks Benhur you put it better than I did.

When you encourage people to think of themselves in terms of race it divides the working class. And since if your neighbour thinks of himself in terms of race and has a race based community which offers him help and support on account of his race then you are going to want to do similar it also helps stir up a sense of racial identity in those "White dudes" that Black Dagger seems to dislike so much.

And Black Dagger thanks for over-reacting in such a spectacular fashion. You enjoy jumping down peoples throats like that?

If people concentrate on ethnic/religious/sexual Identities then class identity takes a back seat. And in my own opinion class struggle is the only real long term way to remove the problems of groups oppressed in society.



Of course it matters if we're all drowning but some of us are getting dragged under and away by rips, or only the white dudes are given lifejackets.


I dont believe working class "White dudes" are being given lifejackets, the capitalist class exploits them as much as anyone and divides us using racial identities.

Blaming "White dudes" is simply another form of division in the working class. Doing the job of capitalism for them.

And the type of thinking that leads to the assumption that "White dudes" have lifejackets and the rest of us dont is a product I think of Identity politics.

But thats just a difference in opinion.

I am more than willing to admit I may be mistaken, but even if I have not taken all the variables into account I am still pretty sure I have not missed the ball entirely.

Indentity politics DOES divide the working class. Which makes it harder to act together to fight for change.

And when the "Identity" is tied to such an outdated concept as "race" or "tribe" then its not something that should be promoted.



colourblind class politics (left-liberalism),


How is colourblind class politics Left Liberalism? Concentrating on class as the explanation to societies ills and the solution to them is a revolutionary perspective, not a liberal one.


well... i'm sure you get enough grief from melbourne lefties.

ummm... no I get along quite well with nearly every Melbourne lefty I meet, We must travel in different circles, mine sound a lot more open to debate than yours..

Anyway I get this STRANGE feeling we are not going to agree here...:lol:

[Hiero]

Hmmm, let's see... politically conscious women, peoples of colour etc. are killing the left... yeah umm... nah?

Identity politics is a specific western acadamic trend.

Politicall conscious women and "peoples of colour" have longer history then politic identiy politics all around the world, and large portion falling under the Marxist-Leninist banner.

[Coggeh]

So, if capitalism is overthrown, then racism and sexism will be defeated?
if its overthrown and replaced with socialism , then a basic answer is yes .

But cultural attitudes can't be erased so quickly .

[WhitemageofDOOM]

No, no it doesn't...

Equality of outcome is everyone having the same. Equality of opportunity is everyone having the same opportunities.

Equality of opportunity means everyone has the same opportunity.


That is, regardless of if your parents are dirt poor, you should have the same opportunity to attend a prestigious university as someone with rich parents (equality of opportunity).Seeing as rich boy gets a leg up in money either way, but we both know the inequalities here.


But, if you don't study, then you don't get in, regardless of if your parents are rich or poor.Why did that one not study? Why did he not have the opportunity to study? Or did he not get the opportunity to develop the will to study hard?
If one studied and one didn't there must have been diffrent oppertunities.


Equality of outcome would be that everyone who wants to go to the prestigious university canWant is an oppertunity, as it is the first step in obtaining.


even if they are idiots who can't add up two simple numbers (say 1 and 1, or 2 and 2). The idiot didn't get the same opportunity as the intelligent child did he?

The reality is there are more opportunities than just being rich, there are physical and mental factors that control what opportunities you have.
I don't have the opportunity to be a fitness model, no matter what i do my genetics have restricted that opportunity.

[Melbourne Lefty]

if its overthrown and replaced with socialism , then a basic answer is yes .


exactly.

I believe that identity politics is and should remain the pre-occupation of the left liberals who do not or can not participate in true class politics.

There is a lot of nasty stuff in this world. A revolution towards socialism is the most important step fowards, so creating class unity rather than spliting the working class into competing ethnic/religious/sexual factions is the priority.

Progress will come through class politics, not race politics or gender politics. whilst the latter are important if anyone seriously believes that they are the foundation for a revolution that will make anything better needs to rethink, and perhaps re-read their Marx/Bakunin etc.