"minority" interests [Archive]

redarmyfaction38

23rd March 2009, 00:06

Invincible Summer

23rd March 2009, 01:58

IMO, saying that social life is comprised of only one's relation to the means of production and nothing else is a bit narrow-sighted; one's race, gender, sexual orientation, etc help shape one's experience of class. For example, an Arabic, queer McDonald's employee will experience proletarian life differently than an Anglo heterosexual McDonald's employee.

the colour of your skin or the nation of origin actually affects your capability.
Im' not quite sure what you mean here. But the color of your skin, sexual orientation, etc. do affect one's life chances.

I understand what you're saying though - focusing too much on the differences can "divide the working class." But I think that ignoring these issues isn't the best course of action, as it would be ignoring facets of social life that form people's life experiences. Although queer-rights, minority-rights and other -rights groups don't necessarily advocate for the destruction of capitalism, I don't think they necessarily do revolutionaries any harm.

Also, perhaps this is a dumb question, but can someone explain why racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are perceived to be inherent in the capitalist system?

bretty

23rd March 2009, 03:01

They aren't inherent necessarily, the fact is that they are established in the capitalist system in a certain way. Racism has in the past helped establish marginalized immigrant groups that are then used for low paying jobs. Or sexism in the workplace in South or south east asian countries has helped women become subjected to poor working conditions and rather gender specific roles in manufacturing or otherwise, further abuse through the capitalist system has utilized cultural norms and assimilated them into the mode of production.

Identity politics I would argue stratify the society and provide a distorted solution to problems that the capitalist mode of production has not necessarily created but has utilized for its own diffuse purposes.

Dr Mindbender

23rd March 2009, 03:04

it occurs to me, that "self organised groups" like "lesbian, transexual and gays" actually serve not the revolutionary cause but the bullshit fed to us by liberal capitalists.
it occurs to me that any kind of "discrimination" "positive" or otherwise, reinforces the capitalist bullshit ideology that the colour of your skin or the nation of origin actually affects your capability.
in my opinoin, pandering to differere nces that only the capitalists can profit from is a total rejection of socialist ideology.

So what are you saying, gays and transexuals shouldnt form their own groups?

I think they do serve a political purpose in a progressive way, because it mobilises people among their community who wouldnt otherwise engage in politics (thats as long as they don't formulate ideas of self supremacy over majority interests which would be reactionary).

If you strip away that identity, you alienate them from social radical mobilisation altogether.

bretty

23rd March 2009, 03:20

So what are you saying, gays and transexuals shouldnt form their own groups?

I think they do serve a political purpose in a progressive way, because it mobilises people among their community who wouldnt otherwise engage in politics (thats as long as they don't formulate ideas of self supremacy over majority interests which would be reactionary).

If you strip away that identity, you alienate them from social radical mobilisation altogether.

This is true, it's important that they understand that capitalism as a global system, uses the 'identity' they associate with in certain ways and that recognizing this is important to combat stratification.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

23rd March 2009, 04:43

Fuck, I'm so pissed off. Finished off this post and my comp froze before it could be posted. This is the much shorter, crappier and re-typed angrily version:

To the OP, I would agree with the general gist of what you are trying to say. Today "social movements" against one or another social (non-class) oppression (sexism, racism, religious hatred, homophobia etc.) are fundamentally bourgeois in that they act to divide and weaken the working class and it's own self-recognition as a class, dissolving it in favour of a range of 'identities'.

So what are you saying, gays and transexuals shouldnt form their own groups?

I would say that such groups are in no way progressive or serve the interests of the working class.

I think they do serve a political purpose in a progressive way, because it mobilises people among their community who wouldnt otherwise engage in politics (thats as long as they don't formulate ideas of self supremacy over majority interests which would be reactionary).

If you strip away that identity, you alienate them from social radical mobilisation altogether.

I don't think getting people to engage in politics is a good thing in and of itself. Social movements against sexism, racism, homophobia etc. fundamentally serve the interests of the ruling class in dividing the proletariat and destroying it's identity and unity

I think that ignoring these issues isn't the best course of action, as it would be ignoring facets of social life that form people's life experiences. Although queer-rights, minority-rights and other -rights groups don't necessarily advocate for the destruction of capitalism, I don't think they necessarily do revolutionaries any harm.

Whilst I would agree with your first sentence in that we can't ignore the existence of social oppression, I think your solution is a false one. I think this matter really comes down to how we believe it is possible to combat these social oppressions. Today I don't believe it is possible to oppose racism, sexism, homophobia or any other social oppression abstractly, capitalism today can offer no solution to these issues. Social oppression can only be combated and overcome in and through the class struggle - not in the identification of the individual as belonging to one or a number of social groups, but as belonging to a social class engaged in struggle - through the victory of socialism.

ZeroNowhere

23rd March 2009, 09:23

Also, perhaps this is a dumb question, but can someone explain why racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are perceived to be inherent in the capitalist system?
Well, firstly, they mean support for imperialist wars (see Islamophobia and the American Indians), secondly, they tend to be bred by poverty, and thirdly, like nationalism, because they divide the working class (see the Blacks and and American Indians: the capitalists were scared of them uniting with the white working class, and therefore the state enforced laws to prohibit contact between the races, so that people only got a bigoted view of them, but couldn't meet them to see if they were right, or co-operate in any way. Certainly, this 'as soon as whites saw black people and American Indians they instantly found them disgusting' stuff is bullcrap; they actually got on fairly well, even having a few united rebellions, which is why they had to be separated by law in the first place).

How exactly do they "divide" the working class? Aren't all these essentially class-based struggles? Just because Karl Marx did not mention these classes in his writings does not mean that voicing opposition to such oppression is against the interests of the working classes in general.
Not against, no. However, class-based? Well, no. Certainly, blacks, gays, whites, Indians, and Jews are not classes.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

24th March 2009, 04:32

How exactly do they "divide" the working class?

They seek to identify individuals based on a range of social identities to the detriment of class identity. In addition to this they are more often than not cross-class organisations and propose 'solutions' to these oppressions within capitalism.

Aren't all these essentially class-based struggles? Just because Karl Marx did not mention these classes in his writings does not mean that voicing opposition to such oppression is against the interests of the working classes in general.

No they are not classes they are sociological identities and categorisations. Of course socially oppressed groups opposing their given social oppression is not against the interests of the working class in and of itself. I explicitly noted that today these struggles are no longer progressive - today only the class struggle and the victory of socialism offers progress for humanity.

I mean all these oppressed groups inevitably belong to the working class, don't they?
No. as noted by Zero, a woman, a gay man, an asian person or a muslim can very well be a member of the bourgeoisie just as much as a member of the working class.

The oppressors need not necessarily be economic ones. Oppression can occur in the house among families, among ethnicities, among countries etc. All such oppression does not necessarily have an economic angle to it.
This is entirely true and I noted this explicitly in my above post. However, whilst these groups may be oppressed, only the working class is exploited and able to destroy capitalism internationally. Other classes today and throughout history as well as the myriad of oppressed peoples do not possess this trait; the working class is the only revolutionary class today.

Whatever you may call them, domination of and among the above groups is a result of some form of unjustifiable hierarchy.
And here is one of the fundamental problems of Anarchism (please note I do not apply this to all anarchists). You can not differentiate between oppression and exploitation, between social identity and class. Whether the social oppression and corresponding hierarchy are “unjustifiable” is completely irrelevant, Marxists are not moralists who speak in terms of “justifiability” and “right”. The working class is the only revolutionary class and the class struggle the only path of progress (and for that matter, salvation) for humanity. The fact that social oppression exists for individuals belonging to any number of social classes has nothing to do with this, their liberation can only come in and through the class struggle.

JimmyJazz

24th March 2009, 04:38

The OP might be interested in this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=15v0KWRui6oC&dq=how+we+learned+to+love+diversity+and+ignore+ine quality&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=XjEAJm3Agd&sig=6arfeUbNV59_3Ohya6gBrkjamps&hl=en&ei=D1XISfbhM5KWsQPwgfWTAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result).

I would advise you to be careful with this line of argument. While I agree it is absolutely correct, if you are white, or straight, or a male, there is always the danger that you can come off like a huge hypocrite preaching it too forcefully, especially to people who are not white, straight, male, etc.

For instance, even if you think that race is a social construct and that the only real solution is to close the wealth gap for all people regardless of skin color, you will be (rightfully) tuned out if you fail to acknowledge that skin color plays a major role historically in determining who gets oppressed and who benefits from oppression. Race may be biologically and objectively meaningless, but socially it has been anything but. Make sure you always acknowledge that fact.

From the book:

I have three goals in writing this book. The first is to show how our current notion of cultural diversity--trumpeted as the repudiation of racism and biological essentialism--in fact grew out of and perpetuates the very concepts it congratulates itself on having escaped. The second is to show how and why the American love affair with race--especially when you can dress up race as culture--has continued and even intensified. Almost everything we say about culture (that the significant differences between us are cultural, that such differences should be respected, that our cultural heritages should be perpetuated, that there's a value in making sure that different cultures survive) seems to me mistaken, and this book will try to show why. And the third goal is--by shifting our focus from cultural diversity to economic inequality--to help alter the political terrain of contemporary American intellectual life.edit: It's kind of funny, when you google "diversity" you get examples of pointless diversity (http://www.corvision.com/images/products/Building%20the%20Multicultural%20Team.jpg) and awesome diversity (http://www.ysu.edu/workplacediversity/about/together.jpg).

Bitter Ashes

24th March 2009, 20:22

WHOA!

No. as noted by Zero, a woman, a gay man, an asian person or a muslim can very well be a member of the bourgeoisie just as much as a member of the working class.
What planet are you living on? Yes, there are a select few bourgeois in these groups, but they are a heavy minority!
I do suggest you look into the oppression of the LGBT community and how it was challenged and there's still a long way to go. Yes, white, straight, male, christian workers have it tough, but they're still doing a lot better off than somebody who doesnt tick all those boxes. It's been an uphill struggle to get even close to the rights of the hetro workers, but it's been an active movement and I'm sure when we've got equal rights to you, we can start concentrating on all workers' rights after that. You've got to be able to crawl before you can walk.

edit:
Found this for you:
http://www.inprofession.com/2008/10/03/americas-top-10-richest-people-in-2008/
top 10 richest people in the United States. 10 straight, christian, white people. 8 are men. The only 2 women there are actualy sisters!

NiccolÃ² Rossi

25th March 2009, 08:04

Yes, there are a select few bourgeois in these groups, but they are a heavy minority!

Your point of course being...

I do suggest you look into the oppression of the LGBT community and how it was challenged and there's still a long way to go.
Never did I deny the oppression of the LGBT people. I know it exists and have acknowledged this and other social oppressions in both of my above posts. Please, read them over.

Yes, white, straight, male, christian workers have it tough, but they're still doing a lot better off than somebody who doesnt tick all those boxes.
Again, your point being?

edit:
Found this for you:
http://www.inprofession.com/2008/10/03/americas-top-10-richest-people-in-2008/
top 10 richest people in the United States. 10 straight, christian, white people. 8 are men. The only 2 women there are actualy sisters!

Of what interest is this to me? What does the religious, racial, ethnic and religious demography of the America’s 10 richest people interest me? Besides, no where does the information linked to mention their sexual preference or religion, contrary to what you indicate in your post.

I don't know if anarchists view themselves as moralists when questioning hierarchy and most anarchists accept the Marxian analysis. I would think anarchists who oppose coercive forms of hierarchy do so from the standpoint of historical materialism, but I'm not sure of this since I have not read any anarchist literature dealing with this aspect.
I’m not concerned with what anarchists think their opposition to ‘hierarchy’ is based on. I am concerned here with you and what you are saying (my point with regard to Anarchism generally was a side note). Oppression does not make a group inherently revolutionary, nor for that matter does being exploited (Slaves and serfs were not revolutionary classes in the period of decadence of antiquity or feudalism but rather the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie respectively).

Again I want to emphasise, I am not opposed to the rights and freedoms of women, LGBT people, people of a particular racial, ethnic or religious group, etc. I am however opposed to cross-class social movements organised for the combating of these oppressions within the framework of capitalism. Patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, racism and all other forms of discrimination can only be combated in and through the class struggle and the victory of socialism.

Black Dagger

25th March 2009, 08:10

Moved to discrimination.

There is nothing 'indepth' or 'theoretical' presented in the OP at all.

Bitter Ashes

25th March 2009, 14:57

Your point of course being...
My point is that suggesting that the bourgeois has a demographic within the true ratio of ethnic/religous/seuxal/sexuality democraphics is totaly false. Are 10% of the bourgeois in Engand not white? No. Are 20% of the bourgeois anywhere openly gay/bi/trans? No.

Never did I deny the oppression of the LGBT people. I know it exists and have acknowledged this and other social oppressions in both of my above posts. Please, read them over.
I recognise that, however you've got the scale way off. What I was getting at more with this part was that the LGBT community has made steps and continues to do so in gaining civil rights. The things that have been done to achieve this are definatly worth exploring and learning from.

Again, your point being?
I'll repeat what I said again then:
"It's been an uphill struggle to get even close to the rights of the hetro workers, but it's been an active movement and I'm sure when we've got equal rights to you, we can start concentrating on all workers' rights after that. You've got to be able to crawl before you can walk."

Of what interest is this to me? What does the religious, racial, ethnic and religious demography of the America’s 10 richest people interest me? Besides, no where does the information linked to mention their sexual preference or religion, contrary to what you indicate in your post.
You were intrested in whether the demographic of minorities within the bourgeois matched national demographics. Here's 10 bourgeois, selected by somebody else, so I've had no hand in biasing that selection. Feel free to type those names into wiki or whatever and check on those. I'm confident that I know what you'll find.

Afro

26th March 2009, 00:04

i can't possibly comment on LGBT but with regards to race and religion i found as an individual i have more in common with white working class lhads than say black brother who went to Eton or from so other 'posh' institution/community.

I think class consucionous should be encouraged far more than say black rights or asian rights etc. The reason being the suffering and explotation that one suffers is blind to race and religon.

However, i am not advocating that organisations that protect ethnic communities are not important. I just feel that they should shift their perspective to a more class based perspective than say protectionary and accept that people who may not be part of your 'in-group' are part of your 'class group' therefore they should protect thier class intrests as much as thier ethnic/religous intrests.

See in america and canada, is there a lot a stark divison between ethnic minorites? (sorry about the spelling btw)

NiccolÃ² Rossi

26th March 2009, 04:35

My point is that suggesting that the bourgeois has a demographic within the true ratio of ethnic/religous/seuxal/sexuality democraphics is totaly false. Are 10% of the bourgeois in Engand not white? No. Are 20% of the bourgeois anywhere openly gay/bi/trans? No.

This is all irrelevant. Where have I suggested that "the bourgeois has a demographic within the true ratio of ethnic/religous/seuxal/sexuality democraphics" [sic].?

I recognise that, however you've got the scale way off.

What scale? What on earth are you talking about?

What I was getting at more with this part was that the LGBT community has made steps and continues to do so in gaining civil rights.

It's been an uphill struggle to get even close to the rights of the hetro workers, but it's been an active movement and I'm sure when we've got equal rights to you, we can start concentrating on all workers' rights after that. You've got to be able to crawl before you can walk.

Yes different sections of the working class experience different social oppressions, but this does not change anything. Your suggestion that we have to fight sexism, racism, homophobia et al. is a completely anti-working class in that you seek to sideline and halt the class struggle until the day when they have 'learnt to crawl'. I repeat what I have said before, sexism today can only be combated in and through the class struggle. We do not sideline either, we understand and appreciate that the only solution to social oppression today is the proletarian revolution.

(Sorry I didn't address this remark in your above post, I had accidentally skipped it and left it in plain text, I have edited it out now.)

You were intrested in whether the demographic of minorities within the bourgeois matched national demographics.

I think you are mistaken here.

Here's 10 bourgeois, selected by somebody else, so I've had no hand in biasing that selection. Feel free to type those names into wiki or whatever and check on those. I'm confident that I know what you'll find.

My problem is not with the objectivity of the list, my problem is with your posting it here as evidence of the demographic composition of the bourgeoisie despite: one, its inability to be a true representation (the top 10 richest people are nothing to go by), two, you yourself have not bothered to read the information yourself or provide me with the relevant statistics (please don't go to the effort of finding them, I don't want them nor need them)

synthesis

26th March 2009, 04:58

Minorities have life experiences which are different from the majority and therefore I have no problem when they get together and voice their common concerns which don't directly address the class struggle.

But this cannot be seen as anything but tangential to the socialist agenda, and as socialists (not necessarily as human beings) we have to be wary of alienating the majority.

The other thing about "minority interests" and "identity politics" is that they do have the capacity to be perverted by bourgeois elements. When the "glass ceiling" is more important to people than imperialism, we have a problem.

Travieso

26th March 2009, 06:28

Found this for you:

top 10 richest people in the United States. 10 straight, christian, white people. 8 are men. The only 2 women there are actualy sisters!

Did you actually made you research?
Michael Bloomberg is actually Jewish, Larry Ellison grew up in a Jewish family and is considered agnostic right now. And I'm really tired to investigate if any of the other 8 profess a Christian religion.

I really would like a question answered. What is a white person to any of you? Because from most of the post I have read I believe many really do not believe race is a social construct as I've seen the white working class ridiculed and even labeled as "enemies" in this forum.

GPDP

26th March 2009, 06:46

Did you actually made you research?
Michael Bloomberg is actually Jewish, Larry Ellison grew up in a Jewish family and is considered agnostic right now. And I'm really tired to investigate if any of the other 8 profess a Christian religion.

I really would like a question answered. What is a white person to any of you? Because from most of the post I have read I believe many really do not believe race is a social construct as I've seen the white working class ridiculed and even labeled as "enemies" in this forum.

It seems to me that "whiteness" is rarely defined by what it is, but rather by what it is not.

benhur

26th March 2009, 08:00

Also, perhaps this is a dumb question, but can someone explain why racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are perceived to be inherent in the capitalist system?

These aren't inherent in capitalism, although many self-styled leftists will tell you otherwise. They'll say capitalism keeps racism (or sexism or any other form of discrimination) alive to divide workers. This is ridiculous for two reasons:

# Even without racism, sexism etc., workers are going to be divided if they view each other as competition, and if they lack class consciousness.

# Racism/sexism may actually be counterproductive as far as the capitalists are concerned, because they'll be missing out on all the cheap labor they may otherwise acquire.

Bottom line, capitalism is evil because it exploits workers, period. Doesn't mean we, as leftists, must have bizarre ideas that all the world's problems are inherent in capitalism. They are not. Racism/sexism/homophobia could exist even without capitalism, there are people out there who actually hate you for your race, sexual orientation etc.. It has nothing to do with capitalism at all, some people are prejudiced regardless of their political orientation. To reduce everything to economics or to 'cappie vs commie' is quite puerile.

StalinFanboy

26th March 2009, 08:09