Are Marxists too reductionist about social oppression?

[KurtFF8]

While I am certainly a Marxist, I think that some forms of oppression can't fully be reduced to a class analysis. I mean this only in the sense that it doesn't provide a full explanation for certain forms of social oppression. For example, the portrayal of women in film as simply objects is related to the commodification of things like sexuality, but the oppression of women is across class lines often (although for example women in the ruling class are socially oppressed in a different way than working class women). I recently read this article that has a sentence that is very problematic yet pops up from time to time by Marxists:
Once these economic forms are superseded, the trade in women will automatically disappear. From Communism and the Family by Alexandra Kollontai (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm) This just doesn't seem to follow for me. While I think the elimination of current class relations is quite necessary to truly liberate oppressed peoples, I don't think that it automatically follows that a socialist revolution will end things like social oppression. For example, it isn't fully absurd to imagine a society where the means of production are held in common, yet films like "Observe and Report" are produced that paint date rape as not a serious crime (and even to be laughed at). This highlights a problem with assuming that socialism would "automatically fix" these problems, and also perhaps shows a problem with trying to reduce all oppression to class. That said, I am still a Marxist and think that class relations certainly do explain why these forms of social oppression occur. For example, looking into the history of racism and how it changed over time was a result of changing modes of production. So while a class analysis can explain why these forms of oppression came to be (or were "given an opportunity to flourish"), we don't need to stop there. Understanding how to fight the social oppression seems to require more than simply saying "refer to the class struggle".

[FreeFocus]

Patriarchy and misogyny predate capitalism and have their roots in the way humanity developed over time socially/culturally. Implementing socialism will not smash patriarchy and misogyny without further action. Likewise, things like homophobia wouldn't either, and neither would racism.

I think it's correct to say that capitalism correlates with, and often drives, things like racism and other social ills, but it is not the (sole) cause.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I absolutely agree, it's important to realize that the revolution is not an event, it's a process. If we feel that once capitalism is abolished social oppression will invariably stop, we have a lot of learning to do. This seems almost related to a sense of "inevitablism" that plagued Marxism for so long. Even if we break with the structure, the ideas imposed upon people by the old superstructure will linger and we will need to fight them so they don't get passed along. Socialism won't necessarily eradicate racism, it won't necessarily eradicate sexism. There are absolutely factors other than class in society that cause these problems and I think that most Maoists in particular will agree with you here.

However, I do think that class is the force that spawns the other forces that create social inequality. I do feel that it all boils down to class, but other factors that grew out of it can survive even when class has been removed.

[xAnonymousx]

Well Socialism certainly wouldn't stop things like sexism but it would certainly be a step toward that goal. Once class distinctions are torn down then it makes a way forward for other distinctions to be torn down, such as race,gender,etc. It would take a process and a changing of peoples attitude over time, but it could certainly be done better under a Socialist government than a Capitalist one.

[KurtFF8]

There's no question that it would be a step forward. I don't know of many who disagree with that fact that even in the "Socialist East" (regardless of your view of "Socialist Eastern Europe") that the position of Women was significantly better than in the West (I think that even conservatives may concede this point).

But they certainly weren't fully liberated, and while feminism was on the agenda, there may have been other factors that lead to this incomplete liberation of women (e.g. while Stalin was in power in the USSR, he reverted many feminist gains and even ran into ethnic problems, see my post in history about "Official antisemitism in the USSR").

So the point is that while we fight for the liberation of the working class, we can't just push the fight for the liberation of women and oppressed races (and of course various other oppressed peoples) to the side as well, they need to be actively combated. We can't just throw our arms up and say "well thinks will likely be better" or "well socialism would at least be a good step!"

We should instead say that we want a socialism that will take very much into the account certain forms of social oppression that sometimes doesn't seem to be directly related to economic exploitation. (This, incidentally is one reason I like the Party for Socialism and Liberation, they take this into account)

[Dr Mindbender]

To me, the fact that some forms of oppression cant be reduced to a class analysis is irrelevant because in any case, classes won't exist once we've achieved our ultimate objective.

Thats not to say i condone oppression against bourgeoisie women, homosexuals or non-whites.

[ZeroNowhere]

When did Marxism become pure economic determinism?

[Radical]

Not every political system is perfect. But it is with my opinion that Capitalism has by far the most effective "cons".

Freedom comes before Equality. I'd rather see the world in equality, from than one person having more freedom than the other.

[genstrike]

To me, the fact that some forms of oppression cant be reduced to a class analysis is irrelevant because in any case, classes won't exist once we've achieved our ultimate objective.

It is relevant because once we smash capitalism we still have to smash patriarchy, racism, heterosexism, etc.

And to answer the original question: In my experience, some Marxists are and some Marxists aren't. And I've butted heads with those who are.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think it's reductionist to say that oppression is related to class. I think the mistake is when groups in the past have placed greater importance on economic fights than fights against oppression.

I believe there is a dialectical relationship between the two and so you can't get rid of sexism without getting rid of capitalism, but you can't get rid of capitalism without fighting against sexism.

Although oppression of women has been around as long as class society has been around, I think it's important to remember that a lot of social conditions that people think of as permanent are actually very fluid - especially at times of struggle or reaction. It only took a generation for black slaves to go from being treated more or less as indentured servants in the American colonies to being set out as a separate slave caste. Conversely, it took only a decade or so to go from Jim Crow to MLK saying (in 1967 or 68) that he thought there would be a black President by 1980 - and there might have been if the black power movement had not retreated from militancy - major cities had black mayors by 1970 afterall.

Of course, in capitalism, these gains are often like one-setp-forwar and two steps back. But if there is a real mass working class revolution it would necisarrily invole women, blacks, immigrants, homosexuals, and all other opressed groups taking a leading role and this by itself would challenge old ideas held by both the opressed as well as workers who held ruling class ideas about the opressed.

[KurtFF8]

When did Marxism become pure economic determinism?

Well it's not completely of course, which is my point. Although I have actually seen some argue that they are economic determinists.

[Rascolnikova]

I'm dubious. Discriminatory attitudes don't just float around in the air, and we aren't going to defeat them by calling in the ghost busters; there is a material foundation. Sexism and racism are perpetuated in discourse--and in a time of modern technology, discourse is no longer dominated by the loudest, the smartest, or the most eloquent; it's dominated by the group able to control the most air time and bandwidth. This is a crude simplification, but I think not untrue.

I think if our modes of public discourse (at this point, economic goods) were run by and for the people, many of these issues would resolve themselves. Perhaps this is reductionist, but if so I'd like to see arguments to that effect.