Class as Identity?

[YSR]

Hey everybody, I've got a question that I'd like to see how people respond to.

So recently, drinking a few beers with my academic-y friends, I was presented with a puzzle. We were hating on "identity politics" as something that just reaffirms the hierarchies of identity (these kids love Judith Butler and whatnot). To fight exclusively or extensively in the realm of identity is sort of self-defeating because you're still fighting within the discourse of oppression, or so they say.

But here's where I got stumped. My friends turned on me and went "Hey YSR, you're a class struggle anarchist. Class is just an identity too." This confused me. I responded "Duh, no it's not. The control of the means of production is a tangible thing." To which they responded, cleverly, that not any more tangible than, say whiteness. To be white is to have all sorts of privileges that one may not see, but that operate and systematize the world in a specific way. Just as the ownership of the means of production is tied to a set of privileges, like being able to control how production works etc, the ownership of whiteness allows one to employ the "means" of racial hierarchy to enjoy a set of benefits. So class struggle politics are also identity politics, because we're contesting the ownership of the means of production, just as other identity politics are contesting the ownership of the means of affirming hierarchies, not contesting the nature of hierarchy itself.

This really stumped me. Are my friends just totally caught up in a mastrabatory "everything is discourse" post-modernist thing that's not even worth debating? Because it seems like that, but what's the proper response? Does class function like any other identity, when you abstract it far enough?

[Pogue]

As far I am concerned its a ocnrete reality, and an economic relation. Because of its physical presence it naturally forms a kind of subconcious identity too. Its not so much about people 'choosing' to identify according to class, as say groups like Class War do, but it being something which is inescapable and thus has grounding in the real world. Even if you tried to ignore your class, when it came down to you being sacked and being forced to one side of a picket line or occupation, I think your 'class identity' would become evident whether you like it or not.

[davidasearles]

First, what is identity? And don't use the word identify in the answer.

Second, why, if one is in favor of worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution would it matter what class that person "identifies" with? can anyone answer this without quoting or alluding to the writings of others, AND without stating logically unsupported conclusions?

[YSR]

HLVS, okay. But I'm not talking about identity in terms of how one identifies, but rather in terms of how one exists in a discourse. I'm not talking about Class War or whatever, but rather that the "discourse of class" is one in which we are contesting the power of the ruling class. Maybe I'm being unclear, I haven't had breakfast and it's the afternoon...

Davidsearles, I don't really know where you're going with that. We're talking about identity but we're really talking about discourse analysis and Butlerian concepts of identity and shit. (Not that I've ever read Butler, so if some of you pomo kids could bring me up to speed on a revolutionary left version of Butler, that would be great.) again it's not about how someone "identifies" but rather the "identity" of class, proletariat vs. bourgeois, as positions within a discourse of control of a specific means of enforcing power, the means of production.

This sounds real confusing as I write it, so I apologize, I'm not schooled in pomo and I'm not even defending my own position, just trying to argue my friends' viewpoint to flesh out a response to it.

[YSR]

Thanks for spelling that out, socialist. One thing that made me think and I guess it's something I knew but wasn't able to articulate well, is that revolutionary activity by the working class is not simply to replace the bourgeoisie as the rules of the means of production, but to consciously erase the category of class entirely. So class struggle is anti-identity politics, insofar as it is fighting to eliminate that category of identity.

[black magick hustla]

Hey everybody, I've got a question that I'd like to see how people respond to.

So recently, drinking a few beers with my academic-y friends, I was presented with a puzzle. We were hating on "identity politics" as something that just reaffirms the hierarchies of identity (these kids love Judith Butler and whatnot). To fight exclusively or extensively in the realm of identity is sort of self-defeating because you're still fighting within the discourse of oppression, or so they say.

But here's where I got stumped. My friends turned on me and went "Hey YSR, you're a class struggle anarchist. Class is just an identity too." This confused me. I responded "Duh, no it's not. The control of the means of production is a tangible thing." To which they responded, cleverly, that not any more tangible than, say whiteness. To be white is to have all sorts of privileges that one may not see, but that operate and systematize the world in a specific way. Just as the ownership of the means of production is tied to a set of privileges, like being able to control how production works etc, the ownership of whiteness allows one to employ the "means" of racial hierarchy to enjoy a set of benefits. So class struggle politics are also identity politics, because we're contesting the ownership of the means of production, just as other identity politics are contesting the ownership of the means of affirming hierarchies, not contesting the nature of hierarchy itself.

This really stumped me. Are my friends just totally caught up in a mastrabatory "everything is discourse" post-modernist thing that's not even worth debating? Because it seems like that, but what's the proper response? Does class function like any other identity, when you abstract it far enough?

why do you hang out with those people

anyway, whiteness only makes sense in the context of class society. a white good ol' boy has it way worse than obama

[Pogue]

What do you mean Marmot?

[Led Zeppelin]

My friends turned on me and went "Hey YSR, you're a class struggle anarchist. Class is just an identity too." This confused me. I responded "Duh, no it's not. The control of the means of production is a tangible thing." To which they responded, cleverly, that not any more tangible than, say whiteness. To be white is to have all sorts of privileges that one may not see, but that operate and systematize the world in a specific way. Just as the ownership of the means of production is tied to a set of privileges, like being able to control how production works etc, the ownership of whiteness allows one to employ the "means" of racial hierarchy to enjoy a set of benefits.

But there's a concrete difference between the two. When you fight your "identity" as a worker, you are fighting not only the hierarchical relationship between worker and capitalist, but also the entire structure behind it, i.e., capitalism (and everything that comes with it, including racism, sexism, exploitation etc.).

When you fight against just one aspect of it from the viewpoint of a singular identity, singular in the sense that it's limited to one social group, such as blacks, whites, gays etc. you are only fighting the hierarchical structure in enforced against that specific identity. And that doesn't work because the root causes of that structure to begin with is not based on the identity "black", "white", "hispanic" or "homosexual", but on the identity "bourgeoisie" and "worker", that is, it stands on the grounds of capitalism as a social system.

So when you speak of an identity in terms of classes, you supersede individualistic forms of identity which are limited to a hopeless and fruitless struggle against hierarchical systems that are not based on those forms to begin with (they are based on the generalized form of identity, which is expressed in classes in a class-society).


So class struggle politics are also identity politics, because we're contesting the ownership of the means of production, just as other identity politics are contesting the ownership of the means of affirming hierarchies, not contesting the nature of hierarchy itself.

Well that's pretty stupid of them to say because the only way to contest the nature of that hierarchy is to use the generalized form of identity which is oppressed and exploited under that hierarchy and emancipate it. That identity is that of the working-class.

[black magick hustla]

What do you mean Marmot?

you aint american so you dont get it. a good ol' boy is a poor white man who lives in the hilly parts of tenesse, texas, etc and the stereotype is that they like their guns, and they wave confederate flags

[Pogue]

why does he have it worse than obama?

[black magick hustla]

why does he have it worse than obama?

cuz they are poor as hell and obama is a man that is worth a few million dollars and head of the state?

[Jack]

why does he have it worse than obama?

Because dispite being blatant racists they're poorly educated, very low income, and have no opportunities ahead of them.

[Il Medico]

First, what is identity? And don't use the word identify in the answer.
Well, it is what you are. The things that you associate yourself with. Sexuality, appearance, hair style, and personality all comes from your real and imagined associations. An imagined association maybe political association, religious belief, or being goth. There is nothing that concretely defines you as such, except your attraction to and self affiliation with that particular group. However, your unchangeable factors of how you describe your self, such as race, gender, sexuality, or class will never change. No matter how much you deny being poor or black, I doesn't change the fact that you are. Thus, it is inescapable that ultimately you will be associated with such.


Second, why, if one is in favor of worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution would it matter what class that person "identifies" with? can anyone answer this without quoting or alluding to the writings of others, AND without stating logically unsupported conclusions?It shouldn't really. Che was petty bourgeois, and he still fought along side workers. However, those type of men/women are rare. The fact is identity politics will play a huge part in a workers revolution. In the same way, it did in America post 911. The Us vs Them attitude. The worker who identify them selves as the oppressed working class will side with revolution. However, the ones who are newly (having been pushed out of petty bourgeois lifestyle,such as my father) working class may ultimately side with the group they still associate them selves with, despite all evidence to the contrary. They, may realize their real oppressors and join us, however, denial results in attacking those who accept the reality, which they are not willing to. The working class will be attacked by those unwilling to admit they themselves are working class. This is similar to how, a lot of gay bashers are actually gay themselves and because of their denial side with the hateful straights who would also oppress them.

[ckaihatsu]

Social identity is hegemonically culturally determined, dependent on the power structure created by the balance of class forces.

So "whiteness" can be defined as 'the dominant culture' or as 'a biologically bestowed physical trait' -- if the operating definition is the first, then it *wouldn't matter* *what* physical characteristics one has -- one could *be physically white* and still be treated as one of the underclass, due to one's social identity from religion, ethnicity, geography, etc. -- all determined by class anyway....

If "whiteness" is taken to *be* the biological traits that one is born with, then we see the inevitable sad outcome in the likes of Michael Jackson who was born black but ascended into the lower reaches of the dominant, white world -- the cognitive dissonance took its toll and he tried to fit in as much as possible by altering his *physical* features, as much as possible. Of course he'd never *be* white, in either sense of the term, and wound up being roundly lambasted by the ruling elite when they needed him for a distraction from the economic meltdown of c. 2003.

Unlike the unmaskable physical racial characteristics we were born with, we can *choose* to subjectively identify ourselves based on our knowledge of the existing, *objective* class division, or we can choose *not* to -- this is what differentiates those who are consciously, overtly *political* from those who are not. We can choose to identify *correctly* with our objective class status or we can attempt to "cross over" and demonstrate loyalty to the political forces of the *other* class than the one we were born into.

Given that our life-time may *only* be spent in work, pleasure, or political / business activities, we can simply look at what *proportion* of a person's life is spent in consciously political activity, and if that activity is in the furtherance of the best interests as one's own *class* interests.

In this way, our conscious political affiliation(s) are *much more* than an affected (or natural) social identity -- it is the conscious participation in *objective class struggle*, to some degree and effectiveness, on either one side or the other.


Chris





--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[davidasearles]

Captain Jack:

(Identity) is what you are.

das:

Then we are all essentially identical.

ckaihatsu:

Social identity is hegemonically culturally determined

das:

who said?

"social identity is culturally determined" is in essence a tautology. "hegemoncially" is a mere allusion to Gramsci. "The ideas of the ruling class come to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies." Cylic reasoning. If there are "rulers" then of course the idiologies of the rulers are seen to be the norm. Isn't that what ruling is all about?

I don't see rulers. Instead I see a society ruled by a combination of outdated ideas which keep workers from collective control of the industrail means of production and distributuion. We have accepted WITHOUT REASON that we can only work to overthrow the ideas that keep us from collective control unless we defeat "the ruling class" in something called the "class struggle." No thanks. You can play your games all you want to but I'm going to directly address collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

[thundertail19921]

This is a rather interesting concept. I'd like to explore it further.

[Vanguard1917]

Also, Marxism is not workerism. It doesn't celebrate the 'identity' of the worker; on the contrary, it seeks to bring about a society where the working class no longer exists. There's no similarity with identity politics, with its celebration of particularism and 'diversity'. After all, we don't want a class-diverse society, but an end to the class system (i.e. a classless society).

[MarxSchmarx]

Seems what could be said on this has pretty much been said. I'd add that there are some "pure" anarchists who deride the class-struggle anarchists as seeds of the poison fruit of capitalism, so in some respects this perspective is not new:

http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca/specs/hatta-shuzo-and-pure-anarchism-in-interwar-japan/itemid2780967/?itemtext=itemname:hatta-shuzo-and-pure-anarchism-in-interwar-japan

I'd also add that resolving the material contradictions that exist within capitalism are not the same as perpetuating the "discourse within the framework of oppression." If they press, note that the details of this perspective are specified in, e.g.:

Marx, K. 1867. Das Kapital, v.I-III. Verlag. Hamburg, Germany

and references therein.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd add that there are some "pure" anarchists who deride the class-struggle anarchists as seeds of the poison fruit of capitalism, so in some respects this perspective is not new:

http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca/specs/hatta-shuzo-and-pure-anarchism-in-interwar-japan/itemid2780967/?itemtext=itemname:hatta-shuzo-and-pure-anarchism-in-interwar-japan

For all its (so far) ultra-syndicalist, anti-party shortcomings, class-strugglist anarchism is far superior to utopian anarchism, lifestylist anarchism, hooliganist anarchism, and bomb-throwing "insurrectionist" anarchism (a variant of which is *NOT* surprisingly being implemented by "people's war" Indian Maoists as we speak) - not to mention superior to even New Leftism and the various forms of Western "Marxism" infected by the identity-politics-driven New Leftism.

[MarxSchmarx]

For all its (so far) ultra-syndicalist, anti-party shortcomings, class-strugglist anarchism is far superior to utopian anarchism, lifestylist anarchism, hooliganist anarchism, and bomb-throwing "insurrectionist" anarchism (a variant of which is *NOT* surprisingly being implemented by "people's war" Indian Maoists as we speak) - not to mention superior to even New Leftism and the various forms of Western "Marxism" infected by the identity-politics-driven New Leftism.

Well it's key that the class-struggle anarchists share a common analysis. At least within anarchism, the problem essentially is that these alternatives seriously underestimate how pernicious and ubiquitous capitalism has become. Ultimately such movements lack a serious analysis and are largely petty-bourgeois reactionaries by any other name.

I can't speak for the "new left marxists" as I know next to nothing about those movements, but I suspect the broader critique applies.

[Lamanov]

My friends turned on me and went "Hey YSR, you're a class struggle anarchist. Class is just an identity too." This confused me. I responded "Duh, no it's not. The control of the means of production is a tangible thing." To which they responded, cleverly, that not any more tangible than, say whiteness. To be white is to have all sorts of privileges that one may not see, but that operate and systematize the world in a specific way.

Actually, you are still right, and shouldn't be confused over this.

Being white or a male is something that can't be changed. It is very much tangible, but privileges that come with it are not a consequence of some "biological superiority", but of specific social relations which are all based precisely in the realm of "relations of production."

The reason why Class is not a "false identity" is not just because it is tangible (as they all are), but because only this identity can be changed to something completely different, and with it, the whole hierarchy of "false identities" such as race or gender.

When we say how these (race, gender, nationality) are a thing of "false identity politics", we don't say that because they are not real or because there are no consequences to them, but because they themselves can't be changed as such and because insisting on them only deepens divisions among the working class.

"Identity politics" entrenches divisions which safeguard the existing capitalist order.

Insisting on a class identity - as opposed to any other - has a reverse effect. It pushes toward complete change of society and with it of any problem that can't be solved through "identity politics".

[JimN]

YSR,
I think the important thing here is that, as a class struggle anarchist, you are struggling for a society without classes and that this can only be achieved by a class conscious working class. In other words, in order to achieve emancipation we need to recognise our position in capitalist society in relation to the means of production and struggle, together with others in the same position (other workers), for a world of common ownership without classes, property, money or the state.
When it comes to privileges linked to skin colour, accent, regional origin etc we overcome this in two ways. Firstly, we consciously decide to not recognise the legitimacy of such privilege and we fight against it. In order to do this we identify not with different sections (imaginary or real) of humankind but with humankind as a whole. Eg. Only one race - human race. Secondly, we struggle for the estabilshment of a society where there will be no privilege at all.
So we emancipate ourselves from the economic tyranny of capitalism and the social tyranny of privilege and prejudice by the establishment of a world of free access.

[ckaihatsu]

Just to reiterate:

Class is an *objective* measure -- it is one's *real-world* relationship in regards to society's means of mass production. (The reason is because the means of mass production -- factories -- are humanity's most cutting-edge *and* most productive technologies to-date, and thus are the source of humanity's surplus of manufactured goods.) The percentage of a person's income, from zero to 100%, that one receives from financial gains from capital ownership -- *not* from one's own work, through wages -- determines to what degree that person has a *material dependence* on society's surplus labor value. The *amount* of wealth that a person has (from capital ownership, obviously), determines *how much* a part of the ruling class they are -- in some proportion to *total* capital ownership throughout all of society.

This means that *class* is *not* an "identity" in the subjective sense of how we choose to label ourselves, or how parts of society choose to label us -- it remains a *wealth* and *ownership*, or objective-material, definition.

This *objective* basis of social being / identity has certain, unavoidable *cultural* consequences, or manifestations -- since one must live in a mode that is ever-conscious about the *best interests* of capital ownership the resulting life tends to be (arguably) less-personal and less-human, compared to someone who *doesn't* have to be perpetually mindful of propertied interests. (And this is not to say that being working class is exactly *liberating*, either....)

In order to fit in to bourgeois society the propertied type will tend to strive to be "respectable", thereby *commodifying* their *social identity* in that direction -- this will mean keeping up with the latest news in mainstream pop culture, and affecting the styles and consumer preferences of the prevailing mainstream bourgeois culture.





The telltale sign of societal / showbiz desperation is the reliance on themes of either nature or religion. From a stylistic point of view these are old, hackneyed forms that reflect the tiredest of cliches.





I was watching Bill Maher's "Religulous" and one part of it got me thinking -- *plenty* of people, *especially* religious types, [and "respectable" bourgeois types,] are essentially cultural roadkill. Instead of dealing with the actual multicultural social / political / economic world that we live in they stop at the kindergarten cardboard-fort level of identity and refuse to test themselves further. By keeping things conveniently simplistic they ignore entire continents of issues thereby limiting their identity to little more than that of a glorified goldfish.

On this following scale of social magnitudes we can mark off exactly where these religious types stop -- arguably a step above nationalism.


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://tinyurl.com/nf8gyr

[ckaihatsu]

I've also heard that one's *social* identity is defined by one's *perceived* oppression (whether it has a basis in fact or not).

[bromide]

So, to the OP, I don't think class is different from other forms of identity. Class is an economic form of identity, whereas race, gender etc are social forms of identity.
Class is not just economic identity, it's also social identity and it doesn't have to be abstracted that far to become apparent. It has, as Bourdieu noted, social capital. For example, the ability to network or create professional contacts. The bourgeoisie learn how to do this from a young age, they learn from their parents and in their private schools. The working class does not learn this. Public schools (in the US at least) teach obedience to superiors and networking is not a skill transmitted by working class parents. However, the inability to network can, for an academic for example, supersede one's ideas or knowledge base no matter how extensive or groundbreaking they are. This means that the ideas of the bourgeoisie colleague would be heard more loudly than those of the person from the working class, even though they are in the same field and have similar incomes. So you see, class is far more than economic identity.

In terms of identity politics, they are important because they explain why class isn't necessarily a unifier. An economic/resource struggle underlies so much misery, but if you don't look at intersections of identity such as how gender and ethnicity or even stigma (prostitutes and school teachers are often in the same economic strata) are intertwined with class, you can't understand the extent of oppression or why the working class doesn't just unite in many places.

[inkus]

Class as an identity ? Yes I think so. I consider class - collective identity arising from a shared environmental situation. Class identity however isn't the same as political identity although they may overlap (as in the case of ''marxist workerism'') - Not a good thing in my book. I think the working class identity is forged, defined by and a reflection of the very system socialism seeks to dismantle ergo *Socialist workerism* is a contradiction in action. I am working class and I find sexism, authoritarianism, racism to be more enhanced in working class discourse than in middle class. I think this is because working class people are subjected to the worst of capitalism - internalize the workplace order and reproduce it upon the immediate situation.

As for Marxism/Anarchism ect. they entail a element of identity, everything is identity in the broad sence which Is why I suppose its counterproductive and hypocritical to frame ''identity politics'' in a negative light. Im an anarcho marxist, thats my identity and belief - there are opposing identities which I hate, namely those that are the manifestation of what I consider wrong/ugly/unjust. We are all subjective entities with opposing interest's.

[bretty]

Thanks for spelling that out, socialist. One thing that made me think and I guess it's something I knew but wasn't able to articulate well, is that revolutionary activity by the working class is not simply to replace the bourgeoisie as the rules of the means of production, but to consciously erase the category of class entirely. So class struggle is anti-identity politics, insofar as it is fighting to eliminate that category of identity.

I would agree with this too, the point of class struggle is essentially the struggle for anti-identity politics.

However I think class is a fundamental identity, however I'd argue that there are both reformist ways of approaching these identity politics, and there is the radical way which is the elimination of identity politics through unifying to tackle systemic inequalities which often are products of economic inequality.

[ckaihatsu]

I would agree with this too, the point of class struggle is essentially the struggle for anti-identity politics.


Ultimately, yes, we have a larger scope of interests in common through our being a part of the working class, and so we are at our greatest strength when we're organized on this basis, with this consciousness.





However I think class is a fundamental identity, however I'd argue that there are both reformist ways of approaching these identity politics, and there is the radical way which is the elimination of identity politics through unifying to tackle systemic inequalities which often are products of economic inequality.


These days, in our post-industrial, post-modern (not 'postmodernism') world we're more individuated yet more commonly globalized than ever before, and so there is *no* excuse anymore (as if there ever was) to be political on *any* basis except for one that represents one's *best* interests, which is on a *class* basis.

*However*, that being said, there may be some *limited*, local, short-term cases where a large group *will want* to organize and identify on the basis of some other, identity-politics-based political identity. This is seen in anti-oppression struggles, such as the civil rights movement, where people from different backgrounds would identify with the oppressed group, namely blacks in the U.S. in the '60s (or blacks in '70s South Africa, or Arabs in current-day Palestine, and so on).

This is because, *for a particular moment*, the public perception may (arguably) comprehend more easily and relate better to the struggle if it's manifested as a *slightly leftward* *variation* from the conventional, existing status quo.

A good example would be the recent move by Zelaya in Honduras -- he made a *merely reformist* action -- a call for a plebiscite on the *possibility* of calling a Constituent Assembly to *possibly* amend the constitution. (And the Honduran constitution has already been amended in the past.)

However, as an acting nationalist -- one in the position of president -- his *reformist* move, a slight lean to the left while still acting from the basis of nationalism, was enough to piss off the military junta that has the backing of the U.S. empire.

The people of Honduras rallied on the basis of their *national* identity as an *oppressed nationality*, which is certainly to the left of the status quo, or 'radical', but it *wasn't* necessarily on the basis of class, and (arguably) didn't need to be *for that moment*. (But if an eruption of mass strikes and grassroots Latin American labor solidarity could have spread instantly at the time, then that would have been *even better*.)

Since the end of contemporary modernist development -- that based on the health of the nation-state itself -- around the '70s -- the singling-out of certain groups based on their identity has become much more untenable, especially considering the increased ease of grassroots global communications and links-building. Yes, there are still nation-states, with all of the racism and nationalist uses of force that come from them, but it would be *backward* for us, as revolutionaries / radicals, to *limit* the struggle to one based on a *national identity* or even one based on an *oppressed identity*. Certainly we're inter-national and anti-oppression, but our most common basis, again, is that of class, all over the world.


---


As you can see, I think it's valuable to view the political spectrum, and the practice of politics, from a relativistic, though principled, perspective. I made a couple of diagrams that attempt to depict this perspective in a schematic way:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://tinyurl.com/d2564h


Ideologies & Operations

http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9

[bretty]

Ultimately, yes, we have a larger scope of interests in common through our being a part of the working class, and so we are at our greatest strength when we're organized on this basis, with this consciousness.





These days, in our post-industrial, post-modern (not 'postmodernism') world we're more individuated yet more commonly globalized than ever before, and so there is *no* excuse anymore (as if there ever was) to be political on *any* basis except for one that represents one's *best* interests, which is on a *class* basis.

*However*, that being said, there may be some *limited*, local, short-term cases where a large group *will want* to organize and identify on the basis of some other, identity-politics-based political identity. This is seen in anti-oppression struggles, such as the civil rights movement, where people from different backgrounds would identify with the oppressed group, namely blacks in the U.S. in the '60s (or blacks in '70s South Africa, or Arabs in current-day Palestine, and so on).

This is because, *for a particular moment*, the public perception may (arguably) comprehend more easily and relate better to the struggle if it's manifested as a *slightly leftward* *variation* from the conventional, existing status quo.

A good example would be the recent move by Zelaya in Honduras -- he made a *merely reformist* action -- a call for a plebiscite on the *possibility* of calling a Constituent Assembly to *possibly* amend the constitution. (And the Honduran constitution has already been amended in the past.)

However, as an acting nationalist -- one in the position of president -- his *reformist* move, a slight lean to the left while still acting from the basis of nationalism, was enough to piss off the military junta that has the backing of the U.S. empire.

The people of Honduras rallied on the basis of their *national* identity as an *oppressed nationality*, which is certainly to the left of the status quo, or 'radical', but it *wasn't* necessarily on the basis of class, and (arguably) didn't need to be *for that moment*. (But if an eruption of mass strikes and grassroots Latin American labor solidarity could have spread instantly at the time, then that would have been *even better*.)

Since the end of contemporary modernist development -- that based on the health of the nation-state itself -- around the '70s -- the singling-out of certain groups based on their identity has become much more untenable, especially considering the increased ease of grassroots global communications and links-building. Yes, there are still nation-states, with all of the racism and nationalist uses of force that come from them, but it would be *backward* for us, as revolutionaries / radicals, to *limit* the struggle to one based on a *national identity* or even one based on an *oppressed identity*. Certainly we're inter-national and anti-oppression, but our most common basis, again, is that of class, all over the world.


---


As you can see, I think it's valuable to view the political spectrum, and the practice of politics, from a relativistic, though principled, perspective. I made a couple of diagrams that attempt to depict this perspective in a schematic way:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://tinyurl.com/d2564h


Ideologies & Operations

http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9

Yes I'd agree with your point that we have to look at things from an anti-oppression and international standpoint. The struggles that are fundamentally based on identity I would add such as the palestinian one are also not totally originated, like many other identity struggles, by those groups themselves however they are forced into that identity which has happened in the past in racist discourse.

However it is important with this in mind, to continually show the importance that objective economic circumstances play in all of this.

[ckaihatsu]

However it is important with this in mind, to continually show the importance that objective economic circumstances play in all of this.


Right -- on my macro-to-micro diagram I have the class divide as the very top-most, or ultimately limiting factor, in society. The second-top-most factor is mode of production -- currently capitalism.

The capitalist mode of production, as we know from Marx, has an inherent tendency for its rate of profit to decline. (This is because of the gradual emergence of increasing labor costs relative to fixed capital costs for any business, especially in an environment of increased copy-cat competition and over-saturated supply due to cumulative overproduction.)

So the capitalist *mode of production*, resulting from the *class divide*, is the *limiting factor* on *economics* as a whole -- this is the same as saying that objective economic circumstances, resulting from the inherent dynamics of the capitalist mode of production, are the upper-most limiting factor in our current society.

I think we can quickly think of *many* innovations and developments that would be beneficial for humanity, like alternative energies, better methods of transport, etc., that *cannot* be implemented in any systematic way because of their lack of profitability under capitalism. Many mass public services are well-known for having onerous operating costs, and *must* be subsidized by government (public) funds or else we would *not* have the mode of life and modern civilization that enables capitalistic commerce.

From the perspective of any given factor situated on any arbitrary "shelf", the levels above -- relatively more 'macro' -- will be the *limiting* factors relative to that arbitrary, chosen factor. This corresponds to the 'superstructure' from communist theory, which can be likened to the constraining plastic dome semi-sphere that contains one of those Christmas-y, snowy shake-up paperweights.

Likewise, the 'base' from communist theory is any shelf, or level, that *supports* the factor(s) at hand from below -- for example, we can readily see that nature as a whole is what *supported* the emergence of *people*, or homo sapiens sapiens, through the process of evolution. Up a level from that we can decisively say that only *people* have *historical events* -- *events* are *supported* by *people* -- and so on....


So, with all of this in mind, I am constantly tempted to invent some kind of new term, like 'materialist predestination', to describe the overwhelming, overarching effect that the capitalist mode of production and its bourgeois governments have on us, the common people. It's no wonder that so many works of fiction dealing with societal-level depictions have such dark, dystopian outlooks, since a bird's-eye view of society reveals an overall rigidity of construction that rivals many masonry arches...!

It is incumbent on (us) people, through our role as labor, to raise our consciousness *above* the level of the mode of production, to see that it is only our acquiescence as the *working class* portion of society that allows the class divide to continue propagating capitalist class exploitation and oppression. Only *class struggle* can enable us to *transcend* the limitations of the capitalist mode of production to bring about a better method of production, worldwide, thus eliminating the class divide once and for all.

[gilhyle]

The marxist concept of class is not an identity concept - it is concept of an economic relation, but it is also a temporal concept of an economic relation - meaning that the significance of the class relation can vary, depending on what your economic relations do to you. Thus it is not the case that you are identifiable as a working class person, rather being working class is a characteristic you have which may be of little or of great importance. It can - at least temporarily - take on characteristics of an identity. But this is only temporary. It can also for all practical purposes be superceded by other - technically subordinate - economic and social relations which in practice take on greater importance for you.

By contrast globalising capitalism posits various identities as of primordial phenomenological significance for the member of the community of whom identity is posited. This is invariably a lie. You are not identical with the identity to which capitalist culture tries to assimilate you. For that matter you are not identical with the self which capitalist society glorifies but that is another story.

The difference between the Marxist concept of class and the currently posited identities is that they are proposed and advocated as causes to cleave to; Marxism understands that class is not, primarily, a cause to be adhered to but an emerging historical relationship.

All of which Im sure is not in the slightest bit enlightening - cant be helped we are all mired in a delusional world of identities from which, as long as capitalism survives, we cant escape. Class will become an identity in the course of ceasing to be one. :cool:

[ckaihatsu]

In layman's terms what this means is that as the engine of capitalism weakens, its swirling fog of private-property-based social definitions winds down more and more, revealing much that had previously been hidden.

In the past many people who had no identities or humanistic histories of their own could simply let the capitalistic whirlwind influence others, thus masking their own self-aggrandizing activities under the protection of *wealth-defined* identities.

But as the swirl winds down those who preferred to attach themselves to the social powers of private property become more exposed since they did little that was socially substantial themselves.

As the swirl winds down another thing happens -- more people begin to see people as just people, separate from the now-weakened whirlwind of property-based identities. This may be a political awakening for many, and they may begin to look for people and knowledge that are more accurate in describing social reality, in broader terms, over longer stretches of time -- centuries instead of years.

For the sake of convenience let's personify this accurate portrayal of historical reality as Karl Marx in a superhero outfit -- his overgrown bushy white bearded face on top of a brick-red-colored, form-fitting uniform with the hammer and sickle symbol on the chest and the flowing cape in the back.

The property whirlwind dies down, revealing this Karl Marx superhero to more and more -- as they become aware of his presence it becomes a defining moment in many lives: What do you do when you meet the Karl Marx superhero? Do you deny its existence? Wish for the whirlwind to whip back up again? Ask to be an apprentice? Tell everyone you know that you met the guy?

Would you redefine your *own* identity in relation to the existence of this phenomenon? Or would you want to beat it and annihilate it? Perhaps it would just be a passing experience, and you would continue about your regular life content to just mention it casually to the readily credulous after downing a few drinks.

Some might emulate, though not copy, the Karl Marx superhero, looking to use the experience in an active way to change the real world. And others would feel lucky to just have had the experience, in a personally enlightening kind of way.

But one thing would be for sure -- more and more people will have had the encounter and they, no matter what their backgrounds, will forthrightly acknowledge that the guy exists and that the ideas make sense and that they were edified in some way. People could no longer step back into the whirlwind of property-based social identities because the whirlwind had gotten so weak that it became almost indistinguishable from dead air.

[kalu]

I may be writing against the grain, but I must clearly state my opposition to the reductionism taking place in this thread. Race, gender and other patronisingly-labeled identity politics are not epiphenomena of capitalism. To make such a claim would require a great deal of evidence I fear has not been provided, nor can it ever be. The simple fact is that race, gender, class mutually interrogate each other.[1] Identifying a prior category at an abstract level is incoherent and idealistic. Instead of fearfully attempting to protect the sacred cow of Marxist class by referring to everything else as identity politics, we ought to consider class as one constituent element of a radical politics towards the egalitarian transformation of the social.

The unfortunate side-effect of referring to class as the realest exploitation is a condescending, dismissive and ultimately ineffective attitude when dealing with other issues. In actuality, we are dealing with a "politics without guarantees" (see Stuart Hall), which means no apriori radical subject like the industrial working class. Marx himself advocated the proletariat as a political project (in-itself and becoming for-itself, to use the original Hegelian terminology), not merely an empirical given. This politics entails getting down and dirty with "engaged universals,"[2] awkward articulations between the local and the global that belie white, patriarchal, heternormative, etc. abstract universality. Thus, I'm particular to an "anthropological" perspective, rather than a "philosophical" one.

Timmothy Mitchell in Colonising Egypt does an excellent job pointing out that Marx's brilliant analysis of commodity fetishism in Das Kapital left representation itself unquestioned. Marx opposed the misrepresentation of the commodity to the hidden productive realm, a "tangible." But of course this analysis of production is itself already a representation, though it produces what Mitchell calls a "reality effect." The point is that we must continue to push Marx forward by eliminating the previous positivist distinction between base and superstructure. We must recognize that everything is already in discourse. In the words of Derrida, "there is nothing outside the text." This quote, however, shouldn't be read as some sort of perverse idealism, but rather against any sort of mystical correspondence between representation and reality. The implications of this perspective for radical politics are astounding.[3] We are now engaged in a tactical war of position in a direction hopefully beyond capitalism, modernity and the West.

To the OP (YSR), I haven't read any of Butler's books, but from little I have read of hers, I must admit I admire her. Performativity is a very useful concept in order to combat essentialism. Perhaps Contingency, Hegemony, Universality might be useful to you?

[1]Consider, for example, how racial and sexual epistemes have determined translocal divisions of labor, ie. women of color sewing shirts in sweatshops from Indonesia to Nicaragua.
[2]See Friction by Anna Tsing.
[3]See Hegemony and Socialist Strategy by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe.

*In place of "society," a sutured totality, I refer to Laclau and Mouffe's "social" as the shifting antagonisms for the emergence of political subjectivities.

[gilhyle]

The unfortunate side-effect of referring to class as the realest exploitation is a condescending, dismissive and ultimately ineffective attitude when dealing with other issues. In actuality, we are dealing with a "politics without guarantees" (see Stuart Hall), which means no apriori radical subject like the industrial working class. Marx himself advocated the proletariat as a political project (in-itself and becoming for-itself, to use the original Hegelian terminology), not merely an empirical given.

It is not a necessary feature of the Marxist analysis to be dismissive of race or gender or sexual orientation just because it affirms that the class relationship is different from this identities (and also points to how inadequately those communal identities contain any of their members).

[kalu]

It is not a necessary feature of the Marxist analysis to be dismissive of race or gender or sexual orientation just because it affirms that the class relationship is different from this identities (and also points to how inadequately those communal identities contain any of their members).

Indeed, but orthodox Marxist analysis says that class is the "realest" form of exploitation. Class does indeed function differently than race, which functions differently than gender, but all these categories are inseparable and one cannot be reduced to the other. That's the basis of my challenge to the claim that other forms of oppression can be reduced to capitalist exploitation.

[Luís Henrique]

Indeed, but orthodox Marxist analysis says that class is the "realest" form of exploitation. Class does indeed function differently than race, which functions differently than gender, but all these categories are inseparable and one cannot be reduced to the other. That's the basis of my challenge to the claim that other forms of oppression can be reduced to capitalist exploitation.

Not "orthodox" Marxist analysis, but Marxist analysis. And class is not "a form of exploitations" (nor is race, or gender).

Saying that "other forms of oppression [cannot] be reduced to capitalist exploitation" implies one or both of the following things:

a) those "other forms of oppression" can be confronted and destroyed without destroying capitalism;

b) capitalism can be confronted and destroyed without destroying those "other forms of oppression".

If a), then giving priority to the suppression of those "other forms of oppression" is reformism;

If b), then giving priority to the suppression of those "other forms of oppression" is merely lateral to the point of socialism, and we could as well accept the stalinist dogma that those issues can be dealt with after revolution;

if not, then either those "other forms of oppression" are in fact reducible to class oppression, or both class oppression and most of those "other forms of oppression" are reducible to one of the "other forms of oppression". In any way, there must be an axis that structures capitalism; to Marxists, this is class struggle - not race struggle, not gender issues, not generation conflict.

The fact is, however, you can have capitalism without different races, without different sexual orientations, without different religions. Jews are not necessary to the functioning of capitalism, homosexuals are not necessary to the functioning of capitalism, Blacks are not necessary to the functioning of capitalism. But there can be no capitalism without workers and bourgeois. Conversely, entirely suppressing capitalism would suppress the existence of both workers and bourgeois, but not of Whites and Blacks, gays and straights, or Catholics and Protestants.

In turn, there cannot be capitalism without men and women - but then there can be no human society - capitalist, feudal, socialist, slaverist, whatever - without men and women. Again, the end of capitalism will not be the end of sexes. It may, however, be the end of "genders" as the set of sexual stereotypes that humans have to conform to in a capitalist society. But even here there is a very clear difference between class and gender: the suppression of classes is only possible through the struggle of one of the classes (the working class) against the other (the bourgeois); the same cannot be said of the suppression of gender, which is only possible through the common efforts of both men and women.

The reason that we should confront "other forms of oppression" is not that they are as important as class oppression or that they cannot be "reduced" to class oppression. The reason we should confront them is because they are useful for the capitalists because they help divide the working class, and that confronting them is useful to workers, because it helps unifying the working class. That's also the reason we should oppose "identity politics": because they help capitalists to divide the working class.

Luís Henrique

[kalu]

Your problem is that you are trying to say "class is separable" from other social relations, ie. race, gender. Class never functions in some sort of fantasy world a part from race and gender. That is a mythical, a priori distraction that ignores the deeply intertwined nature of these categories of oppression. Again, I must refer you to my previous footnote about how racial and sexual epistemes have determined translocal divisions of labor, ie. how race can produce class. I cannot argue on your terms because I do not accept your premise that capitalism is simply a conflict between proletariat and bourgeois, and that everything else is mere peripheral distraction. Again, these "particular" instances of race, gender, sexuality collide with class in conjunctures such that race might be "overdetermined" by class, in the Althusserian sense, or vice versa. Conjunctures don't simply disappear by referring to some abstract Marxist equation. As David Harvey notes concerning Marx's own terms such as value, profit and labor, these terms break apart relationally. To extend the point, I am saying that capitalism is a disjunctive totality that cannot be reduced to one privileged form of oppression, in this case class. Capitalism is a whole ensemble of social relations, as Harvey put it in his Marxism 2009 speech, and not just straight simple and quantifiable "economics." It includes the conjuring, for example, of a Western liberal subject "possessing" rights and Reason.

All effective radical struggle must refer to a (discursive) conjuncture, a particular time-space. We must push Marx forward by moving beyond the "hidden side" of production as the determination of everything "in the last instance." Production is already embedded in a whole matrix of social relations that cannot be neatly removed to reveal the positivistic truth of class. This is why I'm particular to Laclau and Mouffe's formulation that antagonisms of the social allow for the emergence of political subjectivities, and these antagonisms cannot be divided between base (class) and superstructure (everything else). Saying the working class merely "is" the radical subject and thus exists outside of politics, an empirical given so to speak, quickly lapses into a mechanistic, economistic Marxism that I refuse to accept.

[NecroCommie]

This is an interesting subject, but I find it baffling that so many try to "prove" that class is not an identity. It is, and now follows my view on why, and why is it irrelevant.

Class is indeed an identity, or at least can be used as such. When we go to define class and a member of a class, we have created two (or more) groups of people who may or may not identify with this particular means of division.

As I see it, communists are anti-class in a sense that we see to abolish all class, and actually, all divisions between people. It just happens that we see working class as a key group in reaching our goal. So basically we use identity, to crush identity. This can be easily monitored by comparing communists to reformist leftists and social democrats. Even these watered down leftists identify with the working class, and in a way use the class division to fuel their fight. (as we do) They however do not see it realistic to abolish these divisions outright, and therefore feel it is enough to identify with the working class.

So communists = anti-identity
and reformist left = usage of identity

So basically whether class is an "identity" or not, it is irrelevant because communist society would render all identity politics pointless, and thus it makes us communists "non-identitypoliticians."

I tried to make this as simple as possible. Feel free to correct me if something seems funny.

[gilhyle]

I am saying that capitalism is a disjunctive totality

Of course this is correct, but if we are to partake in a struggle which overthrows the whole social relation of capital (as distinct from a struggle which merely adjusts the relationship of forces within a capitalist society, then we must acknowledge the distinctive significance of the fact that certain humans achieve longevity and reproductive capacity solely by dint of the sale of their labour power.

If we do not acknowledge that, we will never organise a political struggle which is not constitutive of capitalist practice rather than subversive of it. Remember that capitalism is a system based on struggle; it thrives on struggle and is quite comfortable with the tensions between oppressor and oppressed.

Also, all identities are a lie, or at least a mis-statement. We should not go around to anyone recommending that they SHOULD engage in politics based on race gender nationality or sexual orientation. No struggle organised solely on one of these bases can radically transform the lives of the majority of those who share the given sense of identity - membership of any social identitiy is only mythically constitutive of the individual agent.

What distniguishes the revolutionary marxist is the unstinting commitment to the practice of struggle around identities without falling for the capitalist ideology which they each generate.

[kalu]

Please don't get me wrong, I do want to move beyond capitalism (into communism, anarchy, whatever you want to call it). But if you notice my first post in this thread, we can only get beyond capitalism by also rearranging a whole series of social relations, ie. moving beyond the Western liberal subject.

[gilhyle]

I think the point you are making about identities is an important one - but it is a programmatic point rather than a point about the nature of the concept of class. I interpret your point as meaning that without advocating programmes of struggle for oppressed nationalities, for Gay rights, against racial discrimination for wormens rights, for ghetto areas for groups of workers like agricultural laborers then you just dont have an effective political programme.

But the question was is class a form of identity. And that question, it seems to me, is really a way of asking is Marxism basically like other contemporary modern political ideologies based on concepts of political communities and, in my opinion, it is not.

[kalu]

I know what the question is about, but I'd say class isn't an "identity" in the current form of "identity politics," and neither is race, gender, sexuality, etc. I think the whole label ("identity politics") has been used in a patronising manner, that's what I'm saying.

Still, this is not just a question of including "other issues" for political effectiveness, but eliminating the distinction between base and structure that promotes a positivistic conception of class. I don't refer to other non-class categories in the negative sense as communal myths or something, and I affirm Laclau and Mouffe's point that political subjectivities (so, any basis for any struggle) emerge from antagonisms of the social. This is then linked to my point that class is one constituent element in a movement beyond capitalism.

[gilhyle]

....one constituent element....

Not to flog a dead horse, but isnt that a bit dimutive, a kind of agnosticism ......

[kalu]

Not to flog a dead horse, but isnt that a bit dimutive, a kind of agnosticism ......

Unfortunately, but that's the politics without guarantees. It isn't even agnosticism. "God" (some sort of "base" outside of representation) is dead. Far from precluding radical social change, however, this understanding reignites the possibility of our time as we attempt to tactically move beyond capitalism. I would rather be thoroughly free of my delusions when approaching the question of radical politics, than laboring under the belief that at the end of the day, I can safely "go back home" to some positivistic notion of class. If capitalism has proven so resilient, it's clear we haven't overcome it through a non-essentialising approach that can handle its shapeshifting, which still ultimately relies on essentialisms (the "rational economic actor," "Reason," "the market," and so on).

[ckaihatsu]

Class is an *objective* measure -- it is one's *real-world* relationship in regards to society's means of mass production. (The reason is because the means of mass production -- factories -- are humanity's most cutting-edge *and* most productive technologies to-date, and thus are the source of humanity's surplus of manufactured goods.)





This is an interesting subject, but I find it baffling that so many try to "prove" that class is not an identity. It is, and now follows my view on why, and why is it irrelevant.

Class is indeed an identity, or at least can be used as such. When we go to define class and a member of a class, we have created two (or more) groups of people who may or may not identify with this particular means of division.


Here's a little table that illustrates this:

____________________________SUBJECTIVE IDENTITY:___________SUBJECTIVE IDENTITY:
TYPE OF PERSON_____________ACKNOWLEDGES REALITY________IN DENIAL OF REALITY

- benefits from surplus value______Warren Buffett: 'There's class________"Hey, don't look at me --
____________________________warfare, all right, but it's my class,_____we can't stop globalization."
_________________________ ___the rich class, that's making war,
_____________________________and we're winning.'

- must sell labor for a wage_______"I gotta *work* for a living!"__________"We just need some more-effective
__________________________________________________ _________leaders in office to represent our
__________________________________________________ _________own people."





As I see it, communists are anti-class in a sense that we see to abolish all class, and actually, all divisions between people. It just happens that we see working class as a key group in reaching our goal.


It sounds like you're hedging here -- the working class is *the* group that's key to ending all class-based social divisions among people.





So basically we use identity, to crush identity. This can be easily monitored by comparing communists to reformist leftists and social democrats. Even these watered down leftists identify with the working class, and in a way use the class division to fuel their fight. (as we do) They however do not see it realistic to abolish these divisions outright, and therefore feel it is enough to identify with the working class.


As a Marxist I find this last part *very* problematic, as I do with *anyone* who *denies* that class -- the social division over who has to work and who gets to benefit from society's surplus value -- is the *basis* of all exploitation and oppression, regardless of social identities (even if well-demonstrated as being oppressed).





So communists = anti-identity
and reformist left = usage of identity


Agreed. I'll only leave the door cracked on this wide enough to consider *how quickly* we can get someone from identity-politics-consciousness to * class consciousness *, most particularly in political word and deed.

My beef with the liberals / reformist left is that they're soooooooo slooooowwwww in addressing class issues as such that they effectively wind up *commodifying* social identities (of oppression) and just kinda play around with them in the political arena.

To what extent this practice is valid and progressive is *somewhat* debatable, but I'd rather be a revolutionary Marxist and just cut to the chase.





So basically whether class is an "identity" or not, it is irrelevant because communist society would render all identity politics pointless, and thus it makes us communists "non-identitypoliticians."


Yeah...!

[Luís Henrique]

Your problem is that you are trying to say "class is separable" from other social relations, ie. race, gender. Class never functions in some sort of fantasy world a part from race and gender. That is a mythical, a priori distraction that ignores the deeply intertwined nature of these categories of oppression.

This is meaningless unless you are able to discuss what the nature of such intertwining is.


Again, I must refer you to my previous footnote about how racial and sexual epistemes have determined translocal divisions of labor, ie. how race can produce class.

Sorry, but I don't believe this. "Translocal" divisions of labour are determined by market considerations, not by "racial and sexual epistemes" (what is a racial, or sexual, "episteme", by the way?)


I cannot argue on your terms because I do not accept your premise that capitalism is simply a conflict between proletariat and bourgeois, and that everything else is mere peripheral distraction.

That's because you accept a much more troubling premise, namely, that modern society is simply capitalism. Then you have to unnecessarily complicate the concept of capitalism, so that it can encompass subjects it wasn't designed to encompass.


Again, these "particular" instances of race, gender, sexuality collide with class in conjunctures such that race might be "overdetermined" by class, in the Althusserian sense, or vice versa.

Well, you could give us some examples where class is "overdetermined" by race.


Conjunctures don't simply disappear by referring to some abstract Marxist equation. As David Harvey notes concerning Marx's own terms such as value, profit and labor, these terms break apart relationally. To extend the point, I am saying that capitalism is a disjunctive totality that cannot be reduced to one privileged form of oppression, in this case class.

As above, this is because you overextend the concept of "capitalism".


Capitalism is a whole ensemble of social relations, as Harvey put it in his Marxism 2009 speech, and not just straight simple and quantifiable "economics." It includes the conjuring, for example, of a Western liberal subject "possessing" rights and Reason.

Erm, no. Otherwise we would have to deny that a society like modern China or Germany under the III Reich - where the Western liberal subject possessing rights and Reason is/was not conjured - are/were capitalist.


All effective radical struggle must refer to a (discursive) conjuncture, a particular time-space.

So to you a discursive conjuncture is a determined time-space? Why is this conjuncture "discursive", anyway, and in what does a "discursive conjucture" differ from an adjectiveless "conjuncture"?


We must push Marx forward by moving beyond the "hidden side" of production as the determination of everything "in the last instance."

Is this pushing forward or pulling backward?


Production is already embedded in a whole matrix of social relations that cannot be neatly removed to reveal the positivistic truth of class.

At moment zero, yes. This is the reason why there is a whole chapter of The Capital dedicated to "Primitive Accumulation".

But then capitalist production starts to produce its own conditions, and mystifying this with generic appeals to a greater "whole" does not help in understanding it.


Saying the working class merely "is" the radical subject and thus exists outside of politics, an empirical given so to speak, quickly lapses into a mechanistic, economistic Marxism that I refuse to accept.

The working class does not exist outside of "politics", ie, it does not exist outside its own constitution as a class. Which can be clearly stated without recurring to such opaque pseudophilosphical terminology...

Luís Henrique

[kalu]

A racial or sexual episteme is the production of knowledge about race, sexuality, gender, etc. So, white bourgeois women in mid-20th century America were scientifically "proven" weaker than men and told to "stay at home," and they essentially functioned as domestic labor. This labor was ignored by many Marxist economistic models until autonomist Marxism (see the "Wages for Housework" campaigns) Translocal just means sequential connections between different "localities," ie. the global chain of a commodity that begins first as cotton harvested in country X by Black peasants, transported to factory in country Y where it is sewn in particular by poor women of color, where it is transported to country Z for consumption by a bourgeois white. Check out Cynthia Enloe's Bananas, Beaches and Bases. This is not purely determined by some vague "market" because each instance of production interacts with and produces a locality in curious ways. Why are poor Southeeast Asian women so often exploited in sweatshops? We're not talking about states as transparent containers of space, but the awkward articulations of local and global, the crisscrossing of different logics of rule and exploitation. That's simply not explained by saying "well the [unmarked] capitalist comes and exploits the [unmarked] proletariat." Additionally, this isn't purely cosmetic ("Oh, they're disciplining the proletariat based on skin color"), but essential to the very character of labor, ie. what we determine as labor. How does a capitalist even determine how to discipline a proletariat based on skin color? That's a product of a racial episteme.

Another thing, and this is my error for not carefully separating the terms, is that capitalism functions in conjunction with modernity and "the West" (a theoretical space, rather than just mere "geography," ie. "Europe and America are the West"). These are the main categories, in my opinion, and much can be grouped between and under them, ie. "Reason." I do think, as I said before, that capitalism relies on certain essentialism (ie "rational economic actor") tied to the Modern (ie "liberal subject") and the West (ie "Reason"). That's why I said in my first post we must tactically move beyond capitalism, modernity and the West. This is also why I admire Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programme," especially when he writes that we must cross the "narrow banner of bourgeois right" and make right unequal.

A conjuncture is discursive, not sociological ("context"), because we're not discussing specific, "historical" beginnings and ends (ie. World War I, 1914-1918), and events. Rather, discourse shapes our very conceptions of time and space, and is not part of linear or Universal History that exists empirically outside of discourse. The current Sri Lankan conjuncture, for example, is a nationalist one that is determined by race relations, as Newton Gunasinghe, a Marxist sociologist, pointed out after the May 1983 pogroms against Tamils.

This is not pseudophilosophical terminology, but a very part of the radical arsenal that I think is extremely useful to overcoming a condescending, patronising and ineffective "class rules" attitude when organizing around issues. Henrique your ad homs are worrying. I am not going to debate with you unless you can keep a more civil tone. I have no problem engaging with your points, and I will certainly explain all the concepts that I use, if something at first appears muddled.

[gilhyle]

Far from precluding radical social change, however, this understanding reignites the possibility of our time as we attempt to tactically move beyond capitalism.

No I think the real probability is that it does the opposite. Without formulating political tactics in relation to struggles against oppression in the light of the ultimate significance of class, programmes of political struggle against oppression become constrained by the discourses spontaneiously generated by the process of oppression and the struggle for rights within the dominant relations.

[kalu]

No I think the real probability is that it does the opposite. Without formulating political tactics in relation to struggles against oppression in the light of the ultimate significance of class, programmes of political struggle against oppression become constrained by the discourses spontaneiously generated by the process of oppression and the struggle for rights within the dominant relations.

Didn't someone, perhaps Marx himself, say, "the new society will be born in the shell of the old"? All I'm saying is that that new society will be shaped by us, and only us (no "law"). The future will not in any way be determined by something that purely "is" (ie. economic tectonics beneath us moving us from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism).

As Partha Chatterjee puts it, the very governmentality of disciplinary society produces political society politics, whether Foucauldian "self-fashioning" or Laclau and Mouffe's hegemonic struggle, that move beyond that very society. Power engenders resistance, and what allows us to move beyond that power is to organize an effective resistance. But beware, there is never anything outside this equation, a deus ex machina like a telos of rigid economic law that can save us all. "Posts-" radical struggle doesn't dissolve into postmodern ether; particularities are composed and recomposed as hegemonies. Anti-essentialism does NOT preclude radical politics, but is essential to a radical understanding of organizing. I am not going to base my ideas on an empirical "truth" (ie. class) that exists outside of political struggle. If you feel that traps us forever in a capitalist ephemerality, all I can say is it's your loss not take the opportunity to participate in a radical imagination brewing in the haze of the anti-neoliberal struggle, a future without guarantees.

At an even larger scale, we're talking about epistemes, how power-knowledge is produced. Michel Foucault, for example, said the modern episteme is History. While we need to complicate that, ie. analyze local transformations of governmentality, the tools (discourse, conjuncture, genealogy, episteme, and Marx's own science of value, which proposes an immanent critique of capitalism) are already there to strategically move beyond capitalism, modernity and the west. We will need to conduct a long struggle to change the current ensemble of social relations, and the episteme, from a variety of local-global spaces. But I'd rather "get smart" and use the right tools than pray to the God of Class, who forever reigns as the Universal. I am not going to reproduce the European Enlightenment mythology of the liberal individual. If we are serious about "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs," we need to think about alternate constructions of self. We need, as David Graeber puts it, to highlight the trapdoors and mechanisms of power. "Production" (Marx's own discursive construction) as the "base" of everything was Marx's own faith that we need to move beyond, in order to properly use the conceptual tools and theoretical vocabulary he gave to us after such serious, careful analysis of both the economic giants of his day and the changes taking place in England during his time.

At the end of the day, I'm not going to base my political views on how I "feel." What I am saying is that calling class the "last determination" is essentially that. As so many writers since Derrida have shown, everything is already in representation. There is no empirical truth that exists "outside." You might as well pray to God.

[ckaihatsu]

A conjuncture is discursive, not sociological ("context"), because we're not discussing specific, "historical" beginnings and ends (ie. World War I, 1914-1918), and events. Rather, discourse shapes our very conceptions of time and space, and is not part of linear or Universal History that exists empirically outside of discourse.





The current Sri Lankan conjuncture, for example, is a nationalist one that is determined by race relations, as Newton Gunasinghe, a Marxist sociologist, pointed out after the May 1983 pogroms against Tamils.


kalu, I'd like to politely point out that the second part of what you write *contradicts* the first part of what you write. You're asserting that a 'conjuncture' is *not* specific -- so, therefore, it must be either general or theoretical -- but then you proceed to give an *example* of a 'conjuncture', that being present-day Sri Lanka, which is *absolutely specific*.

Your premise about discourse is simply saying that not all discussions and communications may be entirely accurate, and that we may all too easily adopt misinformed or mal-informed conceptions of empirical reality, including history.





At the end of the day, I'm not going to base my political views on how I "feel." What I am saying is that calling class the "last determination" is essentially that. As so many writers since Derrida have shown, everything is already in representation. There is no empirical truth that exists "outside." You might as well pray to God.


Here you're saying that a strictly subjective, emotional-reactive conceptualization of political matters is not a wise process for forming one's political views. I agree entirely with that point, since historical and political matters can be rather complex at times.

However, you're calling into question the primacy of class relations as the fundamental determining social force in recorded history. You're calling it into question by noting that all communications about history and politics must pass through the medium of conscious, human-embodied thought -- "representation". You're saying that there is no absolute, "divine" truth that we can simply go to as an infallible, objective authority.

While you're *technically* correct, you are revealing a profound mistrust of human-mediated knowledge, including the entire legacy of our cumulative civilizations' enlightened rational thought.

By mistrusting the inter-subjective / objective, rationally based conclusion that class is *the* determining divide for all other forms of political and social oppression, you're entirely giving up on the *hard science* of social / political / economy inquiry because you don't want to accept its conclusion about class.

Instead you're content to conceptualize the practice of power as having no structural basis whatsoever, ignoring that an elite global ruling class sits atop its perch by controlling the means for continuously expropriating the surplus value created by the world's working class.

Your radical -- as opposed to Marxist -- foundation for political analysis leads you to throw out the class economic basis in your considerations altogether. To what extent *would you* consider impersonal economic factors, particularly those with a class basis, or to what degree do you recognize the class division at all???

[gilhyle]

All I'm saying is that that new society will be shaped by us, and only us (no "law").

Im with you on that.


The future will not in any way be determined by something that purely "is"

And nor will it be determined by anything that is not.


Power engenders resistance, and what allows us to move beyond that power is to organize an effective resistance.

Resistance without understanding, strategy and programme will not move beyond power, but only recreate it. (Zapata)


there is never anything outside this equation, a deus ex machina like a telos of rigid economic law that can save us all

History helps those who help themselves.


I am not going to base my ideas on an empirical "truth" (ie. class) that exists outside of political struggle.

Fine, but will you conduct your political struggle without regard to what causes it and defines its possibilities ?


Marx's own science of value, which proposes an immanent critique of capitalism

Unlike Derrida, Foucault et al, Marx's critique is not immanent. Immanence assures reconciliation on common ground. Marx's critique is not immanent to capitalism per se, but only to the broader historical process taken as a whole - hence the centrality of the materialist conception of history to Marxism.


we need to think about alternate constructions of self

Capitalism is a production factory for alternative selfs. As an alternative to them all we need to see that the self is only definitively remade in the process of the remaking of society.


everything is already in representation.

And every representation is already a mere shadow of an empirical reality outside itself. Where does that circularity get you ?

[kalu]

Hm, I see what's happening here. I initially introduced my "posts-" vocabulary without giving adequate explanation. I see now I must write out, in very basic and clear ("ordinary") terms, what my argument is. I want to take what you all have said and write out my response in your language, and directly engaging your questions and assumptions, so please give me a few days to do this.

[kalu]

OK, I have a bit of work these days so my post isn't actually going to be that long, but I think it addresses most of what you all have brought up.

Three arguments continually re-appear in this thread:

1.) Class is universal.
2.) Class underlies all struggles.
3.) Class is something "tangible."

With regards to the first point: Yes, capitalism exists everywhere and must be fought everywhere. Class itself, however, is an empty signifier that is always transformed by different locales and racial, sexual epistemes; just as race is similarly "empty" unless understood as part of specific relations of production, and social (state) control. There has never existed a "pure" proletariat. Classes are fundamentally transformed by racial, gender, and other distinctions. An "episteme" refers to knowledge-production, so to cite an earlier example, US bourgeois white women during the early 20th century were "scientifically proven" to be weaker than men, and thus coerced into working at home essentially as free domestic labor, part of the process of social reproduction. Class is meaningless unless analysed in a particular time and place. Marx's "proletariat" and "bourgeois," and Marx's science itself, must be linked to, and transformed by, the local in order to have any real meaning and efficacy.

With this in mind, what about the call to build solidarity? based on "workers of the world, unite!" Yes, proletariat solidarity is important, but we should not also forget other forms of solidarity, ie. anti-imperialist solidarity. Class isn't the only form of universal solidarity, though whatever forms we choose must be produced as "natural universals" through local engagements, rather than from abstract philosophizing. My point is that calling class THE universal is just that type of abstract philosophizing.

With regards to the second point: Not only must "Class" be analysed in context, but this also means that class isn't the only basis of Left struggle. Anti-imperialism is a good example, since the colonized attempted to overcome the colonizer in order to realize their humanity. Class is no doubt important to us anti-capitalists, but it also isn't the only struggle towards the egalitarian transformation of the social. The Left struggle must inevitably deal with local circumstances and "particular" oppressions. Thus, why I initially mentioned that class may be "overdetermined" by other oppressions in a particular moment, ie. during a race riot.

(And yes, positives are also won from struggling against these "particular" oppressions)

With regards to the third and final point: Marx's analysis is in representation. We should not look to gauge the "truth" of his writings. The empiricist epistemology is based on "correspondence" between subject and object, experience and representation, which Heidegger, et al. have critiqued. The point is, political change is not based on empiricist "truth" but political struggle, and this struggle is within discourse.

"Discourse," in the Foucauldian sense, is a receptacle of images, texts, and other documents. So, for example, after 9/11 the US produced a "War on Terror" discourse that included images of violent jihadis, Islamophobic references, words about the "oppression of brown women," and so on. Laclau and Mouffe have added an important qualification to discourse by emphasizing discourse's materiality. Thus, discourse and "there is nothing outside of the text" should not be seen as some sort of perverse idealism. Rather, they eliminate a mystical understanding of "correspondence" (in some unknown realm?) between representation and experience. There is no point trying to find a "pure experience" outside writing, representation and discourse, to base "truth" on. That said, I can't just walk outside and say "the US government doesn't exist" and challenge people on the basis that they are basing their own remarks on a "'US government' discourse." I am operating within the US's own material discursivity that I can only ignore if I am a madman. And I'll probably be arrested and thrown in jail if I act on my "belief" and do something stupid.

Ultimately, this relates to my point about class because I am trying to show that class is not anymore tangible than the "whiteness" the OP referenced, because class itself is a discursive construction. That said, I do think it's an extremely useful analytical lens, so I'm not going to abandon it. I just think we need to be a bit more careful how we understand these things and what's "really real." If we work within the frame of discourse, we can overcome some of the more mechanistic, deterministic lines of Marxism in order to go back and "re-activate" Marx's core concepts like surplus value. I would highly recommend Laclau and Mouffe's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, to see how they have reactivated the concept of hegemony in Marxist discourse, for very effective political ends.

This is my final post in this topic, but I hope you all have gotten something out of my participation. I certainly have realized just how difficult these questions about "universal" class struggle can be, and I have not come to any definite conclusion. I agree that we must never lose sight of a primary question, "So, how do we move past capitalism?" I'm just asking if that's the only question of serious importance to the Left.

[ckaihatsu]

OK, I have a bit of work these days so my post isn't actually going to be that long, but I think it addresses most of what you all have brought up.

Three arguments continually re-appear in this thread:

1.) Class is universal.
2.) Class underlies all struggles.
3.) Class is something "tangible."

With regards to the first point: Yes, capitalism exists everywhere and must be fought everywhere. Class itself, however, is an empty signifier that is always transformed by different locales and racial, sexual epistemes; just as race is similarly "empty" unless understood as part of specific relations of production, and social (state) control. There has never existed a "pure" proletariat. Classes are fundamentally transformed by racial, gender, and other distinctions.


No, no one can justifiably assert that class, and racism, sexism, and other oppressions, are basically equivalent. Class may be "transformed", or manifested, through avenues of racist and sexist oppression, but we cannot say the same in converse -- there is *no* objective social basis for racism, sexism, etc., because there is no *inherent* advantage, either genetically or societally, to be gained by having one kind of racial or gender background. The effects of racism, sexism, etc., are *only* manifested through commodity relations -- that is, class relations, which stem from the continuous bourgeois-elite control over the means of mass material production.

The proletariat *is* "pure" in the sense that the definition is *very* clear-cut -- either you must sell your labor power in exchange for wages with which to live, or else you happen to be in a position where you can siphon off the surplus labor value of others' labor efforts through your ownership status. If you would like to sub-categorize the proletariat on the basis of race, gender, etc., then that is certainly valid, but class status (or a materialist 'socio-economic status') is *** at the heart *** of our relationships to the definitions of race and gender, and to our own experiences with exploitation and oppression.





An "episteme" refers to knowledge-production,


By your example, which follows, would you say that 'knowledge-production' is the same as 'the prevailing social definitions, as hegemonically constructed by cultural imperialism' -- ?





so to cite an earlier example, US bourgeois white women during the early 20th century were "scientifically proven" to be weaker than men, and thus coerced into working at home essentially as free domestic labor, part of the process of social reproduction.


So another way of saying this is that the ownership class -- at the time (and now) composed predominantly by wealthy white men -- found it in their interests to not-recognize the labor contributions to the household as domestic labor, or to compensate the domestic laborers for that labor. What *followed* from that de facto exploitation was the *hegemonic ideological justification* that twisted science into a made-up "justification" for why women were trapped in domestic poverty, under marital tyranny, doing domestic labor (and biological reproduction) for free.





Class is meaningless unless analysed in a particular time and place.


No, this is an over-generalization -- you're "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Class is *very* meaning-*ful* as a theoretical construction, because it will correctly shape the contours of an analysis in-the-making, no matter the particular time and place. The *details* of a particular context will vary, of course, but the overarching class relations will remain extant and applicable in forming a description of that historical context.





Marx's "proletariat" and "bourgeois," and Marx's science itself, must be linked to, and transformed by, the local in order to have any real meaning and efficacy.


(I refer to my statements above in this post.)





With this in mind, what about the call to build solidarity? based on "workers of the world, unite!" Yes, proletariat solidarity is important, but we should not also forget other forms of solidarity, ie. anti-imperialist solidarity.


Imperialism confers no benefits whatsoever to the proletariat of *any* country, so international workers' solidarity is practically synonymous with anti-imperialist solidarity.





Class isn't the only form of universal solidarity, though whatever forms we choose must be produced as "natural universals" through local engagements, rather than from abstract philosophizing. My point is that calling class THE universal is just that type of abstract philosophizing.


No, class relations, as a "universal form", is quite real, as you've acknowledged early on in your post in referring to it as "specific relations of production, and social (state) control."





With regards to the second point: Not only must "Class" be analysed in context, but this also means that class isn't the only basis of Left struggle.


We can discuss 'class' in general / theoretical terms, just as we can discuss any other *generalities* in general and theoretical terms -- we can talk about 'the earth' in general, or 'society', or 'humanity' -- this does involve a certain process of abstraction, or generalization, but it's with the *implied understanding* that we're speaking in generalities and that we can only cover so much ground in any one discussion, leaving out many specifics and details. Class can be analyzed in context -- but also out of context, as a generality, as we're doing here.

Class *is* the only fundamental basis of genuine leftist struggle because there have been *zero* social movements within the ruling class that urged the curtailment of their own ownership privileges.





Anti-imperialism is a good example, since the colonized attempted to overcome the colonizer in order to realize their humanity.


Certainly this is true -- but aren't the oppressed also the property-less and the exploited as well, under class relations?





Class is no doubt important to us anti-capitalists, but it also isn't the only struggle towards the egalitarian transformation of the social. The Left struggle must inevitably deal with local circumstances and "particular" oppressions. Thus, why I initially mentioned that class may be "overdetermined" by other oppressions in a particular moment, ie. during a race riot.


*Every* example you could possibly conceive of that deals with social oppression (by race, gender, etc.) will also, *necessarily*, involve relations of wealth ownership -- class relations, in short.

I don't mean to *ignore* the specifics of any given anti-oppression struggle, because those factors are absolutely important to an understanding of the particular struggle -- I think you're choosing to *focus* on particular details in a given context, like colonial-racist ones involved in sparking a race riot, for example, but I don't think you should eschew the overarching influence of class in doing so (colonialist = class elitist --> racist).





(And yes, positives are also won from struggling against these "particular" oppressions)

With regards to the third and final point: Marx's analysis is in representation. We should not look to gauge the "truth" of his writings. The empiricist epistemology is based on "correspondence" between subject and object, experience and representation, which Heidegger, et al. have critiqued. The point is, political change is not based on empiricist "truth" but political struggle, and this struggle is within discourse.


Certainly there has been sufficient history analyzed to prove the validity of Marx's analysis.





"Discourse," in the Foucauldian sense, is a receptacle of images, texts, and other documents. So, for example, after 9/11 the US produced a "War on Terror" discourse that included images of violent jihadis, Islamophobic references, words about the "oppression of brown women," and so on. Laclau and Mouffe have added an important qualification to discourse by emphasizing discourse's materiality. Thus, discourse and "there is nothing outside of the text" should not be seen as some sort of perverse idealism. Rather, they eliminate a mystical understanding of "correspondence" (in some unknown realm?) between representation and experience. There is no point trying to find a "pure experience" outside writing, representation and discourse, to base "truth" on.


This point is debatable -- you're discussing whether our understandings of social reality should be based solely on our own experiential knowledge or whether we can accept information received from others as sufficiently genuine in accurately describing (and analyzing) real-world events.

Certainly we should know something about the inclinations of the sources we receive our information from, *and* should have access to a variety of news sources, so that we can better judge the validity of the reports we receive -- this is where politics, including an understanding of class relations, is *very* helpful.





That said, I can't just walk outside and say "the US government doesn't exist" and challenge people on the basis that they are basing their own remarks on a "'US government' discourse." I am operating within the US's own material discursivity that I can only ignore if I am a madman. And I'll probably be arrested and thrown in jail if I act on my "belief" and do something stupid.


*Or* you can *parse* the reports you hear from government sources, stripping away the Islamophobic / racist / sexist / etc. proclivities therein, and fill in your understanding with journalism from left-leaning sources.





Ultimately, this relates to my point about class because I am trying to show that class is not anymore tangible than the "whiteness" the OP referenced, because class itself is a discursive construction.


Class is just as tangible as is the 'U.S. government' that you refer to, above. The evidence for both abounds.





That said, I do think it's an extremely useful analytical lens, so I'm not going to abandon it. I just think we need to be a bit more careful how we understand these things and what's "really real." If we work within the frame of discourse, we can overcome some of the more mechanistic, deterministic lines of Marxism in order to go back and "re-activate" Marx's core concepts like surplus value.


Good to hear this part...!





I would highly recommend Laclau and Mouffe's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, to see how they have reactivated the concept of hegemony in Marxist discourse, for very effective political ends.

This is my final post in this topic, but I hope you all have gotten something out of my participation. I certainly have realized just how difficult these questions about "universal" class struggle can be, and I have not come to any definite conclusion. I agree that we must never lose sight of a primary question, "So, how do we move past capitalism?" I'm just asking if that's the only question of serious importance to the Left.


Of course I think that should *always* be our guiding principle, by definition of being anti-capitalist / anti-imperialist.

I'd like to recommend a framework I made -- it's a one-page diagram -- that might assist in sorting out these various levels of anaysis -- hope it helps, take care.


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://tinyurl.com/nf8gyr