Dear Class War Anarchists;

[War Cry]

I'd appreciate an explanation on the "class is the only oppression" and the "I'm not privileged" political line. It has come across to me multiple times as a denial of other forms of oppression, and an isolation that only class oppression exists.

Which is really hard for me to swallow, as a woman who experiences sexism every day. It also seems to always come at me from straight white males, as well. If you've never experienced sexism as a woman, how can you know that it doesn't exist? Or race, homophobia, ableism, ageism, ect.

Is that even what you're getting at?

[F9]

I'd appreciate an explanation on the "class is the only oppression" and the "I'm not privileged" political line. It has come across to me multiple times as a denial of other forms of oppression, and an isolation that only class oppression exists.

Which is really hard for me to swallow, as a woman who experiences sexism every day. It also seems to always come at me from straight white males, as well. If you've never experienced sexism as a woman, how can you know that it doesn't exist? Or race, homophobia, ableism, ageism, ect.

Is that even what you're getting at?

Wait.Who told you that the class war Anarchists think that the only oppression is the class one?The one did just dont listen to him again.
Of course and sexism, racism, homophobia etc exists, the ones dont accept this cant be described as Anarchists, at best i would describe them as "idiots".
So no, we "class war Anarchists", we dont think that the above things dont exist, in the contrast we fight them too.

Fuserg9:star:

[khad]

What I don't get is this hyperindividualistic moral outlook on the world that some seem to fetishize.

1: "I can't have white male privilege. I don't personally oppress nonwhite people, women, etc!"

2: "Yes, but look at institutional discrimination, police brutality, even social attitudes towards disempowered groups."

1: "That's not oppression. That's just individual people being assholes."

2: *FACEPALM*


I find it incredulous that those who claim to be socialists constantly deny the social. Those assholes? They are society.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, you could argue that sexism is a form of class-based oppression itself, in which women are the exploited class. Classes are not restricted to economic classes; in fact, I recently read an article by an anarcho-communist drawing some interesting parallels between the exploitation of the proletariat and the exploitation of women.

That said, anyone who claims that "(economic) class is the only oppression" is full of shit and cannot claim to be an anarchist, since anarchism is, by definition, opposition to all rulership--including patriarchy.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I consider myself a class struggle anarchist, not necessarily a class war anarchist, ie I don't support preemptive war against the rich and the government. But I think class is probably what divides us most today, and the racism I have experienced has been more individual racism, not institutional, but maybe it's cause I'm only 15 and haven't had much "real world experience".

[khad]

I consider myself a class struggle anarchist, not necessarily a class war anarchist, ie I don't support preemptive war against the rich and the government. But I think class is probably what divides us most today, and the racism I have experienced has been more individual racism, not institutional, but maybe it's cause I'm only 15 and haven't had much "real world experience".
That's probably it. You can't get your ass landed in maximum security for life yet.

[Agrippa]

Race and gender are class.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Eh, I've been busted for weed by the cops and it was me and a black kid and two white kids and he didnt treat us any different than the white kids. And I got the sentence and shit as them too. But I've also seen the police racial profile the fuck out of my neighborhood, but it is "high crime" so I don't know.

[GPDP]

I believe the line taken by class war/struggle anarchists is the following: women, non-whites, homosexuals, etc. are certainly oppressed, but only the working class is exploited as a whole, hence why the class struggle is the most prominent thing to fight, though that's not to diminish the importance of fighting against all other kinds of oppression.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm a socialist, not an anarchist, but I would have to say that most really political anarchist I know in the US are very concerned with ending opression as well as capitalism.


I'd appreciate an explanation on the "class is the only oppression" and the "I'm not privileged" political line. It has come across to me multiple times as a denial of other forms of oppression, and an isolation that only class oppression exists.
If someone is saying that only class oppression exists, I think they have a weak understanding of oppression in modern society as well as class oppression in modern society. The main way that the class is oppressed is through extra oppression being put onto certain groups in society. So women are oppressed as women on top of being oppressed as working class people. So it hurts the working class's power to fight back when 1/2 of the working class is expected to hold a job and raise children and is told that their labor is less valuable than other people. Getting rid of sexism is in working class interests because to get rid of sexism you would have to raise wages, give full health and child care and so on. This benefits the entire class - women and men.

This brings me to privilege - If you believe there is male/hetero/white privilege, then do you believe it is a privilege to not get beaten by cops? Is it a privilege to not be told that your worth goes only as far as your sexual appeal? Is it a privilege to walk down the street with your lover and not have to worry about being attacked by thugs?

If so, you have a low standard. I think radicals have a higher standard than that - we are not going to take the crumbs offered to us by our rulers. Not being sexually harassed, profiled by cops, told to hide your mutual sexual attraction are not privileges - these are the bare minimum rights and respect we should demand and accept nothing less!

[Durruti's Ghost]

I believe the line taken by class war/struggle anarchists is the following: women, non-whites, homosexuals, etc. are certainly oppressed, but only the working class is exploited as a whole, hence why the class struggle is the most prominent thing to fight

I think emphasizing economic class struggle as the most important struggle is a mistake. Patriarchy predates and, arguably, lays the foundations for economic exploitation, and a revolution that only attacked capitalism (or even simply devoted more energy to the fight against capitalism) might well leave patriarchy intact. This would be a bad thing in itself, of course; however, it might also lead to a resurgence of other forms of oppression, including, eventually, capitalism and the State.

[War Cry]

I believe the line taken by class war/struggle anarchists is the following: women, non-whites, homosexuals, etc. are certainly oppressed, but only the working class is exploited as a whole, hence why the class struggle is the most prominent thing to fight, though that's not to diminish the importance of fighting against all other kinds of oppression.

How are women and people of color not exploited as a whole? Prison is one of the biggest suppliers of essentially slave labor, and a vast majority of the people who fill prisons are people of color. Class is an overriding issue of exploitation, but there are nuances here that go unquestioned. That is a class and a race issue. I think that recognizing the intersection of these oppressions is far, far more effective than calling it a class issue. Am I missing the point?

[yuon]

Race and gender are class.

Not from a Marxian economics perspective...

You can't just say that certain segments of society make up a "class", without first defining what you mean by "class".

Marxists, and people who use Marxian class analysis (not me), say that class is based on a person's relationship to the means of production. (E.g. they own it, and don't work; they own some, but not enough not to have to do some work; they don't own any, and have to work; and, they don't own any, but don't work, at least not productively in relation to the means of production - those are the four major classes in capitalism according to Marx.)

The most common method in society today of distinguishing class is based (partly) on income, hence the terms upper, middle and lower class.

Sensible people recognise that economics isn't everything, and some of them (including me) use concepts such as power to distinguish class. An simplified example of that might be, those who can order others around, and those who have to take and obey the orders.

But I can't really think of how race or gender can be fitted into any class analysis, without reference to another concept (be it economic, "black people" tend to be poorer, as do women, or something else).

How do you do it?

[khad]

How do you do it?
David Roediger's Wages of Whiteness is a good labor history of race. In that book he investigates the idea of whiteness as it pertained to the formation of the idea of the working class in the United States.

[GPDP]

How are women and people of color not exploited as a whole? Prison is one of the biggest suppliers of essentially slave labor, and a vast majority of the people who fill prisons are people of color. Class is an overriding issue of exploitation, but there are nuances here that go unquestioned. That is a class and a race issue. I think that recognizing the intersection of these oppressions is far, far more effective than calling it a class issue. Am I missing the point?

Well, I pretty much agree. I was stating a general line, not my own personal one.

[Durruti's Ghost]

How do you do it?

The way I see it, class-based oppression occurs whenever there are two distinct groups in which most people fit and one of those groups clearly oppresses the other. There is economic class oppression, in which the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat. However, there is also sexual class oppression, in which men oppress women; another type of sexual class oppression, in which heterosexuals oppress LGBTQI people; political class oppression, in which the State and its beneficiaries oppress everyone else; racial class oppression, in which whites oppress everyone else; and so on. Many of these are linked to each other; a person who is a member of one oppressed class is likely a member of another oppressed class (e.g., black women are more likely to be proletarians than white males), and a person who is a member of an oppressing class is likely to be a member of others as well (e.g., most capitalists are straight, white, politically well-connected males). However, each type of oppression can exist independently of the other types, and each must be confronted and defeated if we are to build an anarchist society.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Class is an overriding issue of exploitation, but there are nuances here that go unquestioned. That is a class and a race issue. I think that recognizing the intersection of these oppressions is far, far more effective than calling it a class issue. Am I missing the point?
No, I think that's entirely true. Where have you encountered anyone saying anything different? Anarchists say some amazingly stupid things at times, but I'd think even the worst of us wouldn't try to claim that "class is the only oppression".
From the aims and principles of the Anarchist Federation (which is definitely a class struggle group):

2 Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class. But inequality and exploitation are also expressed in terms of race, gender, sexuality, health, ability and age, and in these ways one section of the working class oppresses another. This divides us, causing a lack of class unity in struggle that benefits the ruling class. Oppressed groups are strengthened by autonomous action which challenges social and economic power relationships. To achieve our goal we must relinquish power over each other on a personal as well as a political level.
3 We believe that fighting racism and sexism is as important as other aspects of the class struggle. Anarchist-Communism cannot be achieved while sexism and racism still exist. In order to be effective in their struggle against their oppression both within society and within the working class, women, lesbians and gays, and black people may at times need to organise independently. However, this should be as working class people as cross-class movements hide real class differences and achieve little for them. Full emancipation cannot be achieved without the abolition of capitalism.
4 We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

For the record, I think # 3 is kind of shittily worded, because it suggests we don't see homophobia as being as important as sexism or racism, when obviously none of us would actually defend that idea. But would you agree with that, or at least not see it as a denial of oppression?
This is pretty lengthy, and I don't agree 100% with all of it (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6204), but it's a decent starting point in terms of setting out how class struggle anarchists can relate to non-class issues.

[Pogue]

Seeing as this is targetted at the comment I made:

In relation to race today in the area where I live I said I don't think I am 'priviliged' because I am white. This is simply not a reality I experience and seems to suuggest I am in someway better off than my black and asian friends. I'm not. I do however recognise that they are more likely to encounter racism, especially from institutions from the police. I said with employment it varies case by case but largely I wouldn't say the issue is huge here. So I objected to 'priviliged' because it implied some huge divide that made me part of the priviliged class and them part of the un priviliged class. WHen I got sacked earlier this year as part of a huge wave of cuts the company made to safe profits, there was white and black people being sacked. This is where class comes in. I don't think class is all that matters but I think its the most determning thing, and the only thing a revolution will be based upon. Class has a basis in material reality which is why I think it is most relevant.

I never said those other things don't exist. I'm regularly involved in fights and arguments over people being racist, sexist or homophobic. I just believe class is more of a determining factor in someones life today. I also think in my area your 'race', gender or sex are less of a barrier than they have been at any point in history, and at least none of my black or asian friends have never found their skin colour a barrier to getting a job around here.

I was always only speaking of my personal situation. Its why I said 'I don't think I am priviliged'.

[Pogue]

What I don't get is this hyperindividualistic moral outlook on the world that some seem to fetishize.

1: "I can't have white male privilege. I don't personally oppress nonwhite people, women, etc!"

2: "Yes, but look at institutional discrimination, police brutality, even social attitudes towards disempowered groups."

1: "That's not oppression. That's just individual people being assholes."

2: *FACEPALM*


I find it incredulous that those who claim to be socialists constantly deny the social. Those assholes? They are society.

But the thing is, unless you can prove institutional racism, it would be indvidiual, because the racism will either by systemic or individual. Individual racism in employment is illegal now and you can expect to go to court over it. The police is still institutionally racist, I never denied this.

[h9socialist]

Interestingly enough, issues such as racism, sexism, and homophobia have been areas where the Left as a whole has had it's greatest impact of the last 50 years. The problem is that economic inequality and oppression have been backburner in recent decades -- it's time to get it back to the forefront, because it's common ground for so many who could be the force behind the Left of the future.

[x359594]

...women, non-whites, homosexuals, etc. are certainly oppressed, but only the working class is exploited as a whole, hence why the class struggle is the most prominent thing to fight, though that's not to diminish the importance of fighting against all other kinds of oppression.

Radical critics of bourgeois society who examine it from different points of view have identified several relational structures which help to form and propagate that society. Radical feminists, for instance, view society in terms of gender roles, and see relationships between male and female as the determining factor in social development. Pure anarchists examine society's structures of power and authority, and view the relationships between dominators and subordinates as the determining factor. Latino, African-American, Native American and other racial or national activists, by studying the relationships between races or nations, see racism and nationalism as the determining factors. Socialists and communists, of course, focus on class relationships, and see the social dynamic between workers and owners as the key to social development.

When we examine bourgeois society as a whole, however, we realize that each of these particular outlooks--feminism, pure anarchism, anti-racism, or socialism--is, by itself, incomplete. Each outlook reduces the whole of a society to a particular "base" of social relationships, with all other relationships subordinate to this base. This, however, is an abstraction that does not occur in reality. In a real living human society, all of these social relationships interpenetrate to mutually support and determine each other. None of them is any more "basic" or "fundamental" than the others. Bourgeois society does not exist merely to extract surplus value, nor to dominate women, nor to keep racial or ethnic groups in a disadvantaged position, nor to safeguard authority relationships, nor to build national power. Instead, bourgeois society exists as it does in order to do all of these things, and all of these things mutually interpenetrate to form bourgeois society as a whole, by reproducing the conditions which allow that society to reproduce itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The way I see it, class-based oppression occurs whenever there are two distinct groups in which most people fit and one of those groups clearly oppresses the other. There is economic class oppression, in which the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat. However, there is also sexual class oppression, in which men oppress women; another type of sexual class oppression, in which heterosexuals oppress LGBTQI people; political class oppression, in which the State and its beneficiaries oppress everyone else; racial class oppression, in which whites oppress everyone else; and so on. Many of these are linked to each other; a person who is a member of one oppressed class is likely a member of another oppressed class (e.g., black women are more likely to be proletarians than white males), and a person who is a member of an oppressing class is likely to be a member of others as well (e.g., most capitalists are straight, white, politically well-connected males). However, each type of oppression can exist independently of the other types, and each must be confronted and defeated if we are to build an anarchist society.

I think we need to get over these post-modern ideas of oppression coming from various equal groups in society. Racism, sexism, and homophobia originate where all the of the common ideas in our society come from: our ruling class.

All hetero people did not expel LGBT people from the military after WWII or restrict their employment or use religious institutions and radio and television as a platform to spread bigoted ideas to the entire population. Working class heterosexual people do not benifit from this bogotry because homophobia was used as a tool of McCarthyism to threaten and "out" gays as well as reds. Homophobia is a tool to justify keeping heterosexual women out of "men's jobs" and justify lower pay.

Sexism is also not something created by some kind of magical hatred of women that is inherent in all men. Sexism is a tool of class societies - sexism is used to pay women less which ends up lowering wages for all people - think about tradditioanlly women-dominated jobs, teachers, nurses: they all get paid less than similar work that is considered "men's" work.

White people do not benifit from racism against black people and black people do not benifit from anti-immigrant racism directed mostly at Latinos and Arabs. All these forms of bigotry are designed to divide us, because every minority power in history knows that it needs to divide the people in order to controll the people.

[mel]

I think we need to get over these post-modern ideas of oppression coming from various equal groups in society. Racism, sexism, and homophobia originate where all the of the common ideas in our society come from: our ruling class.

All hetero people did not expel LGBT people from the military after WWII or restrict their employment or use religious institutions and radio and television as a platform to spread bigoted ideas to the entire population. Working class heterosexual people do not benifit from this bogotry because homophobia was used as a tool of McCarthyism to threaten and "out" gays as well as reds. Homophobia is a tool to justify keeping heterosexual women out of "men's jobs" and justify lower pay.

Sexism is also not something created by some kind of magical hatred of women that is inherent in all men. Sexism is a tool of class societies - sexism is used to pay women less which ends up lowering wages for all people - think about tradditioanlly women-dominated jobs, teachers, nurses: they all get paid less than similar work that is considered "men's" work.

White people do not benifit from racism against black people and black people do not benifit from anti-immigrant racism directed mostly at Latinos and Arabs. All these forms of bigotry are designed to divide us, because every minority power in history knows that it needs to divide the people in order to controll the people.

As an extension of this, the reason that class struggle is pushed as the most important is that we cannot hope to eliminate the other forms of systematic oppression without destroying the system. However, the non-economic classes are not by themselves revolutionary. The working class is the only revolutionary class and therefore the only class which can hope to destroy the system and restructure society. Of course we need to keep other forms of oppression in mind, so that we do not restructure society in such a way that all our gains leave some forms of oppression intact, but we cannot let them take a back burner to the class struggle, because ultimately that is the instrument with which we can destroy all other forms of oppression.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Sexism is also not something created by some kind of magical hatred of women that is inherent in all men. Sexism is a tool of class societies - sexism is used to pay women less which ends up lowering wages for all people - think about tradditioanlly women-dominated jobs, teachers, nurses: they all get paid less than similar work that is considered "men's" work.

Patriarchy isn't about hatred of women, anymore than capitalism is about hatred of the proletariat. More importantly, patriarchy predates (economic) class societies--we see it even in primitive, hunter-gatherer societies. So, logically, your assertion that it is just a result of class societies, and not something that can exist independently of economic exploitation, makes no sense. Certainly, it serves to reinforce the bourgeois power structure; all forms of oppression serve to reinforce each other.


All these forms of bigotry are designed to divide us, because every minority power in history knows that it needs to divide the people in order to controll the people.

Yes, these forms of bigotry exacerbate the problems of capitalism, just as capitalism exacerbates the problems of bigotry. However, to say that capitalism is the cause of these forms of bigotry is simply false. Racism stems from humanity's evolutionary history; in the early stages of our development, anything unusual or different was dangerous, and a fear of difference was evolutionarily adaptive. The bourgeoisie may capitalize on racism, but it is not the sole or even the primary cause of it.

[Durruti's Ghost]

As an extension of this, the reason that class struggle is pushed as the most important is that we cannot hope to eliminate the other forms of systematic oppression without destroying the system.

True. However, neither can we hope to eliminate capitalism without destroying the other forms of systematic oppression. To leave one form of systematic oppression intact will sow the seeds of the other forms, because all forms of oppression are interdependent. A revolution whose slogan is "Smash the State! Abolish capitalism! Kill the Jews!" will only succeed in the latter part of its program.

[mel]

True. However, neither can we hope to eliminate capitalism without destroying the other forms of systematic oppression. To leave one form of systematic oppression intact will sow the seeds of the other forms, because all forms of oppression are interdependent. A revolution whose slogan is "Smash the State! Abolish capitalism! Kill the Jews!" will only succeed in the latter part of its program.

I never suggested that we should support or even be ignorant of the other forms of oppression. However, one cannot possibly hope to succeed in making significant strides against other forms of oppression without abolishing capitalism.

We cannot stop the exploitation of women for profit without stopping the exploitation of people for profit. While the abolition of capitalism is not a sufficient condition for the achievment of the goals of feminism, it is a necessary condition. You cannot achieve the goals of feminism without first abolishing the system which promotes patriarchy. Abolition of the capitalist system is the necessary first step for abolishing all other sorts of oppression. We should of course be aware of the other forms of oppression, we should fight the attitudes which cause them within our ranks, we should fight their continued expression in society, but ultimately the goals of all who are oppressed cannot be achieved without first demolishing the state.

Put another way: no singular group of oppressed peoples can hope to be equal under capitalism, all they can hope for is equal dehumanization and equal exploitation. If the patriarchy could be abolished under capitalism, without acheiving the aims of the class struggle, it would be in the vague sense that now men and women are equally exploited by capitalists, equally objectified for the sake of the profit motive, and equally oppressed by the capitalist class. Capitalism is a system that promotes inequality, it contains the seeds for its own continued exploitation. Of course patriarchy and racism are not magically abolished along with the state apparatus, but by eliminating the economic dependencies, subordination, exploitation through advertising and objectification, etc. you provide the necessary first steps in eliminating destructive attitudes in society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As an extension of this, the reason that class struggle is pushed as the most important is that we cannot hope to eliminate the other forms of systematic oppression without destroying the system. However, the non-economic classes are not by themselves revolutionary. The working class is the only revolutionary class and therefore the only class which can hope to destroy the system and restructure society. Of course we need to keep other forms of oppression in mind, so that we do not restructure society in such a way that all our gains leave some forms of oppression intact, but we cannot let them take a back burner to the class struggle, because ultimately that is the instrument with which we can destroy all other forms of oppression.

I agree, especially that the reason we focus on the working class is because of the revolutionary potential of the class, but I also think there is a dynamic relationship between oppression of groups and oppression of the working class. Since the ruling class promotes nationalist, sexist, homophobic, racist ideas and institutions as a way to divide the working class and keep us all weaker and fighting amongst ourselves, we can not jump over these other oppressions and get to revolution.

In order to get to revolution, the working class needs to actively confront these oppressions and overcome them to a significant degree (though it is also impossible to fully overcome them until the root cause, class society/capitalism, is gone). Racism or nativism in unions means that the bosses have a built-in supply of scabs in the oppressed national or racial group or can play natives and immigrants against eachother.

[Durruti's Ghost]

While the abolition of capitalism is not a sufficient condition for the achievment of the goals of feminism, it is a necessary condition. You cannot achieve the goals of feminism without first abolishing the system which promotes patriarchy.

I agree that the abolition of capitalism is a necessary part of the abolition of patriarchy. However, I also hold that the abolition of patriarchy is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for achieving the goals of socialism.


Of course patriarchy and racism are not magically abolished along with the state apparatus, but by eliminating the economic dependencies, subordination, exploitation through advertising and objectification, etc. you provide the necessary first steps in eliminating destructive attitudes in society. (Emphasis added) This is the key point on which I disagree with you. Your position seems to be that the abolition of capitalism must come before the abolition of patriarchy, and you seem to think that I am arguing that patriarchy can be abolished independent of the abolition of capitalism. (If this is a mischaracterization of your views, I apologize.) On the contrary, I am arguing that each must be abolished, or at least attacked, simultaneously. A working class revolution will not succeed in destroying capitalism unless it is also a feminist, anti-racist, anti-statist, anti-heterosexist revolution because each form of oppression is an integral part of all the other forms.

[mel]

I agree that the abolition of capitalism is a necessary part of the abolition of patriarchy. However, I also hold that the abolition of patriarchy is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for achieving the goals of socialism.

The abolition of patriarchy is a necessary condition for achieving the goals of socialism, with this I agree. I don't think that it's a necessary condition for the abolition of capitalism....but I'll elaborate on this down a little further.


This is the key point on which I disagree with you. Your position seems to be that the abolition of capitalism must come before the abolition of patriarchy, and you seem to think that I am arguing that patriarchy can be abolished independent of the abolition of capitalism. (If this is a mischaracterization of your views, I apologize.) On the contrary, I am arguing that each must be abolished, or at least attacked, simultaneously. A working class revolution will not succeed in destroying capitalism unless it is also a feminist, anti-racist, anti-statist, anti-heterosexist revolution because each form of oppression is an integral part of all the other forms.

If you look at the sources of oppression, such as the patriarchy what are the immediate aims that, for example, a feminist should hope to accomplish in order to achieve their goals? In my point of view, you cannot ask as liberal feminists do, for middle class goals such as more female CEOs or other such middle-class reforms. If women got equal wages it would barely even dent the patriarchy in all its other expressions. What should the goals be then? As long as capitalism exists, it cannot be stopped from objectifying women or selling sex because there is nothing we can do to stop those things from being profitable. It contains the seeds of its own continuation. We cannot hope to liberate women from economic dependency under capitalism either, we can't hope to change the culture without changing the society. With all of this in mind, it seems to me that the immediate aims of any feminist should be identical with the immediate aims of any leftist. While I don't think that class struggle is sufficient for the abolition of patriachy or any other form of sexual, gender, or racial oppression, and do think that the elimination of those also are necessary to achieve the ends of socialism, I think that the primary ways in which the other forms of oppresion find their expression are economic in nature. The primary ways in which women are oppressed have economic causes, inequal wages, economic dependency, objectification. Same for racial oppression. The only type of oppression which we can adequately fight culturally right now is gender and sexual oppression against LGBT peoples, due to the relatively young stage of their quest for rights. I also think that in a generation or two LGBT peoples will find themselves oppressed primarily as a result of economic factors, as women and minorities are today (for the most part, anyway).

All that being said, I believe that in fact you attack the patriarchy simultaneously as you attack the economic factors which keep women oppressed more than other workers. You attack racism simultaneously as you attack the economic factors which oppress minorities more than other workers. If you look at the professed aims of the liberal feminist movement (equal wages, no discrimination, and an end to objectification in the media) you can see that these aims are ultimately, if not only achievable by, at least best combated with the abolition of wages and the capitalist system and the bourgeois media.

I argue that the best way to fight all forms of oppression is to attack the capitalist system. We ABSOLUTELY need to be aware of the ways in which the patriarchy expresses itself in order to achieve the full aims of feminism, but I do believe that the immediate aims of feminism can only be acheived through class struggle. There's more separation in my language than actually exists, as all who believe in the class struggle ought to be against all forms of oppression, but it's difficult to express simultaneously the identity required (the aims of feminists are identical with the aims of socialists) as well as the separation necessary to explain my point of view. I hope I expressed myself adequately, but if not feel free to ask for clarification again. My position is difficult to express and categorize, and I don't want it to be misunderstood.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Patriarchy isn't about hatred of women, anymore than capitalism is about hatred of the proletariat. More importantly, patriarchy predates (economic) class societies--we see it even in primitive, hunter-gatherer societies. So, logically, your assertion that it is just a result of class societies, and not something that can exist independently of economic exploitation, makes no sense. Certainly, it serves to reinforce the bourgeois power structure; all forms of oppression serve to reinforce each other.

No, I didn't think you were arguing that sexism must be defeated within capitalist society - I think the disagreement is about the origins of sexism. Maybe you wern't making this point but many people argue that racism comes from white people and sexism comes from all men - to me this doesn't hold up historically since these opressions have been fluid and workse at some times than other times. Since modern racism is a more recent development of class societies, it is easy to show the ruling class origins of racist ideas and racist structures in society. Since sexism probably developed around the same time as agriculture, it is much harder to demonstrate its origns.

Opression of women, predates capitalist class society, but doesn't predate class society in a uniform way. Many native American cultures - even ones with limited class divisions had oppression to a much lesser extent.

In Iroquois tribes, for example had class divisions and some anti-women cultural views and yet women controlled many important aspects of life in their society and so male leaders had to go along with their decisions on many things. Men could declare war, for example, but women could veto that decision because they controlled the production of supplies for war parties.

[Durruti's Ghost]

All that being said, I believe that in fact you attack the patriarchy simultaneously as you attack the economic factors which keep women oppressed more than other workers. You attack racism simultaneously as you attack the economic factors which oppress minorities more than other workers. If you look at the professed aims of the liberal feminist movement (equal wages, no discrimination, and an end to objectification in the media) you can see that these aims are ultimately, if not only achievable by, at least best combated with the abolition of wages and the capitalist system and the bourgeois media.

I agree that the attacking the capitalist system does constitute, in many ways, an attack on patriarchy and is the only real way feminists can achieve their immediate goals. However, the ultimate goal of feminism (at least in its most radical forms) would probably the better identified as the abolition of gender norms (which, incidentally, also comprise the real target of anti-heterosexism), which an assault on capitalism alone would not touch. If left intact after the revolution, gender norms would constitute a form of patriarchy that, while not economically exploitative, would still relegate women to a lower social class than men, thus sowing the seeds of further exploitation and domination.


I argue that the best way to fight all forms of oppression is to attack the capitalist system. I agree with you inasmuch as the capitalist system is the lynchpin that holds institutional racism/sexism together even when individual racism/sexism is in retreat. Thus, attacking capitalism is an effective (perhaps even the effective) means of attacking institutional bigotry, but not individual bigotry.


I think the disagreement is about the origins of sexism. Maybe you wern't making this point but many people argue that racism comes from white people and sexism comes from all men

Well, I certainly don't argue that racism comes from all white people and sexism from all men. However, your assessment that the disagreement is about the origins of sexism seems accurate. I would argue that sexism originates from the division of gender roles in primitive societies (perhaps in hunter-gatherer societies, certainly in agricultural ones) and that, as time went by and new forms of oppression arose, these gender roles resulted in women being relegated to economically-exploited positions.


Since sexism probably developed around the same time as agriculture, it is much harder to demonstrate its origins.Do you have a theory as to its origins, though? I won't ask for too much evidence, because frankly, I can't provide that much evidence for my theory either.

[mel]

I agree that the attacking the capitalist system does constitute, in many ways, an attack on patriarchy and is the only real way feminists can achieve their immediate goals. However, the ultimate goal of feminism (at least in its most radical forms) would probably the better identified as the abolition of gender norms (which, incidentally, also comprise the real target of anti-heterosexism), which an assault on capitalism alone would not touch. If left intact after the revolution, gender norms would constitute a form of patriarchy that, while not economically exploitative, would still relegate women to a lower social class than men, thus sowing the seeds of further exploitation and domination.

I think that gender norms are primarily reinforced through economic dependencies and through the bourgeois media, making even the long-term, ultimate goals of feminism dependent on the class struggle.


I agree with you inasmuch as the capitalist system is the lynchpin that holds institutional racism/sexism together even when individual racism/sexism is in retreat. Thus, attacking capitalism is an effective (perhaps even the effective) means of attacking institutional bigotry, but not individual bigotry.

I think like individual racism/sexism is in retreat, so also is individual adherence to and support of gender norms. The youngest generation is far more accepting, supportive, and tolerant of non-hetero-normative orientations and I think in several generations time (3-4) institutional oppression will be the primary source. As such, while great strides can still be made to combat individual bigotry of all sorts, primarily concerning sexuality and gender norms, ultimately I see those as on the decline already leaving the abolition of capitalism the only remaining way to realize the short and long term goals of anyone against any form of oppression.

[Durruti's Ghost]

The youngest generation is far more accepting, supportive, and tolerant of non-hetero-normative orientations and I think in several generations time (3-4) institutional oppression will be the primary source.

You may well be right; provided that the conditions that have led to the decline of traditional gender norms do not reverse themselves (that's another discussion entirely, though), institutional oppression may soon be all that's left.

I don't think we have anything much left to argue about. We seem to agree on all the key points.

[mel]

You may well be right; provided that the conditions that have led to the decline of traditional gender norms do not reverse themselves (that's another discussion entirely, though), institutional oppression may soon be all that's left.

I realized as I was typing that this could happen, but I decided to leave it out because indeed, that is another discussion entirely.


I don't think we have anything much left to argue about. We seem to agree on all the key points.

I agree :cool:

[RebelDog]

I'd appreciate an explanation on the "class is the only oppression" and the "I'm not privileged" political line. It has come across to me multiple times as a denial of other forms of oppression, and an isolation that only class oppression exists.

Which is really hard for me to swallow, as a woman who experiences sexism every day. It also seems to always come at me from straight white males, as well. If you've never experienced sexism as a woman, how can you know that it doesn't exist? Or race, homophobia, ableism, ageism, ect.

Is that even what you're getting at?

Only the working-class is capable of destroying the material conditions from which these negative things arise from, that is what we claim. Look at where such negative concepts as sexism, racism and homophobia come from. They emerge from the economic conditions imposed upon society by class-society. Capitalism traditionally needs economic units like the family in order to sustain its exploitation of the working class so the establishment vigirously defends concepts like the family and develops its morals around that because the family is the working-class economic unit that best serves their interests in sustaining the current workforce and producing the next. The concept of racism emerges through ruling-class thinking as well. A simple example of this is the European conquering of Africa and the Americas and the need to paint a picture of aboriginals as savages and inferiors simply to justify mass exploitation, pillage, murder and slavery for the expedient economic welfare of the elite.

Class anarchism fully understands that unless we break the economic structure of class-society then we are powerless to do anything about the negative concepts it produces. As Marx said "both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew."

If we don't rid ourselves of the economic hegemony of the ruling-class then we can never hope to rid ourselves of their 'muck'.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you have a theory as to its origins, though? I won't ask for too much evidence, because frankly, I can't provide that much evidence for my theory either.

Yeah, that it why it is hard to say for certain. I go along with the theory that sexism arose with the first class divisions because frankly I don't know how it would have been possible in hunter-gather societies for women to be systematically denied rights and equal treatment. In these early societies there wasn't yet enough surplus to have some members of the group not contributing to the whole group; so with control over aspects of production (as in the Iroquois example) came a certain degree of power in society.

According to this view, when agriculture became more developed and the main source of food, surplus was created and so not everyone had to work in food production: some became administrators which eventually led to the first priests and other formalized rulers. At the same time, crop production became male-dominated and so where there was a separation of "womens" work and "men's" work, women more and more were relegated to marginal work and therefore dependent on their connection to a man and their more central role in early class societies. As class divisions became more defined an entrenched, women were toally cut out from independant routes to having wealth or influence in society and so were more or less "property" of fathers to give to some other man later.

I tend to believe this view because the evidence we do have of modern contact with more tibal cultures does not have consistant treatment of women. In some, women are treated badly like in more developed class societies while in other cultures, there is more or less equal power between men and women. It also helps us forge ahead in fighting sexism because we can see how woemen's entrance in the industrial workforce allowed working class women to experiment with lifesyles that they would be unable to have (i.e. no husband, same-sex relationships, or independant lives). Women became radicals and fighters for power in many of the most important industral strikes in the US before WWI. With the rise of capitalism there was also push back against inheritance restrictions for women and so bourgoise women began to carve out some social power for themselves and eventaully helped create sufferage movements.

If sexism predates class society, then it seems like it must be inherent in humans and therefore sexism would be more uniform throught history and the cultures.