Social vrs Economic Issues

[RGacky3]

Some people here point to social reforms such as gay and womens rights as an example that working within the system is the way forward, and that those examples show thats how change is done, within the system, non-revolutionary style.

Heres why that is wrong:

When it comes to gay and womens rights there are no major monied (power) interests against it, its a purely cultural issue, and when its a purely cultural issue its basically left to democracy to run its course, the most popular and louder position wins, obviously there are some wealthy people on either side, but it has nothing to do with challening their status.

However, when it comes to economic change, financial reform, public control, labor rights, there is a major monied (power) interest involved, and at that point it is no longer a cultural issue and its a power and wealth issue, in those cases (as history has shown us), the ruling class will ALWAYS control the system in their favor, and they can do that with their capital influence, which they will use to the full to keep their power. THe left can win on social issues, but when it comes to economic issues, it has to come from attacking the system from outside. This is a major reason I'm a syndicalist.

[h0m0revolutionary]

There are absolutly vested interests in maintaining a society based around suspicion of sexuality and a society in which gender is treated as innate and profound.

There is no need for distinct social/political and economic orginisations, it's all much more simple than you allude too:

Womens rights and LGBTQ rights, just as with race, disability and other minority attributes, cannot be secured under capitalism. Take LGBQT and Womens rights for example, you suggest liberation can be won within the system by a social-movement. But can you really envisage the state recognising trans as equal and valid citizens afforded every right cis-gendered people are? In adoption? marriage? health? other domestic partner benefits?

A capitalist state will not concede that the gender binary offers a false dualism, because it relies heavily upon the gender binary for socialisation of children, the continuation of the idealised nuclear family unit and of course to secure a fragmented working class.

Some mild gains can be secured of course, like gay marriage, but these are often fragile, temporary or more often, serve to benefit the liberal establishment - gay marriage is a good example of this by legitimising state intervention in consentsual relationships and providing 'opportunity' for LGBTQ individuals to assimilate into institutions that have helped maintain the ideal heteronormative status quo.

The same is true of economic reforms, we are capable of getting a minimum wage, 8 hour working day etc., Capitalism can clothe us, feed us and content us, but it cannot help but to expliot us, economically, politically, sexually and socially. So we must not give any illusion liberation can come from the state - it can't! We can only seek emancipation as workers if we strive for revolution on every front, and seek unity amungst working class members of marginalised minority groups and bring them to the conclusion of a stateless and classless society - the only real route to liberation for working class minorities and of course the entire working class.

[RGacky3]

But can you really envisage the state recognising trans as equal and valid citizens afforded every right cis-gendered people are? In adoption? marriage? health? other domestic partner benefits?

Why not? its happening slowly, but wheres the money in it? Where is the material interests?


A capitalist state will not concede that the gender binary offers a false dualism, because it relies heavily upon the gender binary for socialisation of children, the continuation of the idealised nuclear family unit and of course to secure a fragmented working class.

Thats rediculous, because if it were true, divorce would be attacked majorly, as well as many other things, these things are not a matter of Capitalist domination, its culture. Race is a somewhat different issue, because when it helps Capitalists they support it, but sometimes it does'nt, however thats not the same as economic issues that directly involve his money (power).


The same is true of economic reforms, we are capable of getting a minimum wage, 8 hour working day etc., Capitalism can clothe us, feed us and content us, but it cannot help but to expliot us, economically, politically, sexually and socially. So we must not give any illusion liberation can come from the state - it can't! We can only seek emancipation as workers if we strive for revolution on every front, and seek unity amungst working class members of marginalised minority groups and bring them to the conclusion of a stateless and classless society - the only real route to liberation for working class minorities and of course the entire working class.

Thats a different issue, because it directly attacks the power and money of the Capitalist ruling class.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Social issues concern the relationship between individuals, whereas economic issues concern the relationship that exists between an individual and the means of production.

For instance, a rich homosexual and a poor homosexual may get along fine because the disparity that exists between them in terms of wealth is often ignored in favor of the common ground they find as two homosexuals in a predominantly heterosexual society. Rarely is it the other way around because man is essentially a social animal, so he isn't going to choose his relationships based on economic considerations like the relationship to MoP. That's why we always notice that gay solidarity (or feminism or racial justice etc. etc.) are successful even within the capitalist system.

This is why one should never conflate the two even though a vague and general relationship does exist between them. Put simply, economic reductionism with respect to social issues isn't all that compelling an idea, for, even without capitalism, these problems may continue to exist simply because they weren't offshoots of the conflict that exists between capital and labor; rather, they're born of the conflict that exists between ideas. Therefore, to reduce something as subtle and intangible as an idea to the level to materialist analysis doesn't get one very far. That in turn means social issues must be tackled as social issues without further complicating it by adding an economic dimension to it.

[Bud Struggle]

This thread is a perfect example of why the Right always wins.

Out of nothing they created the Tea Partiers--some like Flat Tax, some Anti-Abortion, some just like guns, and they all decide to work together. No one has the "official agenda." No one's agenda is more important than the rest. They work together.

The Left is split up in its particular agendas of--"Mine is more important than yours."

They will divide and conquer--and you guys are nice enought to do the dividing for them.

[RGacky3]

No one has the "official agenda." No one's agenda is more important than the rest. They work together.


Actually yes they do, its called American's for prosperity.


The Left is split up in its particular agendas of--"Mine is more important than yours."

Not really, in practice its generally not the case, but did you read the actual thread? (it was kind of directed toward you).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree that trying to change the system from the inside is a strategy which has been fairly definitively closed by history. There are very few examples of the state taking the initiative for increasing rights without being pushed from below. the counter-examples I can think of would be things like court rulings after WWII that increased black rights - but even after the courts made these rulings, the southern states didn't act on them until forced to by civil rights activists. Even the right to strike in the US was only an interpretation of the New Deal and never intended to be the point of the reform. But workers saw it as a vindication of their right to strike and took the initiative.

However, h0m0revolutionary is totally right about the connection between the economic order and the oppression of groups in society.


A capitalist state will not concede that the gender binary offers a false dualism, because it relies heavily upon the gender binary for socialisation of children, the continuation of the idealised nuclear family unit and of course to secure a fragmented working class.Well summed up.

It might also be added that repression isn't isolated either. Homophobia played a big part in McCarthyism as people not going along with the new political or union peace-time program were threatened with being "outed". In the post Russian Revolution red-scare, immigrants as well as reds and anarchists were targeted and faced restrictions on their rights.

So in addition to dividing the working class through scapegoating portions of it and turning workers against each-other, social-repression goes along with political repression because if people can't even feel like they can express attraction or love because they are a sexual minority, then they also won't feel confident standing up at their workplace or community.

Conversely, social struggles can lead to political ones. The early civil rights movement began with limited legal aims and attempts to defeat jim-crow. This gave people confidence to fight back, but it didn't solve problems for the urban black proletariet who did not face racism through jim-crow, but through the economic system. Eventually many of the people involved in the fight for black equality (including MLK) found themselves also having to take on the economic system.


Out of nothing they created the Tea Partiers--some like Flat Tax, some Anti-Abortion, some just like guns, and they all decide to work together.Out of nothing other than lifelong Republican activists and protests organized through a talk radio and cable television host?

If you wanna see movements that come out of nothing, look up the first anti prop 8 protests in SF which were called for by someone making a facebook page and had never organized anything before. Check out the national equality march which was a big as Glenn Beck's 9/12 march and didn't even have the backing of the pro-Obama established gay rights groups.

Besides, as was pointed out, no one is saying X movement is more important than Y movement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

For instance, a rich homosexual and a poor homosexual may get along fine because the disparity that exists between them in terms of wealth is often ignored in favor of the common ground they find as two homosexuals in a predominantly heterosexual society.

Sorry, this is just not true. While opression exists for people in targeted groups regardless of class, they way they fight against oppression and their interests in overcoming that oppression diverge along class lines.

Example, black solidarity: Barack Obama, Condi Rice, Colin Powell. While each gives a debt of gratitude to the civil right movement - each now claim that civil rights no longer need to be fought for. I don't think people in black neighborhoods where unemployment is 25% and where school funds are cut to pay for police that end up harassing kids feel that racism has been overcome.

Example: women's solidarity: Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter. Ok, that's too easy, look at the middle-class leadership of the feminist movement, for them "women's lib" is having female CEOs. So that's fine for upper class women, but what about health-care, paid maternity leave, free day-care for working class women?

So while solidarity across class lines happens and can be beneficial to an extent, at some point, the systemic roots of oppression come into question. For the working class in oppressed groups, in order to fully overcome their oppression, they have to take on the economic component of it. This is not necessary for upper class members of oppressed groups who want equal legal rights, but beyond that do not suffer from the economic side of oppression. In fact, since they are bourgeois, they need to make sure that the economic system remains in tact and so at a certain point in civil right movements, the upper class forces in the movement begin to put the breaks on the movement to keep it from going "too far".

I disagree a bit with h0m0revolutionary's characterization of LGBT marriage rights, because I do see that as a positive reform in fighting for LGBT liberation. But to use that as an example, many of the young activists fighting for this reform have very real and concrete reasons for wanting to be able to have all the rights of marriage such as hospital visitation and so on. Many of the established liberal LGBT groups support this right, but are content to see it come eventually or to compromise on partial rights. I think this exposes a class divide on this issue since people with means do not have to worry about not being put on their partner's health-care plan; the rich do not have to worry about being fired for being trans; they do not have to worry about being ostracized from their families (a source of financial support) for coming out; they do not have to worry about being harassed on the job; etc. In the Castro district in San Francisco, for example, many of the wealthy residence are hostile towards the runaways that come to this famous gay enclave because it hurts property values and gives the neighborhood a "bad image". There were even attempts to get rid of community services and a half-way house for these kids. To think that in one of two main locations in the US where historically LGBT people have come to see shelter from hostile families or homophobia in their home communities, arrive in the Castro to be persecuted in a different way. Anyone who owns a house in the Castro could easily have the means to live in any number of places, but for a runaway, there are very few places that they can go and be safe.

[mikelepore]

However, when it comes to economic change ........... the ruling class will ALWAYS control the system in their favor ...................

I don't see how something like that can be reasoned out. Doesn't it have to be answered by considering actual data? How would you explain economic changes that come about through government? Example, 1937, the first Supreme Court decision that said it's constitutional to have a minimum wage, overturning previous policy that any minimum wage would "interfere" with "freedom of contract."

[TheReadMenace]

Aren't social and economic issues closely linked anyway? I figured they both worked together to reinforce the structure of ideologies that determines how we express ourselves through culture, etc.

Sorry, not much to contribute here...

[RGacky3]

How would you explain economic changes that come about through government? Example, 1937, the first Supreme Court decision that said it's constitutional to have a minimum wage, overturning previous policy that any minimum wage would "interfere" with "freedom of contract."

That was in 1937, after years and years of labor movements and also during the great depression where things were getting really really nasty and leftists were making a comeback.

But keep in mind that the Supreme court is harder for the ruling class to influence directly.

[trivas7]

However, when it comes to economic change, financial reform, public control, labor rights, there is a major monied (power) interest involved, and at that point it is no longer a cultural issue and its a power and wealth issue, in those cases (as history has shown us), the ruling class will ALWAYS control the system in their favor, and they can do that with their capital influence, which they will use to the full to keep their power. THe left can win on social issues, but when it comes to economic issues, it has to come from attacking the system from outside. This is a major reason I'm a syndicalist.
But money and power are also a cultural issue; there is no "they" that stands apart from the system.

[RGacky3]

But money and power are also a cultural issue; there is no "they" that stands apart from the system.

You know what we are talking about, don't get into semantics.