IS there a radical affirmative action party?

[cameron222]

a party that has a plank in platform for something similar to this: creating 3 consecutive rounds of elections nationally (senate, house, president, governorships and state legislatures, executive departments) where the ONLY candidate that can take the spot is a candidate that matches a demographic profile of the electoral area, so that about 25% must be hispanic, 10% african american, 50% female, 5% gay, etc., (usa) and a party that does seem serious about this and unlikely to change their mind soon.
i figured that only radical left party would have such a plank, and that people on this forum would know who

[danyboy27]

i dont think it existed and i dont see the point.
has long has you accept the tenets of what a market economy is all about, all hope for drastic change is basically lost. it does not matter if the guy who is elected is spanish or black, its gonna be a bourgeois or a petty bourgeois anyway.

[Ocean Seal]

a party that has a plank in platform for something similar to this: creating 3 consecutive rounds of elections nationally (senate, house, president, governorships and state legislatures, executive departments) where the ONLY candidate that can take the spot is a candidate that matches a demographic profile of the electoral area, so that about 25% must be hispanic, 10% african american, 50% female, 5% gay, etc., (usa) and a party that does seem serious about this and unlikely to change their mind soon.
i figured that only radical left party would have such a plank, and that people on this forum would know who
No there probably isn't and there probably won't be. Bourgeois parliaments are not places for leftists to make demands, certainly not ones so strict as this one which is pretty absurd to be honest. Also the first demand is that the bourgeois parliament should be 90% working class, and such is something that won't be granted.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

a party that has a plank in platform for something similar to this: creating 3 consecutive rounds of elections nationally (senate, house, president, governorships and state legislatures, executive departments) where the ONLY candidate that can take the spot is a candidate that matches a demographic profile of the electoral area, so that about 25% must be hispanic, 10% african american, 50% female, 5% gay, etc., (usa) and a party that does seem serious about this and unlikely to change their mind soon.
i figured that only radical left party would have such a plank, and that people on this forum would know who

What's the fucking point to that? All you're proposing is to install bourgeois parliamentary quotas which would mean and signify nothing.

"Nah, everything's cool bro, it's all equal, see we have our queers over there, women over there and blacks over here, told youuuu."

[The Hong Se Sun]

Plus what if there isn't enough women/LGBT members who would want the job? Feminism starts at consent so forcing women to take 50% of the seat or even limit women to 50% of the seats would be inherently reactionary

[l'Enfermé]

Plus what if there isn't enough women/LGBT members who would want the job? Feminism starts at consent so forcing women to take 50% of the seat or even limit women to 50% of the seats would be inherently reactionary
Bourgeois feminism(what 99% of people refer to when they use the word "feminism" today) is inherently reactionary, what's your point?

[RGacky3]

Putting Bourgeois (or liberal) infront of a word does'nt do anything, its such a cheap bullshit attack without using any arugments, rational people should'nt be that cheap.

[Crux]

Bourgeois feminism(what 99% of people refer to when they use the word "feminism" today) is inherently reactionary, what's your point?
I think you should be restricted for that. Oh wait nevermind.
I know some parties use affirmative action internally to some extent but just as Vox Populi I think it runs the risk of becoming an excuse rather than a help.

[Jimmie Higgins]

a party that has a plank in platform for something similar to this: creating 3 consecutive rounds of elections nationally (senate, house, president, governorships and state legislatures, executive departments) where the ONLY candidate that can take the spot is a candidate that matches a demographic profile of the electoral area, so that about 25% must be hispanic, 10% african american, 50% female, 5% gay, etc., (usa) and a party that does seem serious about this and unlikely to change their mind soon.
i figured that only radical left party would have such a plank, and that people on this forum would know who

A number of years ago the French government passed a parity law for female elected officials but I don't know much beyond that.

Personally in the US I'd rather see any effort around affirmative action be towards jobs and education through a grassroots effort. It would help regain some lost ground but more importantly it could rally working class people around a struggle that exposes the systemic nature of racism and sexism - and if it went through it could - in a small way - improve the lives of some workers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Putting Bourgeois (or liberal) in front of a word doesn't do anything, its such a cheap bullshit attack without using any arguments, rational people shouldn't be that cheap.Well it could be clarifying to be fair. I use terms like "bourgeois-morality" to specify the class nature of the supposed universality of moral ideas.

Bourgeois-feminism is a thing too - a specific kind of feminism that seeks the end of oppression through more female business-owners or elected officials. But not all feminism is inherently bougois - it might be argued that all feminism is inherently class-collaborationist though if by feminism we don't just mean anti-sexist or women's lib movements but specifically movements that see all women, regardless of class, in the same boat and improvements from elite women as blanket improvements for all women.

[RGacky3]

Well it could be clarifying to be fair. I use terms like "bourgeois-morality" to specify the class nature of the supposed universality of moral ideas.


Its not calrifying, its the same thing the right wing uses when they just shout MAOIST at everything, what would be clarifying is actually clarifying your point.


Bourgeois-feminism is a thing too - a specific kind of feminism that seeks the end of oppression through more female business-owners or elected officials. But not all feminism is inherently bougois - it might be argued that all feminism is inherently class-collaborationist though if by feminism we don't just mean anti-sexist or women's lib movements but specifically movements that see all women, regardless of class, in the same boat and improvements from elite women as blanket improvements for all women.

Then make an argument against that type of feminism, but juts saying "thats bourgeois feminism" is not tan argument.

I mean I agree with you, I think that sort of feminism is wrong headed, but I don't go around just calling it bourgeois feminism, I explain WHY I think its wrong headed.

[Crux]

Well it could be clarifying to be fair. I use terms like "bourgeois-morality" to specify the class nature of the supposed universality of moral ideas.

Bourgeois-feminism is a thing too - a specific kind of feminism that seeks the end of oppression through more female business-owners or elected officials. But not all feminism is inherently bougois - it might be argued that all feminism is inherently class-collaborationist though if by feminism we don't just mean anti-sexist or women's lib movements but specifically movements that see all women, regardless of class, in the same boat and improvements from elite women as blanket improvements for all women.
It might be argued that antiracism is inherently class-collaborationist by those very same standards though. I think it is shoddy argument making in either case.

[l'Enfermé]

I think you should be restricted for that. Oh wait nevermind.
I know some parties use affirmative action internally to some extent but just as Vox Populi I think it runs the risk of becoming an excuse rather than a help.
I should be restricted for rejecting bourgeois ideology in favor of proletarian? Fine.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It might be argued that antiracism is inherently class-collaborationist by those very same standards though. I think it is shoddy argument making in either case.No, anti-sexism is not inherently class-collaborationist but feminism is because it sees sexism as impacting all women the same. And no, not anti-racism, but black nationalism would be. Feminism is a specific response to oppression, not just any response to it or opposition to oppression - I think many people here conflate these things. Feminism, like "Black Power" means different things to different people based on their class position and interests - so that's why these specific responses are cross-class. Anti-sexism to me is being against sexism towards anyone regardless of their class, but that perspective flows out of what I would consider to be a working class-based anti-sexism.

Yes, more often than not anti-sexist and anti-racist struggles have been led with mostly class-collaborationist type politics. Since oppressions like racism and sexism do cross class lines in society (though impacting people of oppressed groups differently depending on their class and social position) this initially makes some sense and often it would be in working class interests for a movement to oppose sexism against some elite women, for example, since obviously if professional or even bourgeois women have their rights restricted, then the situation would be worse for working class women.

So this kind of cross-class coalition works in defensive struggles or up to a point on basic reforms, but will then become a hindrance if specifically working class demands aren't raised and independently organized around. So the problems isn't so much that bourgeois-feminism or petty-bourgeois nationalism exist in movements fighting oppression (this is sort of "natural" and should be expected), the only problem is that an independent working class set of grievances and demands aren't as often articulated.

So this is why at the end of the civil rights era, a small black middle class in the north was expanded to a certain extent through better access to education, elite positions in private and public institutions, and so on. But the movement of the 60s and 70s was also split by the ruling class along class lines with the "liberal" petty-bourgeois side of the movement gaining more access to political power on the one hand and the "radical" parts of the movement that were raising issues of police and housing and relief for the poor, and even issues of revolution were brutally repressed. The result is that in the 80s and 90s there's increased inequality among blacks in the US with the small black middle class achieving greater mobility at the same time that the post-war black industrial proletariat who gained some mobility after WWII through industrial jobs is decimated as the industrial workforce is attacked during this time period. In turn this implosion for the industrial black workforce doesn't have effects confined just to workers - in order to attack industrial labor strongholds, unions and black populations were attacked ideologically and through political and legal avenues. So black urban poverty became blamed not on the double attack of industrial workforce shrinkage at the same time that cities are rewriting the tax zones so that tax revenue is isolated from urban populations and isn't directed towards urban services, but on the small-time drug trade... as if the drug trade creates poverty rather than poverty fueling people turning to other means of making money. This leads to the war on drugs and crime as we all know and of course even if you are an upwardly mobile middle class black person, that class status won't always protect you from the "new jim crow" of racial profiling and the "war of crime".

Anyway this was a long-winded attempt to argue about some of the dynamics in the fight against oppression that I see both leading to cross-class aliances but also why ultimately working class demands of the oppressed need to be organized around to actually change the balance of forces in society to make ground against oppression (for workers and non-workers alike).

[Crux]

No, anti-sexism is not inherently class-collaborationist but feminism is because it sees sexism as impacting all women the same. And no, not anti-racism, but black nationalism would be. Feminism is a specific response to oppression, not just any response to it or opposition to oppression - I think many people here conflate these things. Feminism, like "Black Power" means different things to different people based on their class position and interests - so that's why these specific responses are cross-class. Anti-sexism to me is being against sexism towards anyone regardless of their class, but that perspective flows out of what I would consider to be a working class-based anti-sexism.

Yes, more often than not anti-sexist and anti-racist struggles have been led with mostly class-collaborationist type politics. Since oppressions like racism and sexism do cross class lines in society (though impacting people of oppressed groups differently depending on their class and social position) this initially makes some sense and often it would be in working class interests for a movement to oppose sexism against some elite women, for example, since obviously if professional or even bourgeois women have their rights restricted, then the situation would be worse for working class women.

So this kind of cross-class coalition works in defensive struggles or up to a point on basic reforms, but will then become a hindrance if specifically working class demands aren't raised and independently organized around. So the problems isn't so much that bourgeois-feminism or petty-bourgeois nationalism exist in movements fighting oppression (this is sort of "natural" and should be expected), the only problem is that an independent working class set of grievances and demands aren't as often articulated.

So this is why at the end of the civil rights era, a small black middle class in the north was expanded to a certain extent through better access to education, elite positions in private and public institutions, and so on. But the movement of the 60s and 70s was also split by the ruling class along class lines with the "liberal" petty-bourgeois side of the movement gaining more access to political power on the one hand and the "radical" parts of the movement that were raising issues of police and housing and relief for the poor, and even issues of revolution were brutally repressed. The result is that in the 80s and 90s there's increased inequality among blacks in the US with the small black middle class achieving greater mobility at the same time that the post-war black industrial proletariat who gained some mobility after WWII through industrial jobs is decimated as the industrial workforce is attacked during this time period. In turn this implosion for the industrial black workforce doesn't have effects confined just to workers - in order to attack industrial labor strongholds, unions and black populations were attacked ideologically and through political and legal avenues. So black urban poverty became blamed not on the double attack of industrial workforce shrinkage at the same time that cities are rewriting the tax zones so that tax revenue is isolated from urban populations and isn't directed towards urban services, but on the small-time drug trade... as if the drug trade creates poverty rather than poverty fueling people turning to other means of making money. This leads to the war on drugs and crime as we all know and of course even if you are an upwardly mobile middle class black person, that class status won't always protect you from the "new jim crow" of racial profiling and the "war of crime".

Anyway this was a long-winded attempt to argue about some of the dynamics in the fight against oppression that I see both leading to cross-class aliances but also why ultimately working class demands of the oppressed need to be organized around to actually change the balance of forces in society to make ground against oppression (for workers and non-workers alike).
I don't disagree with what you're saying although I do disagree with your definition of feminism. I certainly see certain cross-class interests involved, given that not all women or ethnic groups belong to the same class, but I try to look at it from the other direction. Taking the working class position when approaching feminsim is a given for me. Further more there exist other alliances which cross class boundries, namely, patriarchy and white privilege and -supremacism. The fight against racism and the fight against sexism has to be taken within the working class as well and within the socialist movement. History has shown this time and time again, this is precisely why I get very bad vibes from anyone who rejects feminism as "bourgeoisie". That the worker's movement would support the right for women to work was not a given, and indeed was opposed by sections of the socialist and trade union movement itself. The arguments were that it would dump wages for male worker's but the problem went far deeper than that. Proletarian feminism is not the vestige of some small enlightened marxist avantgarde but exists within the class itself just as proletarian anti-racism. So 99% (funny you should pick that percentage, borz) of people, primarily women, who discuss feminism or identify as feminists are not "bourgeoisie" feminists. I'm not saying counsciousness is always magically crystal clear or anything, but feminism grows out of resistance to a very tangiable opression not whatever caricature borz has imagined up.