race, gender, and class from an ultraleft viewpoint

[black magick hustla]

i wrote this as a response to devrim's "what annoys you about left communism" thread but it seemed that its better suited for its own thread.
---

one of the reasons why i broke with old school left communism (was pretty close to the icc at one point as in i actually met with them and write for them and was like 1 inch to become a member) is that left communists are pretty bad at the whole gender/race thing theoretically. i disagree with the privilege politics paradigm but i do not dismiss the fact that there is such thing as a patriarchy. there is a part of the icc platform that says "race is an illusion" or something similar but race is a material reality, for better or worse. for example, i've seen left communists call "feminism" bourgeois and build a strawman out of it cuz' they compare it to ordinary leftist bourgeois feminism. however, feminism in general seems to me to write about the disadvantages of being a woman in general, so it seems silly to call that bourgeois. feminism is a term vaguer than anarchism and marxism. i had an epiphany about this when every women i agreed politically with also called herself a sort of feminist. i also think that its ok for women or minorities to organize "safe spaces" to discuss their own shit outside men or white people or whatever, however that doesn't really mean i am really down with identity politics or whatever

so i want to discuss how to basically deal with the race and gender issue without some shitty left communist outdated reductionism-into-class or the other extreme which is leftist identity politics or north american therapy sessions where some hippie girl calls out some dude for being sexist while at the same time that dude calls her out a white suburbanite and everyone plays the game of who is more privilieged or who manages to guiltrip the other one more.


in my experience, priviliege politics, at least practically, treat the whole race and gender issue as more or less separate things to class, even if they theoretically sometimes pay lipservice to that sort of stuff. i recently read an article by some endnotes gal called "communisation and the abolition of gender" and gave a very interesting perspective about woman, patriarchy, and class. basically said that gender issues form some sort of manifold with class issues, because they cannot exist separately from each other. for example, there can't really be women liberation in capitalism because women get pregnant (unless babies are made in test tubes), so this implies a lot of disadvantages in the labor market that can only be countered artificially through laws and reforms, cuz' if it were by the sheer will of the market, women's labor is objectively more problematic for capital valorization. some theory/praxis like this needs to be developed i think, to use critique of political economy to develop a theory of gender and race, to avoid the boring declaration that "class is the only thing that matters", or the shitty pseudo liberal fluff that has post structuralist, critcal theory.

so that's basically my position, that race, gender, disabilities and class form a manifold that have value signatures in the market and have to be smashed more or less at the same time as capital is smashed. i am still being kinda vague, because i haven't made up my mind completely about this sort of stuff.

[Sea]

there is a part of the icc platform that says "race is an illusion" or something similar but race is a material reality, for better or worse.Please elaborate.


for example, i've seen left communists call "feminism" bourgeois and build a strawman out of it cuz' they compare it to ordinary leftist bourgeois feminism. however, feminism in general seems to me to write about the disadvantages of being a woman in general, so it seems silly to call that bourgeois. feminism is a term vaguer than anarchism and marxism. i had an epiphany about this when every women i agreed politically with also called herself a sort of feminist.The term feminism has certain connotations that phrases like women's rights and gender equality don't have. I assume what was meant was a critique of liberal / contemporary "feminism". Also correlation, causation, anecdotal, etc.


i also think that its ok for women or minorities to organize "safe spaces" to discuss their own shit outside men or white people or whatever, however that doesn't really mean i am really down with identity politics or whateverSuch "safe place" stuff is inherently flawed not to mention discriminatory in itself. It assumes that racial discrimination or gender discrimination or what have you is special, when in real life all such discrimination serves the purpose of dividing the working class.


so i want to discuss how to basically deal with the race and gender issue without some shitty left communist outdated reductionism-into-class or the other extreme which is leftist identity politics or north american therapy sessions where some hippie girl calls out some dude for being sexist while at the same time that dude calls her out a white suburbanite and everyone plays the game of who is more privilieged or who manages to guiltrip the other one more.lol y'all marxists are soooooo reductionist :rolleyes:


in my experience, priviliege politics, at least practically, treat the whole race and gender issue as more or less separate things to class, even if they theoretically sometimes pay lipservice to that sort of stuff. i recently read an article by some endnotes gal called "communisation and the abolition of gender" and gave a very interesting perspective about woman, patriarchy, and class. basically said that gender issues form some sort of manifold with class issues, because they cannot exist separately from each other. for example, there can't really be women liberation in capitalism because women get pregnant (unless babies are made in test tubes), so this implies a lot of disadvantages in the labor market that can only be countered artificially through laws and reforms, cuz' if it were by the sheer will of the market, women's labor is objectively more problematic for capital valorization.I was kinda nodding my head in agreement until I read "because women get pregnant".
'Cause what better solution is there than to abolish pregnancy, right?


so that's basically my position, that race, gender, disabilities and class form a manifold that have value signatures in the market and have to be smashed more or less at the same time as capital is smashed.k.

[Luís Henrique]

I was kinda nodding my head in agreement until I read "because women get pregnant".
'Cause what better solution is there than to abolish pregnancy, right?

Nope. Pregnancy is a problem because it makes women - in average - produce less value than men, which in turn brings their wages down.

The point is to abolish value, not to abolish pregnancy.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Please elaborate.

The term feminism has certain connotations that phrases like women's rights and gender equality don't have. I assume what was meant was a critique of liberal / contemporary "feminism".I agree - most of the time when marxists dismiss "feminism" they are specifically referring to a type of "bourgeoise feminism" - but I think because people calling themselves "feminist" have a wide range of views and can be won to seeing the link between class and sexual oppression, we should try and be more specific. This would also decrease the crude "stramen" arguments that BMH mentioned.


Such "safe place" stuff is inherently flawed not to mention discriminatory in itself. It assumes that racial discrimination or gender discrimination or what have you is special, when in real life all such discrimination serves the purpose of dividing the working class.It divides the class in it's most general and basic form, but the way oppression works in a society also tends to have specific side-benifits as well. Why women? The ruling class can potentially divide workers in any number of ways, but women and for the US blacks and immgrants or other specifically targeted groups are targeted over other potential scapegoats (Mormons, Catholics, South Asians - not that these groups are fully free form some things, just comparitivly they are not singled out as much). For women dividing the class is part of the function of their oppression, but it also allows some social control over women in order to justify the privitization (to induvidual working class family units) of the rescponcibilities and most of the costs of raising a new generation of potential labor. There are also direct economic reasons: contemporary sexism implies that for women, working is a "bonus" and so lower wages are justified, female dominated professions like nursing or teaching (tellingly more for young children than older ones) involve a sexist attitude that "women naturally want to raise kids or care for the sick" - any strike action is seen as "greedy and unwomanly" - valuing wages and benifits over the children... will nobody think of the children!


I was kinda nodding my head in agreement until I read "because women get pregnant".
'Cause what better solution is there than to abolish pregnancy, right?
k.No because the capitalists need a regenerating labor population - their goal is not to stop this, just to add to women the responcibility of both wage-exploitation (for working mothers) and the rising of new workers.

This is why I don't agree that sexism or other forms of oppression are not "special" - or at least, I'd call them "extra" or "specific" oppression on top of being part of the non-ruling group in society (for workers and some other groups). Additionally, because there is this "extra" oppression - on top of which many male workers buy-into sexist arguments and assumptions - women (or other specifically oppressed groups) will often begin to organize in a seperate way to adress their specific issues. I don't think radicals should make a principle of this or make a point that this is necissary, because I think ultimately the class and oppression battles are linked. But because things do in real life develop this way sometimes, it's important to try and figure out how to relate to this and understand if such a feminist grouping can be linked to or drawn towards a class struggle fight against sexism. If people organize "safe spaces" that's because there is an implied general unsafe condition - I disagree with I.D. politics and "pivilage theory" on some of the ways they see oppression, but I don't disagree that this society is "unsafe" for women or oppressed people who want to organize. So since people sometimes do organize seperately, unity has to be made organically through practice. When working class movements of both men and women are sucessfully demonstrating a commitment to fighting sexism on a united basis through class struggle, then people who want to fight sexism are far more likely going to want to follow that model.

[ind_com]

there is a part of the icc platform that says "race is an illusion" or something similar but race is a material reality, for better or worse. for example, i've seen left communists call "feminism" bourgeois and build a strawman out of it cuz' they compare it to ordinary leftist bourgeois feminism

Amazing.


so that's basically my position, that race, gender, disabilities and class form a manifold that have value signatures in the market and have to be smashed more or less at the same time as capital is smashed. i am still being kinda vague, because i haven't made up my mind completely about this sort of stuff.

Regardless of exactly when it will be smashed completely, I think we should participate to the fullest extent in anti-discrimination movements. Let us secure as many victories as we can.

[Quail]

The term feminism has certain connotations that phrases like women's rights and gender equality don't have. I assume what was meant was a critique of liberal / contemporary "feminism". Also correlation, causation, anecdotal, etc.

But there are also marxist feminists and anarchist feminists. There is as much diversity of opinion (if not more) between different groups of people who call themselves "feminists" than between different groups of people who call themselves "communists." It wouldn't make sense to write off communism as a flawed concept based on, say, marxist-leninism, so in the same way it doesn't make sense to write off all feminism based on liberal feminism.


Such "safe place" stuff is inherently flawed not to mention discriminatory in itself. It assumes that racial discrimination or gender discrimination or what have you is special, when in real life all such discrimination serves the purpose of dividing the working class.
Here, you're just being insensitive to the needs of groups that are discriminated against. It can be helpful to have, for example, women-only discussions about street harassment or sexual violence, because women might not feel comfortable discussing these things with men in the room. Also with something like street harassment, it is overwhelmingly women who experience it, and additionally they experience it in a society which excuses it and treats them as responsible for it. It's most useful and empowering therefore for women to discuss it between themselves - how they could react/respond, how it makes them feel, etc.


I was kinda nodding my head in agreement until I read "because women get pregnant".
'Cause what better solution is there than to abolish pregnancy, right?

Luis Henrique answered this pretty well.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

one of the reasons why i broke with old school left communism (was pretty close to the icc at one point as in i actually met with them and write for them and was like 1 inch to become a member) is that left communists are pretty bad at the whole gender/race thing theoretically. i disagree with the privilege politics paradigm but i do not dismiss the fact that there is such thing as a patriarchy. there is a part of the icc platform that says "race is an illusion" or something similar but race is a material reality, for better or worse. for example, i've seen left communists call "feminism" bourgeois and build a strawman out of it cuz' they compare it to ordinary leftist bourgeois feminism. however, feminism in general seems to me to write about the disadvantages of being a woman in general, so it seems silly to call that bourgeois. feminism is a term vaguer than anarchism and marxism. i had an epiphany about this when every women i agreed politically with also called herself a sort of feminist. i also think that its ok for women or minorities to organize "safe spaces" to discuss their own shit outside men or white people or whatever, however that doesn't really mean i am really down with identity politics or whatever

so i want to discuss how to basically deal with the race and gender issue without some shitty left communist outdated reductionism-into-class or the other extreme which is leftist identity politics or north american therapy sessions where some hippie girl calls out some dude for being sexist while at the same time that dude calls her out a white suburbanite and everyone plays the game of who is more privilieged or who manages to guiltrip the other one more.


The problem with theories of privilege is not in the view that privilege exists. It certainly seems that privilege is a very real thing. There are two major issues which stem from it- one is in reducing it to race and gender and the other is in taking an excessively moralistic approach.

There are many other kinds of privilege than race and gender. There is privilege which comes from wearing a suit, being able to present oneself in a professional manner, being older, being younger, being tall, being able to speak in a "classy" accent (as opposed to - in the case of english - cockney English, Appalachian English, etc), being Judeo-Christian, having a college degree, having a house, having a lot of assets, not having obvious piercings or tattoos, knowing important people, etc. These different kinds of privilege overlap in complex and unpredictable ways and may change in different contexts. Race and gender won't always be the most important forms of privilege, for instance Herman Cain and Susan Rice are more privileged than homeless white men. On the other hand, that privilege can quickly become a disadvantage for powerful people as can be seen when white tourists travel to places like Timbuktu and get kidnapped.

Privilege is not necessarily politically relevant on a large scale, but on an individual level it can be hugely relevant towards a person's individual class mobility and how they are viewed by others. Presumably socialism would deal with the issue of class mobility by demolishing class but the issue of how people interact is important for building a revolutionary movement and for building a society afterwards.

The moralistic approach involves the way people seem to act whenever a person seen as being "privileged" feels the need to speak out or impose themselves on others. It's seen as necessarily bad, when in reality that person may only be doing what they see as important. Of course, quite often the white male is benefiting from certain privileges but that doesn't discount the truth of what he may be saying and quibbling about how his privilege leads to his ability to make those statements often detracts from the truth of what he's saying.

The advantage of thinking about privileges and their origin is that it allows for a more nuanced approach to these social situations, but few people have a nuanced notion of privilege. Instead it just comes down to race/gender lines and nothing else.



in my experience, priviliege politics, at least practically, treat the whole race and gender issue as more or less separate things to class, even if they theoretically sometimes pay lipservice to that sort of stuff. i recently read an article by some endnotes gal called "communisation and the abolition of gender" and gave a very interesting perspective about woman, patriarchy, and class. basically said that gender issues form some sort of manifold with class issues, because they cannot exist separately from each other. for example, there can't really be women liberation in capitalism because women get pregnant (unless babies are made in test tubes), so this implies a lot of disadvantages in the labor market that can only be countered artificially through laws and reforms, cuz' if it were by the sheer will of the market, women's labor is objectively more problematic for capital valorization.

If someone thinks privilege is different from class, they're confused. There's a complex interrelationship between the two. On one hand, certain kinds of privilege make it easier to move up in class status, while in other cases lower classes are divided internally based on different groups, so white homeless people might have an easier time in some contexts that homeless people of color.


some theory/praxis like this needs to be developed i think, to use critique of political economy to develop a theory of gender and race, to avoid the boring declaration that "class is the only thing that matters", or the shitty pseudo liberal fluff that has post structuralist, critcal theory.


I agree



so that's basically my position, that race, gender, disabilities and class form a manifold that have value signatures in the market and have to be smashed more or less at the same time as capital is smashed. i am still being kinda vague, because i haven't made up my mind completely about this sort of stuff.

This is true but it does not contradict a more nuanced understanding of privilege. The bigger question is if it might take longer to deal with some of these problems than it is to deal with Capital, since the social and cultural structures at play are quite deep.

[Sea]

Nope. Pregnancy is a problem because it makes women - in average - produce less value than men, which in turn brings their wages down.

The point is to abolish value, not to abolish pregnancy.

Luís HenriqueI was being sarcastic. My point was that it's very odd to think that pregnancy alone is the single deciding factor in such discrimination.

Here, you're just being insensitive to the needs of groups that are discriminated against. It can be helpful to have, for example, women-only discussions about street harassment or sexual violence, because women might not feel comfortable discussing these things with men in the room. Also with something like street harassment, it is overwhelmingly women who experience it, and additionally they experience it in a society which excuses it and treats them as responsible for it. It's most useful and empowering therefore for women to discuss it between themselves - how they could react/respond, how it makes them feel, etc.For a group discussing patriarchal violence to exclude men on the basis of "feeling uncomfortable" is asinine. If anyone in a group discussion feels that maleness is to blame and hence men should be unwelcome (as opposed to the more rational analysis that patriarchal society is to blame and its defenders of any gender are unwelcome when trying to discuss how to eliminate it) then they can kindly leave the group and never return. In fact, the male-female dichotomy in itself is ridiculous. And let's not forget that gender discrimination isn't the only thing we're taking about. We also speak of minorities. Surely you can see how foolish it is to exclude whites from a discussion on how to combat racism just because whites in society are more often cast into positions that foster racism, right? There is nothing about belonging to a certain gender, or belonging to a certain race, or having a certain sexual orientation, etc. that alone should allow someone to be excluded. It's rather ironic that you crusade against liberal feminism and yet defend those whose objections against a big bad man in the room could only come from typical half-baked liberal feminism.
This is why I don't agree that sexism or other forms of oppression are not "special" - or at least, I'd call them "extra" or "specific" oppression on top of being part of the non-ruling group in society (for workers and some other groups). Additionally, because there is this "extra" oppression - on top of which many male workers buy-into sexist arguments and assumptions - women (or other specifically oppressed groups) will often begin to organize in a seperate way to adress their specific issues. I don't think radicals should make a principle of this or make a point that this is necissary, because I think ultimately the class and oppression battles are linked. But because things do in real life develop this way sometimes, it's important to try and figure out how to relate to this and understand if such a feminist grouping can be linked to or drawn towards a class struggle fight against sexism. If people organize "safe spaces" that's because there is an implied general unsafe condition - I disagree with I.D. politics and "pivilage theory" on some of the ways they see oppression, but I don't disagree that this society is "unsafe" for women or oppressed people who want to organize. So since people sometimes do organize seperately, unity has to be made organically through practice. When working class movements of both men and women are sucessfully demonstrating a commitment to fighting sexism on a united basis through class struggle, then people who want to fight sexism are far more likely going to want to follow that model.Capitalists do rail against women from an additional angle, if you will, than against racial minorities. However, it is still the capitalists that obsess over this perceived disparity in productiveness and it is still only the capitalists that have a "reason" to perpetuate the discrimination. There is no real meaningful difference in productive capacity between men and women or between blacks and whites. The capitalist obsession is one of "How can human society produce more surplus value?" rather than "How can human society produce enough value?". You allude to this when you speak of a new generation of potential labor. Workers already produce more than enough value; the question of weather or not women carry an extra "burden" that detracts from their ability to create surplus value is only relevant in a world subordinated to capital in the first place! Thus when it comes to fighting discrimination against women the answer is still the same as fighting discrimination against blacks or gays or what have you:

Abolish capital.

This also goes to refute charges of reductionism, BTW.

[Quail]

For a group discussing patriarchal violence to exclude men on the basis of "feeling uncomfortable" is asinine. If anyone in a group discussion feels that maleness is to blame and hence men should be unwelcome (as opposed to the more rational analysis that patriarchal society is to blame and its defenders of any gender are unwelcome when trying to discuss how to eliminate it) then they can kindly leave the group and never return. In fact, the male-female dichotomy in itself is ridiculous. And let's not forget that gender discrimination isn't the only thing we're taking about. We also speak of minorities. Surely you can see how foolish it is to exclude whites from a discussion on how to combat racism just because whites in society are more often cast into positions that foster racism, right? There is nothing about belonging to a certain gender, or belonging to a certain race, or having a certain sexual orientation, etc. that alone should allow someone to be excluded. It's rather ironic that you crusade against liberal feminism and yet defend those whose objections against a big bad man in the room could only come from typical half-baked liberal feminism.
1. Having women only (or non-male only) discussions doesn't mean that you can't also have discussions where all genders are welcome. The two are not mutually exclusive.
2. It can be difficult for women to discuss issues of sexism when certain men are around, because certain men cannot help but enter the discussion and then explain why the women are wrong, deny their lived experience and claim that sexism as the women see it doesn't exist. Just look at revleft to see this in action. This is what makes women uncomfortable, not some "big bad man."
3. It's often necessary for women to organise independently because the men in a certain group (such as a revolutionary leftist organisation) don't realise there is a problem, and when they're called out, they deny the problem exists and go on what they're doing. Women aren't always listened to on their own, so they need to organise independently, decide what needs to change and then make the men in the organisation listen. This has been happening in socialist organisations for ages, and it still happens today.

In an ideal world, women only spaces wouldn't be necessary, but often men don't listen to us, our points aren't taken seriously, etc. We need to organise independently to make ourselves heard, as well as taking part in the wider struggle because not only do we struggle against sexism in our everyday lives, but we also struggle against sexism in the revolutionary movement.

Replace "women," "sexism," etc. with any other form of discrimination.

[Sea]

1. Having women only (or non-male only) discussions doesn't mean that you can't also have discussions where all genders are welcome. The two are not mutually exclusive.No, what I disagree with is the idea that there is need for such discrimination.


2. It can be difficult for women to discuss issues of sexism when certain men are around, because certain men cannot help but enter the discussion and then explain why the women are wrong, deny their lived experience and claim that sexism as the women see it doesn't exist. Just look at revleft to see this in action. This is what makes women uncomfortable, not some "big bad man."What do you mean "as the women see it"? Discrimination can be objectively analyzed weather or not you're a member of the gender that is most often the victim.


3. It's often necessary for women to organise independently because the men in a certain group (such as a revolutionary leftist organisation) don't realise there is a problem, and when they're called out, they deny the problem exists and go on what they're doing. Women aren't always listened to on their own, so they need to organise independently, decide what needs to change and then make the men in the organisation listen. This has been happening in socialist organisations for ages, and it still happens today.Rational debate is not divided on gender lines. I can assure you that men and women and transgendered folk alike all realize damn well that there is a problem. Just look on revleft to see this in action. You just seem to have your own alternative reality as to the nature of the problem. If someone is wrong it doesn't matter what gender they are, they should still be called out. Interrupting debate is counterproductive to this. There is nothing inherent to womanhood that allows for a more "pure" analysis of sexism, to say so is tantamount to denying that discrimination must be analyzed objectively and with the tools of class analysis. Discrimination is not to be analyzed solely by the experiences of the oppressed, lest you wish to slip into identity politics. Saying that because women are discriminated against means they should be isolated is utter bullshit. Remember the whole freedom of criticism vs. freedom from criticism thing? You should be drawing parallels to this debate.


In an ideal world, women only spaces wouldn't be necessary, but often men don't listen to us, our points aren't taken seriously, etc. We need to organise independently to make ourselves heard, as well as taking part in the wider struggle because not only do we struggle against sexism in our everyday lives, but we also struggle against sexism in the revolutionary movement.

Replace "women," "sexism," etc. with any other form of discrimination.Separatism is NOT the answer. People of all genders have been guilty of defending patriarchy. Hence I say that those who defend sexism should be unwelcome. Excluding at once 50% of the world's intellectual capacity because of their gender is a foolish thing to do.

[Trans Queers for Satan]

What do you mean "as the women see it"? Discrimination can be objectively analyzed weather or not you're a member of the gender that is most often the victim.
Oppression cannot be "objectively" analyzed because people's conclusions are a result of their experiences. As a man who has male privilege, your conclusions about patriarchy and experiences with patriarchy serve no purpose to women because you do not experience misogyny. Your privilege enables you to be blind to misogyny. Women, as people who experience misogyny, need a place where we can talk about it and share our experiences. Men constantly hinder discussions by women by doing exactly what you're doing - that is, slow the discussion down by derailing over every single thing.
A better question would be why men need to have the right to every space women are in; I don't understand why men constantly feel like they are entitled to every single space that women need for ourselves.


There is nothing inherent to womanhood that allows for a more "pure" analysis of sexism
See above. We experience misogyny; we know what it's like. Talking over women and feeling like you can mansplain to us about all the misogyny you don't experience is the essence of male entitlement.



People of all genders have been guilty of defending patriarchy.
Yes but who benefits from patriarchy? And moreover, in whose interest is it to defend patriarchy? Men are more inclined to defend patriarchy because patriarchy is the guarantor of their power, so they will necessarily take the side of reaction against efforts of women to liberate themselves.

[Quail]

I'm a little drunk, apologies if I'm less coherent than usual.

No, what I disagree with is the idea that there is need for such discrimination.

It's not structural discrimination. It's women (and non-males) feeling that talking amongst themselves about their oppression is more productive and empowering than having a discussion with a group of men. It's about women feeling safer in a space where men are not around. It's accommodating the needs of people who are being oppressed. If a woman doesn't feel comfortable describing the details of her oppression in front of men, then her voice gets lost. I recognise that we need supportive men too, and that men need to change the way they think too. But whether this is rational or not, I find it more difficult to trust men due to my past experiences and if I was talking about something very personal such as assault, I'd rather be talking to women.


What do you mean "as the women see it"? Discrimination can be objectively analyzed weather or not you're a member of the gender that is most often the victim.
So you know when a woman says, "I was harassed last night by a man who thought it was okay to tell me I had nice breasts and then asked for my phone number persistently even though I told him I didn't want to give it to him," and then a man goes, "Hey don't be so harsh. He was just trying to be friendly. You should take it as a compliment." Obviously for me it's like, "fuck you, I was being harrassed," but then a lot of other people claim the guy didn't understand how difficult it is not to realise that someone doesn't want to talk to you and why asking for someone's number after them making explicit they didn't want to give it to you is harassment.


Rational debate is not divided on gender lines. I can assure you that men and women and transgendered folk alike all realize damn well that there is a problem. Just look on revleft to see this in action. You just seem to have your own alternative reality as to the nature of the problem. If someone is wrong it doesn't matter what gender they are, they should still be called out. Interrupting debate is counterproductive to this. There is nothing inherent to womanhood that allows for a more "pure" analysis of sexism, to say so is tantamount to denying that discrimination must be analyzed objectively and with the tools of class analysis. Discrimination is not to be analyzed solely by the experiences of the oppressed, lest you wish to slip into identity politics. Saying that because women are discriminated against means they should be isolated is utter bullshit. Remember the whole freedom of criticism vs. freedom from criticism thing? You should be drawing parallels to this debate.
But the problem is, those who are not the oppressed group find it much harder to notice that any oppression is going on. For example, at anarchist meetings it is nearly always the women who take notes/minutes, and the women who make tea. Now, bring that up with the (male) rest of the group and they don't consider it an issue, they don't even notice whether it's a man or woman who takes minutes or makes tea. And there lies the problem. Other than the women, nobody else notices or seems to care that it's only ever women doing these things, probably because women are more socialised to do stuff that needs doing and not make a fuss. This is something that really needs challenging, but we've mentioned it to the men, and nothing has happened. Nothing has changed. It seems that men will acknowledge the problem sometimes, but never do anything about it.


Separatism is NOT the answer. People of all genders have been guilty of defending patriarchy. Hence I say that those who defend sexism should be unwelcome. Excluding at once 50% of the world's intellectual capacity because of their gender is a foolish thing to do.
No absolute seperatism isn't good. But occasionally having the chance to discuss things with other people in your minority is helpful. Just admitting that isn't calling for separatism. Men can be involved with the feminist movement as much as they like, unless women feel that they want space to discuss things on their own. I don't think it's unfair to give them that. Most feminist groups do include men but might occasionally want non male spaces to talk.

I'm not saying that men are wrong because they're men, but rather it can be difficult for a man to understand what it's like to live as a woman. From many mens perspective a wolf-whistle might seem like a compliment, but to many women a wolf-whistle feels intimidating. When something isn't your lived experience you can do your best to empathise, but you don't really now how it feels, and you shouldn't offer up theoretical bullshit and claim it's more important that a woman's lived experience of sexism.

Anyway, drunken post but hopefully with some grains of truth in it.

[Sea]

Oppression cannot be "objectively" analyzed because people's conclusions are a result of their experiences. As a man who has male privilege, your conclusions about patriarchy and experiences with patriarchy serve no purpose to women because you do not experience misogyny. Your privilege enables you to be blind to misogyny.It's not enough just to say these things, you have to back them up too. By your logic I shouldn't speak of the ruling class because I'm a worker, and I shouldn't speak up against the genocides in Palestine and Congo because I'm an American.


Women, as people who experience misogyny, need a place where we can talk about it and share our experiences. Men constantly hinder discussions by women by doing exactly what you're doing - that is, slow the discussion down by derailing over every single thing.More fallacy of relevance. Your "evidence" doesn't support your conclusion.


A better question would be why men need to have the right to every space women are in; I don't understand why men constantly feel like they are entitled to every single space that women need for ourselves.So now the idea that people of any gender should be treated equally is the exception that must be justified?


See above. We experience misogyny; we know what it's like. Talking over women and feeling like you can mansplain to us about all the misogyny you don't experience is the essence of male entitlement.At least try to provide an argument instead of just mud-slinging.


Yes but who benefits from patriarchy? And moreover, in whose interest is it to defend patriarchy? Men are more inclined to defend patriarchy because patriarchy is the guarantor of their power, so they will necessarily take the side of reaction against efforts of women to liberate themselves.Capitalists benefit from patriarchy, and it is in the interest of the ruling class to defend it. The effects of patriarchy are negative for working class people of any gender. Patriarchy creates alienation, fear and hatred. Regardless of what gender is pitted against what gender, the effects are negative. It is in the interest of all workers to abolish it.


so they will necessarily take the side of reaction against efforts of women to liberate themselves.See above. You cannot abolish patriarchy without abolishing capital.

It's not structural discrimination.Yes it is, patriarchy evolved as a means of organizing property relations along gender lines. Societies (in history and occasionally in isolation today) whose means of production have not advanced sufficiently to create a surplus don't have patriarchy and hence don't have the social effects of patriarchy, misogyny included.


It's women (and non-males) feeling that talking amongst themselves about their oppression is more productive and empowering than having a discussion with a group of men. It's about women feeling safer in a space where men are not around. It's accommodating the needs of people who are being oppressed. If a woman doesn't feel comfortable describing the details of her oppression in front of men, then her voice gets lost.I honestly couldn't give a damn about how subjectively "empowered" someone feels. If "empowerment" were the goal of us leftists we'd be sitting around smoking crack cocaine! Your idea of a girls-only club is nothing more than a reaction to discrimination. It is not a solution. By your silly logic, crime watch groups should exclude blacks. After all, our society puts blacks in such positions where they are more likely to commit crimes. Likewise it is foolish to discriminate against men because of the position society puts them in.


I recognise that we need supportive men too, and that men need to change the way they think too.Idealistic rubbish. We don't need to change how people think, we need to change what causes people to think this way.


But whether this is rational or not, I find it more difficult to trust men due to my past experiences and if I was talking about something very personal such as assault, I'd rather be talking to women.Same stuff used by racists. "I was assaulted by one of them, so I'd rather be with my own kind."


So you know when a woman says, "I was harassed last night by a man who thought it was okay to tell me I had nice breasts and then asked for my phone number persistently even though I told him I didn't want to give it to him," and then a man goes, "Hey don't be so harsh. He was just trying to be friendly. You should take it as a compliment." Obviously for me it's like, "fuck you, I was being harrassed," but then a lot of other people claim the guy didn't understand how difficult it is not to realise that someone doesn't want to talk to you and why asking for someone's number after them making explicit they didn't want to give it to you is harassment.If you're the hypothetical women, I sincerely hope you took the opportunity to liberate a few of the hypothetical man's hypothetical teeth. That guy was, not that I need to tell you, a crude buffoon. If you think I'm trying to defend the likes of him you're sadly mistaken.


But the problem is, those who are not the oppressed group find it much harder to notice that any oppression is going on. For example, at anarchist meetings it is nearly always the women who take notes/minutes, and the women who make tea. Now, bring that up with the (male) rest of the group and they don't consider it an issue, they don't even notice whether it's a man or woman who takes minutes or makes tea. And there lies the problem. Other than the women, nobody else notices or seems to care that it's only ever women doing these things, probably because women are more socialised to do stuff that needs doing and not make a fuss. This is something that really needs challenging, but we've mentioned it to the men, and nothing has happened. Nothing has changed. It seems that men will acknowledge the problem sometimes, but never do anything about it.Don't take this personally but if I were you I wouldn't count on anarchists to have the most nuanced views on the topic. That there is oppression going on is going to be most obvious to the oppressed, I agree. Discussing how to tackle the problem requires people who understand the problem and its political significance. Therefore it is not necessary to exclude men from the discussion, to avoid anyone getting in the way of the discussion requires excluding those who deny that there is a problem or whose views on the problem can be demonstrated to be wrong. I admit that (by virtue of the position of men in society, not by virtue of their being men) those who will be unwelcome are more likely to be men. I think that's rather obvious. To exclude all males once and for all, however, is ridiculous. Other than that your experiences seem to form a perfect example of how, because patriarchy is systemic, its social effects are evident in all laypeople weather they be genuinely nice people or brutish pass-making nincompoops.

I wonder if everyone has to make their own tea in libertarian meetings...


No absolute seperatism isn't good. But occasionally having the chance to discuss things with other people in your minority is helpful. Just admitting that isn't calling for separatism. Men can be involved with the feminist movement as much as they like, unless women feel that they want space to discuss things on their own. I don't think it's unfair to give them that. Most feminist groups do include men but might occasionally want non male spaces to talk.Firstly, as to the wolf-whistle thing, that's unacceptable behavior and is a result of the way feelings of sexual attraction are (literally) perverted in capitalist society. Secondly, it doesn't matter weather separatism is "absolute" or not, it is inherently flawed regardless of the extent of application.Thirdly I just consulted my good friend Merriam Webster and that is separatism. Fourthly I find this "go with the flow" mentality that you show towards contemporary feminism to be rather sheepish.
I'm not saying that men are wrong because they're men, but rather it can be difficult for a man to understand what it's like to live as a woman.You do seem to be saying that men can't understand because they're men. This is rubbish because it assumes that the ability to understand is dependent on experiences. And that brings me to my next point.


When something isn't your lived experience you can do your best to empathise, but you don't really now how it feels, and you shouldn't offer up theoretical bullshit and claim it's more important that a woman's lived experience of sexism.I'd like to see some justification of this, particularly what's in bold. Reacting to personal experiences rather than recognizing the political relevance of them is precisely what's wrong with bourgeois feminism.

[bcbm]

womens only space = discrimination and same thing as racists. bravo revleft youve done it again. i notice that you seem to continually miss/ignore the point that it isn't about permanent separatist action

[#FF0000]

More fallacy of relevance. Your "evidence" doesn't support your conclusion.

wanna point out that the whole safe space thing kinda came about because people found what quail is talking about to sometimes be the case. Of course that doesn't mean dudes and white people are going to be a hindrance to every single discussion of race and gender issues but we're talking about a practice that came about because people noticed a problem in the first place.

[Sea]

womens only space = discrimination and same thing as racists. bravo revleft youve done it again.I'll give you that one, I was pissed and the comparison was far-fetched. My point was that the logic of "keeping with one's own kind" isn't exactly sound, and I still maintain that restricting entry on the basis of gender is discrimination.


i notice that you seem to continually miss/ignore the point that it isn't about permanent separatist action
I addressed that when I said

it doesn't matter weather separatism is "absolute" or not, it is inherently flawed regardless of the extent of application


wanna point out that the whole safe space thing kinda came about because people found what quail is talking about to sometimes be the case. Of course that doesn't mean dudes and white people are going to be a hindrance to every single discussion of race and gender issues but we're talking about a practice that came about because people noticed a problem in the first place.Of course. The idea of a safe space came about in reaction to a problem and was put into practice to solve that problem. What I'm trying to show is it's not exactly the best way to solve the problem because the thinking behind the safe space idea addresses the problem incorrectly.

[bcbm]

I'll give you that one, I was pissed and the comparison was far-fetched. My point was that the logic of "keeping with one's own kind" isn't exactly sound, and I still maintain that restricting entry on the basis of gender is discrimination.

is a girls night out discrimination?

[Leftsolidarity]

I'll give you that one, I was pissed and the comparison was far-fetched. My point was that the logic of "keeping with one's own kind" isn't exactly sound, and I still maintain that restricting entry on the basis of gender is discrimination.



So discussing problems with the other people who face those problems is unsound? What's unsound is having those who are not directly targeted by this issues trying to tell what those who are what to do and how to do it. If I want to have a discussion about personal experiences with LGBTQ oppression, I might want to discuss it with only members of the LGBTQ community so we can talk about it in an atmosphere of complete understanding and openness and we can see how we feel about how to deal with the issue.

Also, I'm sorry for all those oppressed groups discriminating against you. That must be really tough for you to deal with. :rolleyes:




What I'm trying to show is it's not exactly the best way to solve the problem because the thinking behind the safe space idea addresses the problem incorrectly.

What you're showing is that you're insensitive to oppressed people and try to dictate to them what to do and seem more concern with them not "discriminating" against you.

[Luís Henrique]

is a girls night out discrimination?

Yeah, this.

Women have been having women-only meetings and discussions since ever. Why would it be OK when they do this to discuss non-political issues but something absurd if they want to talk about politics, or the way they feel discriminated against?

Luís Henrique

[Sea]

So discussing problems with the other people who face those problems is unsound? What's unsound is having those who are not directly targeted by this issues trying to tell what those who are what to do and how to do it. If I want to have a discussion about personal experiences with LGBTQ oppression, I might want to discuss it with only members of the LGBTQ community so we can talk about it in an atmosphere of complete understanding and openness and we can see how we feel about how to deal with the issue.Discussing the problem with others who face it is not unsound, it is ideal! Thus men shouldn't be excluded altogether, those who haven't faced the problems of any gender ought to be excluded. For a sexual assault support group, for instance, it would be counterproductive to include those who haven't been victims for the reasons I and others have already outlined. Excluding males outright is a rather sloppy way to go about this. Granted more females would be in the group than males as females are disproportionately the victims, but the goal of a support group is to provide support for as many people as possible and to the largest extent possible.

However, we aren't talking about a support group. We're talking about a group dedicated to figuring out how to eradicate patriarchy. In this case, having been the victim is not alone sufficient nor even required to understand patriarchy and how sexism functions in our society.

This whole quarrel seems rather petty. As I have demonstrated (partly) before, being able to understand patriarchy requires nothing more than the ability to analyze the social effects of class society. In a nutshell, this is the problem I have with feminism and LGBT activism and most identity politics.

Once one realizes the futility of fighting one single form of discrimination on its own, once one realizes that all these forms of discrimination can be only abolished by abolishing capital, and that to seperate the struggle for equality from the struggle for common ownership has as its best result the replacing of one form of discrimination with another, the person is no longer specifically a feminist or specifically a racial equality activist or what have you. That person, equipped with knowledge of the root of the problem, is a communist.

Why some are so quick to dismiss this as "theoretical bullshit" is beyond me.


Also, I'm sorry for all those oppressed groups discriminating against you. That must be really tough for you to deal with. :rolleyes:

What you're showing is that you're insensitive to oppressed people and try to dictate to them what to do and seem more concern with them not "discriminating" against you.Don't twist my words. If it makes you feel any better you can pretend I said "separation" instead of "discrimination". That's how I meant it, after all.

If you want to engage my arguments please do so. Don't just fling shit at me like a common ape.

[human strike]

'Communization and the Abolition of Gender' is a fantastic article. Here if anybody wants to read (which you should imho): http://libcom.org/library/communization-abolition-gender

[Sea]

I only skimmed it so far but that article seems to have it backwards. The concept of gender is not part of what keeps capital going, capital is what keeps the concept of gender going. Capital must be abolished before divisions in social life are abolished. Once capital is abolished, these divisions will wither away as the material basis for them is no longer present.

Even the first few paragraphs, which lays the basis for the rest with this "revolution as communization" concept are chock full of contradictions.

[Quail]

I only skimmed it so far but that article seems to have it backwards. The concept of gender is not part of what keeps capital going, capital is what keeps the concept of gender going. Capital must be abolished before divisions in social life are abolished. Once capital is abolished, these divisions will wither away as the material basis for them is no longer present.

This viewpoint seems to me to be a lazy cop out, and I only seem to hear it from white hetero men. Why bother trying to make things better in the short term? After the revolution, all discrimination will magically wither away! The problem is that many so-called revolutionaries have sexist beliefs, and revolutionary organisations have sexist practices. Now I don't see how a revolutionary organisation which refuses to examine and challenge its own sexism (or racism or whatever), can then help to create a society free from discrimination. I think that discrimination needs to be actively challenged alongside capitalism.

It's all well and good for you to sit there and tell women that it's pointless to organise against patriarchy because patriarchy will wither away after the revolution... but there are several things to consider. Firstly, realistically there is not going to be a revolution any time soon, which means that we have to continue to live in a patriarchal society. To you, maybe fighting sexism seems pointless, but to women it means that we're slightly safer, treated with more respect, etc. - basically our living standards improve. Secondly, the "left-wing movement" (for want of a better expression) is very male (and white) dominated, and since men might not notice sexist practices or might not take women's concerns seriously, if women are to be liberated we need to challenge the sexism within our own circles. A good example of women's needs not being taken into account is that there is never any childcare arranged for big meetings, so single women with kids often can't attend. How do you expect the working class to liberate themselves if half of the working class never get their voices heard or even get the opportunity to have their voices heard?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Race, gender... we should finally agree that they are just words. Nothing more.
Disagree? Fuck it!

Class is a more difficult thing, though.

[Leftsolidarity]

Race, gender... we should finally agree that they are just words. Nothing more.


No......

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No......

No?

Giving those things a different status just implies that they are important and that differences should be regarded and acted upon.
Women, men, jews, muslims, gay, straight...we are all the fucking same!

We should not use them to point out differences. You are a human-being. So am i, so is your neighbour.

So i stand by my initial point: we (the world) should regard them as words. Nothing more.

[Let's Get Free]

In my opinion, race based sectarianism is a legacy of imperialist opportunism and while it must be taken into account when studying how we've come to be in our current predicament it should not factor into how we create a new future that is fit for a sustainable and hospitable planet we all have to live on. For example, nationalism is a tired old concept suited only to separate groups into contentious factions. The world has to many people on it for this antiquated concept to pollute our thinking. And given what science now knows about the fallacy of racial differences and the complexity of racial mixing that has gone on all over the globe for centuries it is unrealistic to divide people by it.

[Leftsolidarity]

No?

Giving those things a different status just implies that they are important and that differences should be regarded and acted upon.
Women, men, jews, muslims, gay, straight...we are all the fucking same!

We should not use them to point out differences. You are a human-being. So am i, so is your neighbour.

So i stand by my initial point: we (the world) should regard them as words. Nothing more.

Hello Mr. Liberal, I'm Mr. Communist. Your "colorblindness" is just liberal nonsense. Even if you don't want to admit it, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. all still act as huge social forces. If you want to pretend like there's no difference then go ahead, just don't act like anyone will take you seriously. In fact, the only thing that comes from that view is being unable to effectively combat those oppressions. Racism, sexism, LGBTQ oppression doesn't end just cuz we wish it too and close our eyes to it. These groups are systematically oppressed for being who they are so they are in their own groups because they are all targeted for the same reason. There are so many flaws in the "colorblindness" bullshit that I don't know how to address them all in one post.

[#FF0000]

So i stand by my initial point: we (the world) should regard them as words. Nothing more.

Leftsolidarity p. much addressed this but, yeah, do you think racism is something that will just go away if we stop thinking about race?

[brigadista]

Race, gender... we should finally agree that they are just words. Nothing more.
Disagree? Fuck it!

Class is a more difficult thing, though.

hear this a lot from people who are not faced with racism or discrimination - therefore class is the only answer -well both do effect others even if they don't affect you

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Leftsolidarity p. much addressed this but, yeah, do you think racism is something that will just go away if we stop thinking about race?


hear this a lot from people who are not faced with racism or discrimination - therefore class is the only answer -well both do effect others even if they don't affect you


Hello Mr. Liberal, I'm Mr. Communist. Your "colorblindness" is just liberal nonsense. Even if you don't want to admit it, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. all still act as huge social forces. If you want to pretend like there's no difference then go ahead, just don't act like anyone will take you seriously. In fact, the only thing that comes from that view is being unable to effectively combat those oppressions. Racism, sexism, LGBTQ oppression doesn't end just cuz we wish it too and close our eyes to it. These groups are systematically oppressed for being who they are so they are in their own groups because they are all targeted for the same reason. There are so many flaws in the "colorblindness" bullshit that I don't know how to address them all in one post.

So did i say discrimination is bullshit?
I come from a small village where right-wing bigotry is seen as normal. I didn't know different until i went to school in a bigger city.
I discovered it myself. You can get discriminated for just about anything!
Sure it's worse in the above cases. I agree.
I even hate going back there (because my parents still live there) because when i meet old classmates, i'd probably have to hear their stupid, ignorant discriminatory jokes.

It's not a question if I see them as words, i don't think it will all magically disappear. I never ever said that!

Talking about being black or chinese or whatever because you are discriminated sure as hell won't make it go away!
We are all different. Some differences are somewhat more obvious. So fucking what!
That's the way everybody on this fucked up planet should think!
That's what i'm fucking saying!

So me saying it's just words, does not mean i don't want to do anything about it. Every chance i get i try to convince people racism is stupid and contemptuous.
It's a mindset which we have to change with the people.
We have to get to a point where they ARE just words.


Please tell me that cleared it all up, because i'm getting tired of my words getting blown out of proportion all the time.

I am not a bigot. I love you all! We are all the same, despite our differences.

[Leftsolidarity]

So did i say discrimination is bullshit?
I come from a small village where right-wing bigotry is seen as normal. I didn't know different until i went to school in a bigger city.
I discovered it myself. You can get discriminated for just about anything!
Sure it's worse in the above cases. I agree.
I even hate going back there (because my parents still live there) because when i meet old classmates, i'd probably have to hear their stupid, ignorant discriminatory jokes.

It's not a question if I see them as words, i don't think it will all magically disappear. I never ever said that!

Talking about being black or chinese or whatever because you are discriminated sure as hell won't make it go away!
We are all different. Some differences are somewhat more obvious. So fucking what!
That's the way everybody on this fucked up planet should think!
That's what i'm fucking saying!

So me saying it's just words, does not mean i don't want to do anything about it. Every chance i get i try to convince people racism is stupid and contemptuous.
It's a mindset which we have to change with the people.
We have to get to a point where they ARE just words.


Please tell me that cleared it all up, because i'm getting tired of my words getting blown out of proportion all the time.

I am not a bigot. I love you all! We are all the same, despite our differences.

It was already clear. It's a liberal view of "colorblindness" which is completely false and unknowing stops any real way to combat racism and other oppressions. No one is saying you're a bigot, either. It's that you are pushing a liberal view which unknowingly allows oppression to continue and condemns anyone who organizes against it.

You seem to be forgetting that these oppressions are a systematic thing, not just lots of people being bigoted. So it needs to be openly addressed, organized and fought back against in a systematic manner. If everyone just stopped talking about race, racism would continue to exist and would then be almost impossible to organize against if you can't even say that there are a certain group of people being targeted.

Yeah, we all think these oppressions and barriers are stupid. We just don't deny that they exist and try to ignore them.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

It was already clear. It's a liberal view of "colorblindness" which is completely false and unknowing stops any real way to combat racism and other oppressions. No one is saying you're a bigot, either. It's that you are pushing a liberal view which unknowingly allows oppression to continue and condemns anyone who organizing against it.

You seem to be forgetting that these oppressions are a systematic thing, not just lots of people being bigoted. So it needs to be openly addressed, organized and fought back against in a systematic manner. If everyone just stopped talking about race, racism would continue to exist and would then be almost impossible to organize against if you can't even say that there are a certain group of people being targeted.

Yeah, we all thing these oppressions and barriers are stupid. We just don't deny that they exist and try to ignore them.

Thank got you don't think i'm a dumb-ass racist or anything.

Thing is, constantly reminding people of their differences doesn't seem to me to bring people together. Isn't it more usefull to speak of our similarities?
It seems that everytime there is a protest for racial equity, a counter-protest of some right-nuts breaks out. Femen in the streets? Mad sexist men hit the streets.
I see it all the time of Facebook. Someone puts on a "i hate racism"-picture online, in reply you get two or three racist-pics.
Action, reaction.

I don't mean we should silence the whole discussion, but maybe we are screaming a bit too loud. People might stop listening.

Sorry if i sound like a liberal (god, i hope not!), i sometimes question the roads currently walked (especially if they seem to be ineffective or inefficient).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

We are all different. Some differences are somewhat more obvious. So fucking what!

It's not just that certain differences are "obvious", but that certain differences are made obvious in discourse, and exist in a particular relationship with capital. For example, in the United States, "race" serves as a colour-coding for class, and gender is a means to a particular division of labour.
The abolition of capital won't precede these things, because, in terms of their historical development with capital, they are inextricable. The abolition of gender and race as such must happen within the same movement as the abolition of alienated labour and the self-abolition of the working class as such of which they are a constituent part.


So me saying it's just words, does not mean i don't want to do anything about it. Every chance i get i try to convince people racism is stupid and contemptuous.
It's a mindset which we have to change with the people.

See, this attitude is the liberal attitude. It holds that racism and sexism are simply subjective attitudes that can be addressed individually. It's not true.
Sexism and racism are deeply interconnected with class, and with the economic structure of capitalism (not in the abstract, but in terms of its real historical development). Racism and sexism are no more "stupid" or "just words" than class - they are fundamental social relationships which must be transformed by struggle.

Dealing with the question of groups that exclude, for example, men, Sea suggests that their logic, extended would imply that:


I shouldn't speak of the ruling class because I'm a worker, and I shouldn't speak up against the genocides in Palestine and Congo because I'm an American.

The first of these propositions is idiotic on the surface. This would imply that, for example, groups that exclude men don't talk about men - obviously they do.
The second two examples are more interesting to examine. Do groups that exclude white people preclude white people from addressing or confronting racism? The obvious answer is no, not at all. If anything, the example of the Black Panther Party should show that autonomous organization by POC can provide a real impetus for white radicals to sharpen their anti-racist practice and theory. Of course, this is very different from leadership in those struggles. While Americans should obviously take action in solidarity with, for example, the people of Palestine, Americans should absolutely not be acting to lead that struggle, or make dictate its forms.

[ed miliband]

class is not one of a variety of competing oppressions; being proletarian doesn't mean that you are "oppressed" but that you are exploited, but millions of proletarians are oppressed on the grounds of race, gender, etc. i think there is an important difference between exploitation and oppression -- tho they often interact -- that means that class struggle is not in competition and/or conflict with struggles against sexual or racial oppression.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

See, this attitude is the liberal attitude. It holds that racism and sexism are simply subjective attitudes that can be addressed individually. It's not true.
Sexism and racism are deeply interconnected with class, and with the economic structure of capitalism (not in the abstract, but in terms of its real historical development). Racism and sexism are no more "stupid" or "just words" than class - they are fundamental social relationships which must be transformed by struggle.

...
I'm getting out of this discussion.
Being related to liberalism twice is too much for me.
You probably have better ideas and apparently i'm doing it wrong.
This discusion has resulted in me doing nothing at all.
Again.

Fuck it, i'm going to bed.

[Leftsolidarity]

Thank got you don't think i'm a dumb-ass racist or anything.

Thing is, constantly reminding people of their differences doesn't seem to me to bring people together. Isn't it more usefull to speak of our similarities?
It seems that everytime there is a protest for racial equity, a counter-protest of some right-nuts breaks out. Femen in the streets? Mad sexist men hit the streets.
I see it all the time of Facebook. Someone puts on a "i hate racism"-picture online, in reply you get two or three racist-pics.
Action, reaction.

I don't mean we should silence the whole discussion, but maybe we are screaming a bit too loud. People might stop listening.

Sorry if i sound like a liberal (god, i hope not!), i sometimes question the roads currently walked (especially if they seem to be ineffective or inefficient).

So the natural process of us pushing forward and the reactionaries trying to push back means we just shouldn't push at all?

Maybe as someone who doesn't face a certain oppression it is easy to say "Well the reactionaries don't like when we bring up these topics so maybe we should just not really talk about it as much." but it's not for oppressed people and it never should be. It's completely giving into the bigots and on what grounds? That they organize to continue its existance? Of course they do, they need it to continue. I mean that post is really just shockingly accomidating reactionaries and denouncing the victims for fighting back.


Wanted to throw in this quote:
"All reactionaries are paper-tigers. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful." - Mao

[Sea]

This viewpoint seems to me to be a lazy cop out, and I only seem to hear it from white hetero men.I think your gaydar is due for its 6000-male tuneup.


Why bother trying to make things better in the short term? After the revolution, all discrimination will magically wither away! The problem is that many so-called revolutionaries have sexist beliefs, and revolutionary organisations have sexist practices. Now I don't see how a revolutionary organisation which refuses to examine and challenge its own sexism (or racism or whatever), can then help to create a society free from discrimination. I think that discrimination needs to be actively challenged alongside capitalism.

It's all well and good for you to sit there and tell women that it's pointless to organise against patriarchy because patriarchy will wither away after the revolution... but there are several things to consider. Firstly, realistically there is not going to be a revolution any time soon, which means that we have to continue to live in a patriarchal society. To you, maybe fighting sexism seems pointless, but to women it means that we're slightly safer, treated with more respect, etc. - basically our living standards improve. Secondly, the "left-wing movement" (for want of a better expression) is very male (and white) dominated, and since men might not notice sexist practices or might not take women's concerns seriously, if women are to be liberated we need to challenge the sexism within our own circles. A good example of women's needs not being taken into account is that there is never any childcare arranged for big meetings, so single women with kids often can't attend. How do you expect the working class to liberate themselves if half of the working class never get their voices heard or even get the opportunity to have their voices heard?

If people were organizing for revolution instead of for specific forms of equality, revolution would come a lot sooner. Did you even stop to consider the fact that discrimination will just re-emerge in other forms because the economic motive for the discrimination still exists? Consider how in the US, antisemitism has been largely replaced by islamophobia. Both forms of discrimination do exist, but they have been more or less swapped out. The progress made against one form of oppression is met by the rise of another!

Patriarchy would be especially hard to abolish without abolishing capital first. Even more so than racism for instance, which is still thriving despite decades of work against it. Patriarchy divides the working class almost perfectly in half which creates the illusion that there is no oppression as there is no minority group in the conventional sense. Patriarchy also serves to divide labor in addition to dividing the workers. Because of this, sexism is arguably the most powerful tool of oppression that the ruling class has. They will not give it up unless they are defeated first.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If people were organizing for revolution instead of for specific forms of equality, revolution would come a lot sooner.

Of course, that sets up a false dichotomy, since organizing around specific oppressions isn't necessarily organizing for equality at all. Much of it is organizing for emancipation, with analyses that clearly draw the lines between their specific oppressions and capitalism. In fact, these forms of organization often are able to articulate critiques that strengthen any class analysis and help flesh it out with specificities. Where would Marxist analysis of unwaged labour be, for example, without the autonomous feminist movements of the '70s?


Did you even stop to consider the fact that discrimination will just re-emerge in other forms because the economic motive for the discrimination still exists?

Yeah, because people organizing along oppression specific lines have never had this theoretical insight. :thumbdown:



Patriarchy would be especially hard to abolish without abolishing capital first. Even more so than racism for instance, which is still thriving despite decades of work against it. Patriarchy divides the working class almost perfectly in half which creates the illusion that there is no oppression as there is no minority group in the conventional sense. Patriarchy also serves to divide labor in addition to dividing the workers. Because of this, sexism is arguably the most powerful tool of oppression that the ruling class has. They will not give it up unless they are defeated first.

So, do you have any idea which groups articulated this decades before you? Any idea how this, which now appears as common sense, entered the discourse of the left?

Here's a hint - it wasn't groups dominated by white men.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

So the natural process of us pushing forward and the reactionaries trying to push back means we just shouldn't push at all?

Maybe as someone who doesn't face a certain oppression it is easy to say "Well the reactionaries don't like when we bring up these topics so maybe we should just not really talk about it as much." but it's not for oppressed people and it never should be. It's completely giving into the bigots and on what grounds? That they organize to continue its existance? Of course they do, they need it to continue. I mean that post is really just shockingly accomidating reactionaries and denouncing the victims for fighting back.


Wanted to throw in this quote:
"All reactionaries are paper-tigers. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful." - Mao

Hey everyone,

I'm back and i'm a lot more relaxed now.
Sorry for last night. I was already somewhat irritated before i got online.
I might have said some things which i didn't really explain right.

First off: Sorry to anybody who feels i didn't take him/her seriously in his strugle against racism/sexism. I am totally with you. I think the inequality sucks and it should be resolved asap.

Second: I know it sounds a bit weird, but it sometimes feel to me like we wan't to discuss everything away. We can discuss racism for years and years, without ever changing a bigot.
I'm all about action and if i could do something about this i will. Immediatly!

It's not that i meant to say we should close our eyes to the obvious differences and the exploitation of them.
What was trying to say is that we have to convince each and every person that they should matter. We have to eventually get to a point that they are just words. I know that some people will always be racially biased, but if we can get to about 90-99% it's kinda okay i guess. The remaining 1-10% will be corrected regularly by the rest.

So seen from this position i mentioned it's only a mindset. It should be nothing more. Bigotry is not genetic, it's thought. Often by family or friends. Sometimes the government does it too.
And history sure as hell didn't help!

Do you see why i said it was a mindset? Maybe it sounded wrong, but i meant right.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If people were organizing for revolution instead of for specific forms of equality, revolution would come a lot sooner.Why are these things counterposed though? I would see the struggle against sexual oppression or racial oppression as part of the class struggle. If, as you argued and I agree, capitalist relations keep these kinds of oppression in place, capitalist rule needs to divide the population to fight over scraps, then if one of the ways capitalists ensure their rule is through these kinds of specific oppressions, then doesn't it follow that to overthrow capitalist rule we must also challenge some of the things that keep it teathered to the top of society?

Also, if we need a more or less united class movement, don't we need a class that is less divided against itself and able to create organic solidarity? If workers have nativist or sexist sentiments, it will be a barrier to effective class struggle, but without challenging the systemic and class-related aspects of this oppression, it will be hard to overcome suspicion and distrust of female or LGBT or black workers have towards their non-oppressed but also exploited fellow workers?

I agree with you that racism and sexism can not be overcome within the system - at least not permanently or not significantly for very long. And, as you said, even if one group ceases to be the prime target, the ruling class will necisarrily create new scapegoats and new pools of second class workers more easily controlled or manipulated or just kept as reserve labor to drive down wages.

But the struggle against oppression is IMO necissary for building a working class movement that can eventually put the working class in charge. It helps create a united movement if people can see how they are allies and if the worker's movement can win people towards a class rather than a nationalist or identity strategy. Fighting against social oppression helps create a stronger working class with more confidence and practice in struggle. The DRUM movement is a good example of this as civil-rights vets who had radicalized then helped organize mass black anger against oppression with working class strategies and inside the workplace.


Did you even stop to consider the fact that discrimination will just re-emerge in other forms because the economic motive for the discrimination still exists? Consider how in the US, antisemitism has been largely replaced by islamophobia. Both forms of discrimination do exist, but they have been more or less swapped out. The progress made against one form of oppression is met by the rise of another!As I said above, in the in the long run (or in the abstract) I agree with this. However, I think antisemitism is a bad example since it was more the case that it became an "unfashionable" bigotry incompatable with ruling class interests because they used the Holocoust to justify and popularize the US's role in WWII. So this was a more or less passive lessening of bigotry (whereas it had been a real grassroots struggle prior to this time). As a counter-example of how struggles against oppression that are done from the grassroots can actually embolden the rest of the class, I think the late 1960s as the black power movement inspired a whole series of struggles of other oppressed groups. Eventually this wave was pushed back and the ruling class remolded the old sexism and old racism to eventually more modern forms that were not as easily identifyable as the "old kind of bigotry". So yes, if we don't get rid of capitalism, ultimately, the common hegemony with all the racism and sexism will reassert itself. But in the short term, the social struggles can feed into other social struggles as well as into the economic struggle since these are often directly linked (black power in the north had to take on "economic-justice" rather than jim-crow laws and so there was a strong (implicit but sometimes explicit) class-fight along with the anti-racist fight.


Patriarchy would be especially hard to abolish without abolishing capital first. Even more so than racism for instance, which is still thriving despite decades of work against it. Patriarchy divides the working class almost perfectly in half which creates the illusion that there is no oppression as there is no minority group in the conventional sense. Patriarchy also serves to divide labor in addition to dividing the workers. Because of this, sexism is arguably the most powerful tool of oppression that the ruling class has. They will not give it up unless they are defeated first.But as women are more than half of the US workforce now, there is no way to ultimately seperate one from the other. In the course of a new working class upsurge, I think it would be unimaginable if issues of sexism on the job or systemic inequalities or just shitty sexist attituted from higher-ups don't become some of the provoking sparks behind wildcats and whatnot. Some of the major public worker groups under attack right now are in female-dominated fields: office support, teachers, nurses, etc. Often what the government or the media say about these strikers is anti-worker, but specifically anti-female worker: these women care more about their paycheck than the kindergarteners they teach, they must be less of a woman for putting money over children!

So it is just not possible IMO for there to be a modern worker's movement and for these issues to not come up - both specifically on the job but also in daily life. So I think it's important for radicals to figure out how to help these movements and I think specifically this means trying to argue for a class-based approach to fighting oppression because this will help build a more united working class struggle, but also it will help the movements themselves because it can ally the struggle against oppression to working class power, rather than ultimately having to try and find favor among the bourgeois (as happened with most of the 60s movements, the parts that wern't outright repressed that is). And class strategies have more potential power and effectiveness since it targets the root of the oppression rather than trying to attack all the surface manifestations of it.

[Manic Impressive]

class is not one of a variety of competing oppressions; being proletarian doesn't mean that you are "oppressed" but that you are exploited, but millions of proletarians are oppressed on the grounds of race, gender, etc. i think there is an important difference between exploitation and oppression -- tho they often interact -- that means that class struggle is not in competition and/or conflict with struggles against sexual or racial oppression.
You mention a difference but don't go into what that difference is. Perhaps you could define oppression or what it is to be oppressed?

[ed miliband]

You mention a difference but don't go into what that difference is. Perhaps you could define oppression or what it is to be oppressed?

tbh, i think this blog by joseph kay over on libcom says everything i want to say much better than i could. i hate to just give out links when asked questions, but it is worth reading:

http://libcom.org/blog/workers-world-unite-some-notes-class-unity-identity-politics-18052012

tbh pt. 2, as a straight, white male perhaps guilty of workerism, this is an issue i'm am still grappling with myself.

[Manic Impressive]

tbh, i think this blog by joseph kay over on libcom says everything i want to say much better than i could. i hate to just give out links when asked questions, but it is worth reading:

http://libcom.org/blog/workers-world-unite-some-notes-class-unity-identity-politics-18052012

tbh pt. 2, as a straight, white male perhaps guilty of workerism, this is an issue i'm am still grappling with myself.
I don't have time to give it a proper read over right now but from a quick scan it doesn't appear to answer my question. Which is when you say that the proletariat is not oppressed what exactly do you mean by oppression. Because it seems more than apparent to me that the proletariat is oppressed AND exploited, rather than an either or as you phrased it.

[Sea]

@Jimmy Higgins, Virgin Molotov Cocktail, others

I see what you mean when you say the struggle against a form of oppression (patriarchy racism homophobia etc) can't be separated from the struggle against capital just as the problem can't be seperated from its origin. I was arguing before was that abolishing capital was a prerequisite to abolishing a given type of oppression, but now I'm thinking that translating this directly in the struggle against it is overly simplistic. You've certainly given me a lot to think about.

One question though. How class-conscious are contemporary feminist organizations? I know they'd be conscious of patriarchy but I mean class-conscious in general. And if the answer is a lot, is this awareness of an anarchistic or a communistic nature? I suspect it'd vary between groups and locales but a general answer would be enough.

[black magick hustla]

exploitaiton vs opression

to be honest, i don't think this is enough and sometimes its a bit of a copout. its the argument used by some of the more workerist fractions that don't wanna sidestep completely the argument of gender but want to basically still deprioritize it over the more "objective" and "economic" position of class. i don;t think there is a meaningful way to separate class and gender at all. they are extremely interconnected, and gender in many ways can be treated as another functional form of class. there's been a lot of recent stuff written about the issue, for example "caliban and the witch"

[ed miliband]

to be honest, i don't think this is enough and sometimes its a bit of a copout. its the argument used by some of the more workerist fractions that don't wanna sidestep completely the argument of gender but want to basically still deprioritize it over the more "objective" and "economic" position of class. i don;t think there is a meaningful way to separate class and gender at all. they are extremely interconnected, and gender in many ways can be treated as another functional form of class. there's been a lot of recent stuff written about the issue, for example "caliban and the witch"

yeah, i think that's fair and i did admit to probably being guilty of workerism, although i said it is something i am working against.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One question though. How class-conscious are contemporary feminist organizations? I know they'd be conscious of patriarchy but I mean class-conscious in general. And if the answer is a lot, is this awareness of an anarchistic or a communistic nature? I suspect it'd vary between groups and locales but a general answer would be enough.I agree with you that sexism and racism can't be completely eliminated without eliminating capitalism, I just think that both economic and social struggles are important ones for workers to play a lading role in for both their own development as a revolutionary class but also in building movements that can push back on the tools used to keep us seperated and demoralized.

As for your question though - unfortuantely not at all. The struggles that Women's Lib emerged from weren't all that explicitly class consious either though this did develop within sections of the black power movement and various "socialist-feminist" groups within the Women's Lib movement.

The feminist movement mainstream today is very much dominated by liberal and middle class politics and so I think it's understandable that some radicals today would just want to write off any movement involving feminist ideas to get beyond the role it plays today. Organizationally, the main groups are all just pro-Democrat lobbying organizations even if they had an orientation on grassrtoots mobilizing in the past; many of the surviving feminist icons advocate a kind of bourgoise-feminism focused on increasing elite positions held by women. A lot of ground has been lost since the 1970s and these groups have pretty much gone with the flow as abortion access among many other things have been erroded (often by the same Democrats that NOW! or whatever support).

In other words, it's not all that different than the state of most social movements. I have no dounbt though that when workers begin to mobilize - or at least a mass popular movement against these kinds of oppressions begin to boil up again that new opportunities will arise to unite the struggle against sexism to a larger struggle against the system that makes it possible. Like I said earlier, I can't imaging a modern militant worker's movement that didn't also have to begin to take on questions of equal-pay for women, paid maternity (and paterity leave), and so on; I also can't imagine a grassroots women's lib. movement today (of any size and dynamism) also not begining to take on economic struggles related to equal pay in the workplace, sexist attitudes by management, and so on.

[Quail]

One question though. How class-conscious are contemporary feminist organizations? I know they'd be conscious of patriarchy but I mean class-conscious in general. And if the answer is a lot, is this awareness of an anarchistic or a communistic nature? I suspect it'd vary between groups and locales but a general answer would be enough.
Where I am, there are some socialist (by which I mean marxist and anarchist) feminists but the movement seems very dominated by liberal feminism and "middle class intellectual" feminism, for want of a better expression. I think there is some awareness of the relationship between class and patriarchy because it comes up time and time again in discussions that the way capitalist society is organised reinforces patriarchy. These ideas arise naturally in discussions, without necessarily being pushed or raised by socialist feminists, so I think there is both a great potential and a necessity for feminists to be a part of the revolutionary struggle.