Organizing along non-class lines

[Pawn Power]

What is your position on organizing along non-class lines? That is, do you think it is strategically beneficial or has ever been strategically beneficial to organize along lines of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.?

Is it anti-Marxist to organize as women, black people, or gay people to struggle against specific issues pertaining to you?

[YSR]

I have to struggle with this issue a lot, as I attend an elite private college that is mostly populated by children of the bourgeois.

But I also do not accept the class reductionist perspective that all oppressions stem from capitalism. With that in mind, I think that organizing around oppressions or issues (like the war) on a non-class basis can be strategically acceptable. As long as those organizing on non-class lines are still conscious of their class privilege, both in society and in the group. (This is an issue that SDS struggles with a lot.)

So, all in all, a mixed bag.

[Pawn Power]

This is an issue that appears to have taken on more prominence since the rise of the "New Social Movements" of the mid-1960s. On this board, and on the Left in general, there seems to be tension in regards to this issue, though it is not always addressed directly. I think some view non-class based struggle as dividing while other see it as necessary in combating oppression.

The situation with SDS is interesting because although they exists as a large multi-issue and tendency organization they also focus a lot on supposedly non-class based oppression (some would even say that SDS does not focus enough on class). So the organization is in this situation where much of there work involves "identity based oppression" and working in solidarity with other identity based groups but are themselves much broader.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 30, 2007 01:40 am
What is your position on organizing along non-class lines? That is, do you think it is strategically beneficial or has ever been strategically beneficial to organize along lines of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.?

Is it anti-Marxist to organize as women, black people, or gay people to struggle against specific issues pertaining to you?
no it is not beneficial to organise along gender, sexual or ethnicity? do you mean racial? lines.
they are a blind, they emphasise differences rather than common interest, all forms of discrimination are counter productive unless they are based upon class interest.
whilst "minority groups" within the working class might have "special interests", in general, the resolution of the problems that face the majority will solve the discriminatory problems faced by "minority groups".
it goes like this, minority groups are discriminated against because there is competition for rescources, this is a result of the capitalist system that seeks to divide workers in any way possible; once the working class decides to take matters into its own hands, the only judgement that can be made upon a memberv of the revolutionary class, is whose side they are on.
discrimination along ethnic or sexual lines becomes a thing of the past.

[syndicat]

racism is a structure, a pattern of relative advantage and disadvantage. if you fail to organize directly to overcome racism or gender inequality, then you will fail to address the injuries that a large part of the working class experience. in practice this will tend to favor the continuation of the existing patterns of privilege of whites and males.

to be able to gain unity, it is necessary to not overlook but to address the injuries of the various groups that make up the working class. it's necessary for the movement to take on the fight against racism and gender inequality otherwise racial or national groups will form separate group movements to address these issues, and there will then be disunity. in other words, failing to address the issues of racism and gender inequality does not generate unity but it's opposite. a genuine unity has to be based on a fight for equality and that means overcoming the inequalities within the working class.

there is a difference between organization of black workers and a cross-class organization of African-Americans and similarly for women. organizations of people or color or women that are rooted in the working class can help to develop unity by insisting that the movement deal with these issues.

[Floyce White]

So-called "classless organizing" is a tissue-thin pretense at hiding the reality of organizing along pro-capitalist lines.

[rouchambeau]

Floyce White Posted on Today at 07:13 am
So-called "classless organizing" is a tissue-thin pretense at hiding the reality of organizing along pro-capitalist lines.
LOL

redarmyfaction38:

they are a blind, they emphasise differences rather than common interest
So? In many cases we need to recognize that some members of our movement have privileges over others, and that clouds the judgment of those that do not have to concern themselves with race and gender oppression. Many times, by ignoring racial and gender dynamics in a movement, we set ourselves up for alienating women, homosexuals, and people of color.

all forms of discrimination are counter productive unless they are based upon class interest.
Why is that?

[Labor Shall Rule]

But rouchambeau, wouldn't you agree that there is a way to recognize profound differences without 'emphasizing' them, which is what identity politics tends to do?

If we do not view the indissoluble tie between racism and capitalism, and that it can only disappear through the class struggle itself, then there is no use even fighting. Calling people 'whities' is an insult of dubious scientific utility, since it becomes a racially-biased noun that substitutes the name of the true enemy, which is the capitalist class. We can recognize the special conditions faced by women, Latinos, Blacks, Native American, and all other oppressed groups without splintering the movement. 'Common' struggle is necessary to win.

[More Fire for the People]

First of all, as a Marxist and a member of the working class, it's my aim to eliminate all dehumanizing structures and ideologies: sexism, racism, heterosexism, etc. However, I am always aware of class lines and divisions.

[rouchambeau]

But rouchambeau, wouldn't you agree that there is a way to recognize profound differences without 'emphasizing' them?
I'm not even sure what the difference between recognizing something and emphasizing it is, or even what is wrong with either.


If we do not view the indissoluble tie between racism and capitalism, and that it can only disappear through the class struggle itself, then there is no use even fighting.
Fighting what? For the class struggle or against racism?


Calling people 'whities' is an insult of dubious scientific utility, since it becomes a racially-biased noun that substitutes the name of the true enemy, which is the capitalist class.
What does "calling people 'whities'" have to do with any of what we are talking about?

We can recognize the special conditions faced by women, Latinos, Blacks, Native American, and all other oppressed groups without splintering the movement. 'Common' struggle is necessary to win.
Who said anything about "splintering the movement"? How does recognizing racism, sexism, and homophobia without referencing class struggle harm our movement?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:45 pm
there is a difference between organization of black workers and a cross-class organization of African-Americans and similarly for women. organizations of people or color or women that are rooted in the working class can help to develop unity by insisting that the movement deal with these issues.
Bingo.

There is nothing wrong with working women's organizations, or organizations of working immigrants, but organizations whose social base does not reside in the working class inevitably become either liberal bourgeois, or even reactionary.

The "new left" experience of the sixties does nothing but confirm the bankruptcy of this kind of organizing that allows itself to "unite" women or other social groupings, across class boundries.

The women's movement was coopted by liberals, and reactionary gender-separatists precisely because it was not based on working class organizing.

Furthermore, these organizations must have as a perspective the reality that their questions can only be solved by a united and revolutionary working class, and must look forward to a day when they need not exist.

[KC]

Floyce said it best.


I'm not even sure what the difference between recognizing something and emphasizing it is, or even what is wrong with either.

Because organizing along lines of identity politics is a means of dividing the working class into struggling for recognition of their own self-proclaimed "identity" at the expense of struggling against capital. Because of it's anti-revolutionary nature, and because of the fact that it divides the working class by segmenting them into "movements of identities" it is serving the interests of capitalists.


Fighting what? For the class struggle or against racism?

This is the crux of the problem right here. In creating an identity and identifying with it, one forces the choice between fighting the class struggle or fighting for their identity. It forces a break from class struggle, it clouds the inseparable connection between class struggle and the issue at hand and ultimately distracts from a real solution to the problem.

The choice is only an illusion.

These issues have their basis in the class struggle, and because of that they must be used to unite the working class and not divide it.

Identity politics only serve to divide the working class, weaken its movement, and in doing so strengthen the capitalists.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 11, 2007 08:14 pm


Because organizing along lines of identity politics is a means of dividing the working class into struggling for recognition of their own self-proclaimed "identity" at the expense of struggling against capital.




Would you deny the existence of oppression within working class movements?


This is the crux of the problem right here. In creating an identity and identifying with it, one forces the choice between fighting the class struggle or fighting for their identity. It forces a break from class struggle, it clouds the inseparable connection between class struggle and the issue at hand and ultimately distracts from a real solution to the problem.

The choice is only an illusion.

These issues have their basis in the class struggle, and because of that they must be used to unite the working class and not divide it.

Identity politics only serve to divide the working class, weaken its movement, and in doing so strengthen the capitalists.

This is observably incorrect as well as slightly disturbing.

Individuals don't simply "create" an identity, but are proscribed one by society within social norms. Indeed, some chose to latch on to that socially created identity more firmly then others. However, regardless of how strongly individuals adhere to their identification they are still oppressed because of it.

That is, one can "identify" as East Indian but still be oppressed because they are socially identified as a "Arab" (though most black and brown people are discriminated against in the US and GB). Similarly, one can not proclaim "Gay Pride!" but still be harassed for not kissing the "appropriate" sex in public.

To claim that "identity," in the context we are using it, is a choice is an absurd disregard of reality. Women are sexually assaulted for being female, even if they don't "identify" that way. These sorts of "identity" oppression, which is created by social norms, exist within working class politics.

Certain oppressed "identities" have been historically marginalized within socio/political working class movements and it is because of this that we should learn that we cannot just say only class matters and not practice it.

[KC]

Would you deny the existence of oppression within working class movements?

You mean like sexism, racism, etc...? Of course I don't deny those, but they aren't to be organized against along those lines themselves. It is quite obvious what my position is based on my last post.


Individuals don't simply "create" an identity, but are proscribed one by society within social norms.

Not completely true. When one "creates" their identity, it is them identifying themselves as purely in terms of that identity. They are no longer a sum total of different identities, but simply a "black man" or a "woman" or a "gay man". They identify with themselves only on those terms of the identity which they proscribe to (which is why these movements are so effective in dividing the working class).


Certain oppressed "identities" have been historically marginalized within socio/political working class movements and it is because of this that we should learn that we cannot just say only class matters and not practice it.

I never said "only class matters". In fact my last post was completely against such an assertion. Quit it with the straw man.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Zampano
In creating an identity and identifying with it, one forces the choice between fighting the class struggle or fighting for their identity.

That's ridiculous. It's not an either/or proposition. Why can't someone be fighting the class war as well as fighting other sources of oppression. Particularly since divisions amongst the working class are so exaggerated by privilege.

If white men like me weren't assigned an enormous amount of privilege every time we walk down the street, we would have won the class war long ago.

[KC]

That's ridiculous. It's not an either/or proposition.

Yes, this has been my exact position since the beginning of this thread, in case you haven't noticed (you know, when I said that "the choice is only an illusion").

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 30, 2007 11:40 am
What is your position on organizing along non-class lines? That is, do you think it is strategically beneficial or has ever been strategically beneficial to organize along lines of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.?
I think it's a good position to organize from, but is something that is often poorly organized, and often, fails to link the issues facing a certain oppressed group (e.g. Indigenous peoples) to the social and economic systems in place, and often reduces itself to liberal positions, blaming a particular party for the issues facing them (Which is much like what happened in Australia in various different indigenous groups, but of course, not all - it also happened in various 'socialist' groups, too, blaming much of the issues facing them on the Howard government).

That said, if effectively organized to address the issues facing the particular group (e.g. Land Rights [indigenous]), and relating the problems back to the real roots (i.e. Imperialism & Capitalism), this form of organizing can be very affective.



Is it anti-Marxist to organize as women, black people, or gay people to struggle against specific issues pertaining to you?

I don't think so. Isn't much of the BPP's organzing doing exactly that? As well as the Situationists?

[MarxSchmarx]

but is something that is often poorly organized, and often, fails to link the issues facing a certain oppressed group (e.g. Indigenous peoples) to the social and economic systems in place, and often reduces itself to liberal positions, blaming a particular party for the issues facing them

Right.

In my experience, actual, existing organizations based on "identities" other than class tend to be reformist in the extreme. The problem isn't that there aren't more black female CEOs in the U$A. The problem is that we have CEOs.

To some extent, these groups have a "me-first" attitude that seems quite unsympathetic to the demands of other oppressed groups. As a racial minority in my community, when I participated in these kinds of groups, we tended to be so focused on our own oppression we ignored (and even triviliazed) the oppression of other "identities." E.g., we did very little to try to understand the struggles of other oppressed groups unless their tactics could be copied. Moreover, it encouraged us to be to some extent jealous of comrades from the majority ethnicity from our class, rather than feeling solidarity. I concluded then and still feel that my experience is not atypical, and that identity politics (which is essentially what the OP addresses) as currently practiced can only lead to division.

Indeed, although in theory organizing along lines other than class might be an intriguing idea, in practice it too often encourages BOTH a siege and reformist mentality that is detrimental to the larger struggle. Sure, it helps to be aware of the unique forms of oppression experienced by many groups. But organizing along those lines is a dead end.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:55 pm

Floyce White Posted on Today at 07:13 am
So-called "classless organizing" is a tissue-thin pretense at hiding the reality of organizing along pro-capitalist lines.
LOL

redarmyfaction38:

they are a blind, they emphasise differences rather than common interest
So? In many cases we need to recognize that some members of our movement have privileges over others, and that clouds the judgment of those that do not have to concern themselves with race and gender oppression. Many times, by ignoring racial and gender dynamics in a movement, we set ourselves up for alienating women, homosexuals, and people of color.

all forms of discrimination are counter productive unless they are based upon class interest.
Why is that?
1) what we have to recognise is that some members of our class are discriminated against more than others by the capitalist system, some of this discrimination is "mechanical" , i.e. the nature of the system and some of it is deliberate political policy.
2) policies like "positive dscrimination" are not class based, they create divisions along gender/sexuality/racial lines.
worst of all, they imply "minority groups" are incapable of contributing positively to society without some sort of "leg up" from the rest of us.
also, the "leg ups" are provided to those who accept the "nature of things" rather than those that wish to change the "natural order".
imho.