rights under capitalism

[TC]

Here is a good question posed to all: How many people here think that womens rights, homosexual rights, etc, etc, can be achieved entirely under a capitialist society?

This is a good question and its a pity that it couldn't have been discussed.

I'll take the unpopular line and say that actually, women's rights, gay rights, and ethnic/racial equality, can be achieved entirely in a capitalist society.

While workers revolution necessarily entails an end to these forms of oppression, and the capitalist system has historically found them useful, they are not intrinsic or necessary to capitalisms survival.


What do others think?
Moreover, the oppression of women and gays is based on pre-capitalist patriarchal social structures and the oppression of non-dominant races is based on pre-capitalist semi-feudal social structures, as Engel's observed the social structures of one economic form may endure in diminished strength longer than that economic form endures. What remains is pre-capitalist ideologies which still have force but lack state power in advanced capitalist states.

[spartan]

I'll take the unpopular line and say that actually, women's rights, gay rights, and ethnic/racial equality, can be achieved entirely in a capitalist society.

I agree.

Capitalism simply cant afford to discriminate based on gender, race or sexuality in the work place anymore, as these people make up a very large part of the workforce who contribute too much.

Getting rid of them would cost more to the Capitalists than it would to give them equal pay and make them an integral part of the workforce.

Capitalists dont care who's labour they are exploiting as long as they make a profit for them.

So women being equal and homosexuals and non-whites not being discriminated against are all well and good to the Capitalists, because as long as these people still sell their labour to them, it doesnt really make a difference to them who is equal or not being discriminated against.

[Dimentio]

I am in agreement.

Capitalism must expand the ranges of the markets, and then it must tear down the formalised discriminatory relations established under despotism and feudalism. A capitalist system cannot afford to have lower classes or groups who are excluded from the ability to consume.

That is nothing new.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Well, yes. I think that the problem is that even if governments would take actions to protect their rights, old-fashioned ideas will probably still exist amongst sectors of the ruling class who might want to lobby to make changes allowing them, for example, to be able to fire gays because they don't want "immoral people" working nearby. It might not be "efficient", but it could happen.

Also, such situations are not stable enough under capitalism...it could be a matter of years before conservatives have enough power to change laws.

[An archist]

Well since capitalism can be seen as a process of rationalisation, it's logical that traditional views like homphobia, sexism and racism would wither away. The main goal of companies is profit, turning down competent people because of their skin color, sex or sexual preference would be illogical. So we will probably see a decrease of these forms of discrimination as the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class.

[YSR]

While workers revolution necessarily entails an end to these forms of oppression, and the capitalist system has historically found them useful, they are not intrinsic or necessary to capitalisms survival.

This seems contradictory. If ending oppression is a necessary part of the workers' revolution, doesn't that make oppression necessarily part of capitalism?

My reading of racial history, for instance, in my experience in the U.S., has been that the history of action taken by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat has been the history of reemphasizing racial hierarchy. The most effective way of dividing the workers' movement has been to emphasize white privilege. With that in mind, I would argue that indeed racism is fundamental to capitalism.

This isn't to argue that patriarchy/racism/homophobia don't predate capitalism, as they surely do. But it seems that capitalism is built upon these oppressions.

EDIT:

Well since capitalism can be seen as a process of rationalisation, it's logical that traditional views like homphobia, sexism and racism would wither away. The main goal of companies is profit, turning down competent people because of their skin color, sex or sexual preference would be illogical. So we will probably see a decrease of these forms of discrimination as the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class.

This is a rather deterministic reading of the history of capital. Are you arguing that the bourgeoisie is responsible for things like the U.S.'s Civil Rights Movement? I think that it's just the opposite: the Civil Rights Movement was an attack by the black working class upon the composition of the U.S. working class and an attempt to fight privilege within the society. Likewise, the women's movement in the 70's was a blow against capitalism. Phrased most articulately by the "Wages for Housework" campaigns in Germany, the feminist movement can be seen as an autonomous working class attack on one of the most key divisions of capitalist society: productive vs reproductive labor.

The bourgeoisie has no interest in eliminating racism/sexism/heteronormativity. That task is up to the working class.

[spartan]

I think that it is very important to note here that the Capitalists will still use homophobia, racism and sexism as social divisions in society to prevent class unity (especially when they feel that their position is under threat).

But they simply cant use them as economic divisions anymore due to the fact that they need to make profit off of everyones labour, regardless of their gender, race or sexuality.

When you get down to it, it really doesnt matter to the Capitalists if you are a man or a woman, black or white or homosexual or straight, because as long as you can provide your labour, the Capitalists really dont give a shit about your gender, race or sexuality.

With the lack of an economic division of Proletarians in the workplace, this could actually have the effect of killing off social divisions of Proletarians in society which would, in a way, be the Capitalists shooting themselves in the foot as we can then achieve class unity without ridiculous social divisions still holding us back.

[Comrade Rage]

I think that what is important to note here is that the Capitalists will still use homophobia, racism and sexism as social divisions in society to prevent class unity (especially when they feel that their position is under threat).So you and I are in agreement (partially).

I for one think that the rights of repressed peoples can't be achieved under capitalism. To clarify, it is theoretically possible to work within the capitalist system to secure these rights, yet the entrenched political class will yield few, if any, reforms in the future. As for the public, much of them are hostile to further social reforms, and are even going backward in that aspect (same sex-marriage bans in state constitutions, Minuteman groups, etc.)

[Black Dagger]

As for the public, much of them are hostile to further social reforms, and are even going backward in that aspect (same sex-marriage bans in state constitutions, Minuteman groups, etc.)

I disagree; (in the west) people are more supportive of same-sex marriage now than at any other point in the history of marriage.

[Comrade Rage]

I disagree; (in the west) people are more supportive of same-sex marriage now than at any other point in the history of marriage.It's like a pendulum swing. I think people we're actually more open to the idea of legalizing it in America 5 years ago. I think that there's been a reaction to it, led by the Christian Right in 2004. As it is, somewhere around 30 out of 50 states have passed these amendments. No matter how sympathetic the public may become in the future, it is still near-impossible to repeal a constitutional amendment--even on the state level.

[Dimentio]

Well, oppression of the workers is not intrinsic to capitalism because capitalism is capitalism, but because capitalism "wants" the effects of this oppression and alienation from the means of production - and the main effect is profit.

[Jazzratt]

Well, oppression of the workers is not intrinsic to capitalism because capitalism is capitalism, but because capitalism "wants" the effects of this oppression and alienation from the means of production - and the main effect is profit.

I'm sorry but that's absurd. There is no way that a capitalist system can exist without exploiting (and therefore oppressing)the working class, oppression is therefore intrinsic.

[Dr Mindbender]

it depends what sort of capitalist you are.

Example-
If you are the owner of factory that produces nappies (diapers in the US), baby food, or baby's toys then you are going to oppose homosexuality as much as you can, since as a rule of thumb, gay couples don't have children therefore such a lifestyle preference is a threat to your profit.

Another example could be discrimination against religious groups, including muslims. Last time i checked, KFC dont have a halal option on their menu!

[proleterian fist]

How can be happen exactly women's rights, gay rights, and ethnic/racial equality in a fascist regime?
It will be just for the sake of conversation.It will see all these concepts in the way they like to see.

[Jazzratt]

it depends what sort of capitalist you are.

Example-
If you are the owner of factory that produces nappies (diapers in the US), baby food, or baby's toys then you are going to oppose homosexuality as much as you can, since as a rule of thumb, gay couples don't have children therefore such a lifestyle preference is a threat to your profit.

Another example could be discrimination against religious groups, including muslims. Last time i checked, KFC dont have a halal option on their menu!

The way I read Serpent's comments was that it is possible to have a capitalist society that doesn't oppose working class power, which is absurd.

[Dimentio]

I'm sorry but that's absurd. There is no way that a capitalist system can exist without exploiting (and therefore oppressing)the working class, oppression is therefore intrinsic.

I did not mean that. I meant it was intrinsic not because of moral evil or because it was some kind of purpose, but because of profits. I am sorry if I expressed myself clumsily.

[Jazzratt]

I did not mean that. I meant it was intrinsic not because of moral evil or because it was some kind of purpose, but because of profits. I am sorry if I expressed myself clumsily.

Ah fair enough. No worries.

[Sergei Simonov]

This is a rather deterministic reading of the history of capital. Are you arguing that the bourgeoisie is responsible for things like the U.S.'s Civil Rights Movement? I think that it's just the opposite: the Civil Rights Movement was an attack by the black working class upon the composition of the U.S. working class and an attempt to fight privilege within the society. Likewise, the women's movement in the 70's was a blow against capitalism. Phrased most articulately by the "Wages for Housework" campaigns in Germany, the feminist movement can be seen as an autonomous working class attack on one of the most key divisions of capitalist society: productive vs reproductive labor.

The bourgeoisie has no interest in eliminating racism/sexism/heteronormativity. That task is up to the working class.

Though not entirely responsible for it, the US Civil Rights movement was supported by the northern white bourgeoisie (the southern bourgeoisie was largely petit bourgeois and lacked the political might of the north's elites) and was essentially a creature of the emerging black bourgeoisie. The black proletariat and peasantry were obviously involved on an activist level, but the character of the movement was clearly bourgeois. The black liberation movment didn't shift to the left until later in its history. That's not to say, however, that the civil rights movement wasn't authentically progressive. African America at the time was still predominantly peasant in class position so the progressive element of black society was its bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie has a vested interest in eliminating feudal social attitudes as they are parochial barriers to profit. When capitalism matures into imperialism and is no longer a developing force it still must contiually expand. It does so by commodifying things that were previously personal, sacred, forbidden, etc. Part of this process is eroding old social taboos.


I think that it is very important to note here that the Capitalists will still use homophobia, racism and sexism as social divisions in society to prevent class unity (especially when they feel that their position is under threat).

This is an inherently conspiratorial view of society.

There is no Wizard of Capital behind the curtain telling proletarians to be bigots for the sake of preventing revolutionary organizing.

Bigotry grows organically in conditions of competition, threat, and uncertainty. These states affect have-nots more accutely so you are more likely to see open bigotry in the working and lumpen classes. It can be said that capitalism naturally breeds prejudice, but this is not necessarily to the advantage of the capitalists. Racial tension among workers inhibits efficient production just as much as it hinders progressive solidarity. This is what we call a "contradiction."

In discussing racism one has to differentiate between racist attitudes and racist policy. Due to class stratification, some strata of society can display racist attitudes without that same society enacting racist policy. Working class white Americans are often bigoted, but due to proletarian disenfranchisement very little racist domestic policy prevails in the US.

You are correct in that you will occasionally see petit bourgeois demagogues taking advantage of proletarian racism, but this has less to do with the capitalists' need for racism and more to do with elites (or would-be elites) competing for position and employing diverse strategies.

[Herman]

If I were a factory owner, it would be wise to hire everyone for the same pay regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or anything else.

[YSR]

African America at the time was still predominantly peasant in class position so the progressive element of black society was its bourgeoisie.

Could you substantiate this statement? The proletarianization that took place under the "Great Migration" changed this a great deal. That's not to say that small tenant farmers didn't make up the majority of southern blacks still, but the mass migration to the North lead to the creation of the Northern black working class. This predates the Civil Rights Movement, and in some ways could be seen to lead to it.


The bourgeoisie has a vested interest in eliminating feudal social attitudes as they are parochial barriers to profit.

That sounds good on paper, but race and gender are the biggest divisions of the working class (at least in the U.S.) The bourgeoisie has a vested interest in promoting competition within the working class, in order to discourage unity and action.

I accept that the civil rights movement may have been led to the creation of a black bourgeoisie. But the class character was not clearly only bourgeois or proletarian. By striking blows against the white racist power structure, the Civil Rights Movement (and even more so the later Black Power movements) created space for black workers to improve their lives. Certainly, it also created space for the newly-minted black bourgeoisie to stretch their wings, but that does not mean that it was their movement.

In general, I find your statement resembles the "orthodox" Marxist account of the development of capital, which privileges the actions of the bourgeoisie in class history and relegates autonomous working class action to purely reactive. Black people moved to the North in order to escape the terrible conditions of the South. This migration should be seen as a moment of class struggle. Movement to the North allowed the black working class to gain strength and make allies. As John Holloway states:


Flight is in the first place negative, the refusal of domination, the destruction and sabotage of the instruments of domination

It's not a coincidence that groups like SNCC were made of black students who were the children of higher-paid black workers. These groups then moved back to the South in order to fight racist structures there and free up room for Southern blacks. It was these black workers, students, and their allies (liberal whites) who forced the government to intervene in the South. The flight that preceded and continued during the course of the Civil Rights Movement was a moment of struggle against Foucault's "biopower".

[Reuben]

Another example could be discrimination against religious groups, including muslims. Last time i checked, KFC dont have a halal option on their menu!



Yep and I founded a cult which believed that we could only eat food that had vbeeen dipped in green food dye and then hadd a smiley face drawn upon it, i think we would find that as a religious minority we would be discriminated against pretty much everywhere.

Food places do not have an obligation to cater to religious absurdities.

[Luís Henrique]

Food places do not have an obligation to cater to religious absurdities.

Other than the "obligations" the market poses over them (ie, if they want to have Orthodox Jewish customers, they need to have a Kosher menu).

Luís Henrique

[LSD]

This is a good question and its a pity that it couldn't have been discussed.

I'll take the unpopular line and say that actually, women's rights, gay rights, and ethnic/racial equality, can be achieved entirely in a capitalist society.

While workers revolution necessarily entails an end to these forms of oppression, and the capitalist system has historically found them useful, they are not intrinsic or necessary to capitalisms survival.Looks like it's not so unpopular after all!

From reading this thread most people seem to agree that racism/sexism/etc.. could be eliminated under capitalism. That's a real change from a couple of years back when the board consensus was that racism and sexism were "inherent" to the capitalist paradigm.

I'm glad to see that views have turned around on this one. Proves that posting on RevLeft isn't futile after all; once in a while people do listen! :)

[lvatt]

My two cents

I suppose what I'm saying here runs the risk of being unpopular, but I believe that LBGT people, women and ethnic minorities can easily be discriminated through capitalism. Let me explain why I think this

Like so many have said, a capitalist private corporation is worried about nothing else than profit. Also, a free-market economy is by definition one in which there is little government intervention. Some extremists even suggest that civil rights are outside the scope of the government. Yet I believe that fighting discrimination within the context of a capitalist country comes in four aspects:

1. Increased social awareness
2. Strong enough leftist presence in the legislature to enact strong anti-discrimination laws (the rightists will always try to block protection of discrimination by sexual orientation)
3. Appointed judges sensible to discrimination who are willing to interpret the constitution at large and stay away from originalism and textualism (conservative judges like Scalia and Alito are actually a threat to minorities since they believe fighting discrimination to be outside the realm of the judiciary)
4. Union battles to force anti-discrimination clauses in CBAs

This can of course be achieved in a capitalist country, but as long as conservative parties hold the power, it is extremely difficult.

In a capitalist society, private corporations (with shareholders and administrators hiding under a legion of legal immunities such as limited responsibility) are cowards. They will never take a financial risk for the betterment of society. Shareholders want to see a return on their investment and, when the internal structure allows it, quickly remove any administrator from office who doesn't pursue their short-term financial interests (even sometimes to the detriment of the corporation itself).

In such a situation, I believe employment discrimination (I'm not talking about salary differences, but actually refusing to hire someone) is the road in which they are normally taken. Maybe less so with women, but definitively with LBGT and racial minorities. Hiring such a person is something they see as a risk, and again cowards don't take risks. Their reasoning can go something like this:
"If we hire this oriental-looking person at customer service, we run the risk of alienating racist clients. Just to be sure, let's just hire whites only," or "If we hire this homosexual man or this transgendered woman, we run the risk of alienating homophobic and fundamentalist clients."
Thus discrimination becomes a way of catering to a largest possible amount of people in most areas. They figure black clients would simply believe that there are more whites working there because there were more applications from whites, and at the same time they figure that they won't be losing business from racist rednecks who will be pleased to see only whites at the customer service. Generally they tend to run like rabbits as soon as there's a controversy on the horizon.

Then of course, they might hire a minority once in a while just to "look good" and be able to say "no, look, we're not discriminating! look at who we just hired!"

This kind of discrimination stems purely from economic factors, and I believe the only weapon to fight against it is through government action. Of course its possible even for a "capitalist country," yet with conservative government policies nowadays equating firing a man for being homosexual just as discriminatory as firing a man because he has blonde hair, this is not about to happen. And not only that, but conservative governments are very hostile to workers unions and keep reducing all their rights to strike, etc. A good union might work in one company, but unless there is a nation-wide workers upheaval, the government needs to act as well.

Private businesses can never be trusted to protect anyone other than the important shareholders. When it comes to important social factors such as discrimination, I believe it's extremely dangerous to give the private sector any kind of influence. And, as far as I understand (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the more capitalist a country is, the more power the private sector has.