The Relation between Class and Non-Class Oppression

[Niccolò Rossi]

After yesterday reading the pamphlet containing two Essays: "What is Class Struggle Anarchism" and "The Relation Between the Working Class and Non-Class Oppression" by Wayne Price (http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/what_is_class_struggle_anok_wp.pdf), I have been musing over the latter.

What I'd like to know is your opinions on the relationship between class and non-class oppression.

Is the oppression of minority ethnic groups, women and GLBT people directly related to class oppression? If so how?

Or are they completely unrelated? If so what are the roots of such non-class oppression?

What should be the action of revolutionaries on the matter of class and non-class oppression?

Do non-class oppressions have to be fought in an independent battle? Or is the field of class oppression the sole battle ground?

Is non-class oppression even the concern of revolutionaries? Is combating it merely a priori moralism?

So on an so forth, you get the drift.

Sorry this thread may be a dad vague and I haven't given a specific starting point, but I'd just like your general thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

[BobKKKindle$]

Or are they completely unrelated? If so what are the roots of such non-class oppression?

The form and extent of oppression is influenced by position in the class structure of society. All women are oppressed by legal restrictions which limit access to abortion, but bourgeois women can evade restrictions by paying for abortion at a private clinic or traveling overseas to a country where abortion is legally available - these options are not viable for proletarian women who will be forced to endure the health risks of illegal abortions or carry a pregnancy to term when they might want to terminate the fetus.

[Aurelia]

What do you mean by 'non-class oppression', do you refer to declassed individuals such as lumpen criminals, welfare dependent individuals such pensioners permanently unemployed or disabled?

[Niccolò Rossi]

What do you mean by 'non-class oppression', do you refer to declassed individuals such as lumpen criminals, welfare dependent individuals such pensioners permanently unemployed or disabled?

No, I am referring to the oppression of groups such as Women, ethnic minorities, GLBT peoples etc. Basically all those you are "oppressed" but whose oppression is (at least on the surface) distinct from class oppression.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The form and extent of oppression is influenced by position in the class structure of society. All women are oppressed by legal restrictions which limit access to abortion, but bourgeois women can evade restrictions by paying for abortion at a private clinic or traveling overseas to a country where abortion is legally available - these options are not viable for proletarian women who will be forced to endure the health risks of illegal abortions or carry a pregnancy to term when they might want to terminate the fetus.

This is a good point but still begs the question: What is the basis of the oppression of women (along with other oppressed non-class groups)? Is it directly related to class or do they have separate roots?

[Hyacinth]

In the case of the oppression of women throughout history, and today, it can partly be explained by attempts by men to control the means of reproduction: women were largely, and in many places still are, regarded as primarily being baby-making-machines, and baby-raising-machines (that this is still true is evident given the emphasis in many cultures on so-called ‘family values’, i.e. anti-abortion views, the position that a woman’s place is in the home raising children, etc.). If this hypothesis is correct then the oppression of women would indeed be non-class oppression (though, as has been pointed out, women from different classes can be oppressed to lesser or greater degrees, depending on which class they belong to) given that it has a different material basis than class oppression.

As for other oppressed groups, GLBT, ethnic minorities, etc., I’m not so sure; there isn’t nearly as neat an explanation for that. Though, in the case of say racism, I recent had the opportunity to watch a BBC documentary entitled “Racism” on the subject, and it made the case that racism as it exists today emerged due to the slave trade: Europeans didn’t sell African slaves because they were racist, they became racist because they were selling African slaves. The economic relations that they entered into with these people, treating them as property, etc., needed ideological justification, and the ideology of racism provided just that. Even if the material and social roots which have brought about this view have disappeared (that is, we no longer practice slavery as such) there is a lag between changes in material conditions and changes in people’s consciousness.

[BobKKKindle$]

Europeans didn’t sell African slaves because they were racist, they became racist because they were selling African slavesRacism first arose as a coherent set of ideas during the initial stages of imperialist expansion, and provided an important source of moral justification for this process of expansion. It was argued that the inhabitants of Africa were not as intelligent as people of European descent and so needed to receive outside help to enable development and abandon traditional cultural values. This allowed the supporters of imperialism to present expansion as an altruistic gesture which would help the peoples subject to colonial control, and eventually this concept (of a "civilizing mission") came to be known as the "white man's burden" an expression made famous as the title of a poem, by Rudyard Kipling, which was written in response to the American annexation of the Philippines in 1899:

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Although prejudice against groups seen as the outside the community was common prior to imperialism, it was only during imperial expansion that racism came to exist as a coherent ideology. Racism was legitimized by a series of articles which provided a scientific basis for racism (although they were, in reality, of dubious scientific integrity and have since been throughly refuted by modern academics) often by comparing the relative skull sizes of different racial groups.

[BobKKKindle$]

Womens oppression is fundamentally rooted in the way household tasks are divided up between the members of the family unit according to sex, otherwise known as the domestic division of labour. Women are seen as having an obligation to perform domestic tasks such as caring for young children and preparing food for the other members of the family. This obligation imposes important limits on the ability of women to participate in the economic sphere on an equal basis with men, as women are limited to forms of work which allow them to manage the dual obligations of performing domestic tasks and making a contribution to the collective income of the family unit - hence one of the most common forms of female economic activity outside the home is part-time work, which allows women the flexibility they need, but does not afford many opportunities for career advancement and offers low rates of pay in comparison to full-time employment.

How does this relate to capitalism? The family is an important part of capitalism because it functions as a unit for the reproduction of labour power, and so ensures that the capitalist class has access to a supply of workers who are able to return to work each day and meet the desired level of output, but the capitalist is not forced to accept the financial burden of reproduction, because the process occurs inside the family unit. This means that the capitalist class has an objective interest in sustaining the role of the family as an accepted form of social organization, such that womens oppression is directly linked to capitalism (although women also faced social oppression prior to the emergence of capitalism under feudal social relations) and cannot be fully eliminated until capitalism is abolished. The family is also important from an ideological perspective (although this role is not as important as the economic function of the family described above) as a unit of socialization; the family ensures the younger generations are subject to the influence of capitalist ideology and so come to accept the way society is organised as legitimate and something which should not be challenged, despite the conditions of dire poverty many families are forced to endure.

In a socialist society, the family unit would be replaced with an extensive system of childcare resources, which would liberate women from the burden of household labour and allow for free and equal participation.

[Aurelia]

No, I am referring to the oppression of groups such as Women, ethnic minorities, GLBT peoples etc. Basically all those you are "oppressed" but whose oppression is (at least on the surface) distinct from class oppression.
You'll notice however that in many cases the oppression of such groups, while not class-based per say, can take the form of class oppression in certain circumstances, ie refusing employment to women or gays, pay-parity for women being a pretty major one.

[trivas7]

I haven't read the pamphlets you mention, my one thought comes from Bob Avakian: the revolutionary ought to solely concern herself with abolishing capitalism and replacing it with socialism. Everything else is of secondary concern. Of course all oppression is related; as a gay man, I am keenly aware of non-class discrimination, of course I support gay rights where I can. But for the revolutionary, single issue politics is not the way to go. The one task of successfully organizing the revolution is daunting enough.

[Hit The North]

In a capitalist society there is only one form of oppression which the bourgeoisie must maintain in order to guarantee its own existence and that is class oppression.

[BobKKKindle$]

In a capitalist society there is only one form of oppression which the bourgeoisie must maintain in order to guarantee its own existence and that is class oppression.

However, although theoretically capitalism could exist without other forms of social oppression, in practical terms, the bourgeoisie must utilize other forms of oppression to create divisions within the proletariat and so obstruct the development of class consciousness. If all workers regarded each other as comrades in a joint struggle, the rule of the bourgeoisie would be very fragile, and there would be nothing stop the working class from overthrowing the bourgeois state and taking control of the means of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I haven't read the pamphlets you mention, my one thought comes from Bob Avakian: the revolutionary ought to solely concern herself with abolishing capitalism and replacing it with socialism. Everything else is of secondary concern. Of course all oppression is related; as a gay man, I am keenly aware of non-class discrimination, of course I support gay rights where I can. But for the revolutionary, single issue politics is not the way to go. The one task of successfully organizing the revolution is daunting enough.

You don't happen to be an Avakianite by chance, do you? ;)

Anyway, my view is a bit more complex. It is based on the absence of combating non-class oppression in the Gotha Programme (http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_g1.php#gotha) and the presence of this in the Erfurt Programme (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891erfurt.html).

The level of non-class oppression is DEFINITELY not as big today as it was a century or two ago (yes, Comrade Hyacinth, I read your comments on the oppression of women, but such pre-capitalist "specialization" has obviously proven to be not so beneficial for capital). That IS the nature of bourgeois capitalism and the need for bigger consumer, labour, and capital markets.


However, although theoretically capitalism could exist without other forms of social oppression, in practical terms, the bourgeoisie must utilize other forms of oppression to create divisions within the proletariat and so obstruct the development of class consciousness. If all workers regarded each other as comrades in a joint struggle, the rule of the bourgeoisie would be very fragile, and there would be nothing stop the working class from overthrowing the bourgeois state and taking control of the means of production.

Not every form of social oppression has been useful to the bourgeoisie. Racial divides have been useful to some extent only, as implied by the comments above (colonialist expansion and the slave trade, both thoroughly established during the beginning of capitalism). On the other hand, gender divides have not.




The Social Democratic Party of Germany does not fight, accordingly, for new class*privileges and class*rights, but for the abolition of classrule and of classes themselves, for equal rights and equal duties of all, without distinction of sex or descent. Starting from these views, it combats, within existing society, not only the exploitation and oppression of wage*earners, but every kind of exploitation and oppression, whether directed against a class, a party, a sex, or a race.

The "reformist" and "revolutionary" sections of any "brief program" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html) (which should complement the overly lengthy programs of most rev-left groups today :( ) should be simple to read, but definitely not comprise just four bloody paragraphs (including one with just one bloody sentence). A paragraph such as the above would be useful, but only if the maximum section has eight to twelve paragraphs. :)

[Psy]

No, I am referring to the oppression of groups such as Women, ethnic minorities, GLBT peoples etc. Basically all those you are "oppressed" but whose oppression is (at least on the surface) distinct from class oppression.
Racism is linked to class oppression. The race card is used to explain why minorities are more exploited.

[Hit The North]

The working class is the tribune of the people. It is comprised of all oppressed groups. It is only by working towards class unity that we can build a movement which challenges the material roots of all oppressive social divisions.

I therefore agree with trivas7 and Bob Avakian!

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The working class may be tribune of the people, but GLBT, minority, women, etc. require special attention when organizing and special help. They have issues specific to their position which we must address. Abortion clinic defense is just as important as strike support. These groups are hyper-oppressed, and thus represent sections most likely to fuel explosive mass revolt. If we can organize the most oppressed, then everyone else is a piece of cake.

We should not forget that while many non class oppressions are tied to and built up by capitalism, they also have roots that extend beyond capitalism. We need a working class movement that earnestly addresses all the issues and concerns of oppressed groups. We can't shortchange groups on issues that aren't explicitly tied to class. Things like rape and sexual assault are issues of paramount important to any communist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

We should not forget that while many non class oppressions are tied to and built up by capitalism, they also have roots that extend beyond capitalism. We need a working class movement that earnestly addresses all the issues and concerns of oppressed groups. We can't shortchange groups on issues that aren't explicitly tied to class. Things like rape and sexual assault are issues of paramount important to any communist.

This is a very crucial point. The ’white privilege’ consensus folds into Democratic politics as a result of it's lack of a class approach.

Today, we have to deal with the fact that in racist America (and even certain European countries) profits are extracted through exploitation. To achieve a given level of profit, a echelon of development of the productive forces, the capitalists need to exploit the working class at a given rate. A disproportionate part of that rate of exploitation falls on the lap's of Black workers, and has so from the antebellum years of the plantations to the modernity of today at McDonalds. This dynamic extends into housing, bank loans, health care, and nearly every facet of social life.

If we do not recognize that oppression is multiple and intersecting, then colored and non-male workers would have no interest in participating in a class movement.

[Hit The North]

The working class may be tribune of the people, but GLBT, minority, women, etc. require special attention when organizing and special help. They have issues specific to their position which we must address. Abortion clinic defense is just as important as strike support. These groups are hyper-oppressed, and thus represent sections most likely to fuel explosive mass revolt. If we can organize the most oppressed, then everyone else is a piece of cake.

I have no quarrel with anything you write, except that I don't understand how being GLBT or a woman, isolated from class position, is likely to "fuel explosive mass revolt". Neither are the most oppressed groups necessarily the groups who can pose an effective challenge to the oppressor.

We should not forget that while many non class oppressions are tied to and built up by capitalism, they also have roots that extend beyond capitalism. True, but apart from the academic satisfaction of understanding the historical roots of certain social division, what is the practical point of this knowledge? Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, as a historical materialist, all forms of oppression are rooted in and reproduced by material interests; thus I eschew any idealist, psycho-analytical or biological "explanations" for the origin of these social divisions.

We need a working class movement that earnestly addresses all the issues and concerns of oppressed groups. We can't shortchange groups on issues that aren't explicitly tied to class. Things like rape and sexual assault are issues of paramount important to any communist.
Yes. We must become the tribune of the people.


Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule:
This is a very crucial point. The ’white privilege’ consensus folds into Democratic politics as a result of it's lack of a class approach. What does that mean?


Today, we have to deal with the fact that in racist America (and even certain European countries) profits are extracted through exploitation. To achieve a given level of profit, a echelon of development of the productive forces, the capitalists need to exploit the working class at a given rate. A disproportionate part of that rate of exploitation falls on the lap's of Black workers, and has so from the antebellum years of the plantations to the modernity of today at McDonalds. This dynamic extends into housing, bank loans, health care, and nearly every facet of social life.

Profits are always extracted through exploitation and the most exploited workers are not necessarily the lowest paid. But anyway, its worse than that. In the US economy the most lowly paid workforce is employed over-seas. If the capitalist corporation really wants to super-exploit, it turns to the Developing World rather than the African-American worker who expects to work for more than a dollar a day.
But I get your general point. The African-American is disproportionately clustered in the poorest sections of the North American working class. So how, as communists do we respond to this? Do we tail-end ideological explanations which argues that racism is the cause and has a separate origin and dynamic to class oppression and therefore different solutions? Or do we argue that, anyway, the ideology of racism is bound-up with a previous strategy of exploitation and is therefore an economic effect of the capitalist system?

I believe the former leads to the logic of autonomous organization and marching separately. It, in effect, reproduces the schisms in the working class which were put there by capitalism. The latter, however, focuses on bridging gaps, uncovering commonalities and poses solidarity as the solution to all our different ills.


If we do not recognize that oppression is multiple and intersecting, then colored and non-male workers would have no interest in participating in a class movement. Well, they will only participate in a mass class movement, if they believe their interests can be fought for through class struggle. Otherwise they might become Gay Liberationists or Black Nationalists or Radical feminists.

But I agree: working class struggle against capitalism is for all kinds of workers, irrespective of gender, ethnicity, religious belief. None should be excluded.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I have no quarrel with anything you write, except that I don't understand how being GLBT or a woman, isolated from class position, is likely to "fuel explosive mass revolt". Neither are the most oppressed groups necessarily the groups who can pose an effective challenge to the oppressor. I think it’s rather clear that the compounded oppression of class position, gender, sexual orientation etc. create a hyper explosive social condition. While white workers in America were not especially militant, black industrial workers were engaged in mass revolutionary activity. As the most oppressed they had the most to gain and the least to lose in any revolutionary situation.

It is also harder buy hyper oppressed groups off without eliminating some of that non class oppression. The act of cooptation implies recognition of merit. So either way its something of a win-win. Either we organize an explosive sector or we help eliminate divisions within the class.


True, but apart from the academic satisfaction of understanding the historical roots of certain social division, what is the practical point of this knowledge? Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, as a historical materialist, all forms of oppression are rooted in and reproduced by material interests; thus I eschew any idealist, psycho-analytical or biological "explanations" for the origin of these social divisions. The practical point is that an anti capitalist movement may not properly address these issues. The CPUSA was against racism because of the “divides the class” line. But it was a shallow anti racism, that was tacitly white supremacist. In the 60s women were free to participate, but were often given shit jobs and did not gain leadership roles. The Mujeres Libres of Spain arose because there was a need for an independent women’s organization devoted to combating sexism in the revolutionary movement.


Yes. We must become the tribune of the people. *shrugs* Seems like an award term for it really. I think of class as the thread that holds it all together. It makes all struggles one inclusive struggle, because it is the defining structure of power in society. The status quo could continue in a gender equal, GLBT friendly, anti racist format, but it couldn’t without capitalism. The Tribune was a titular officeholder in ancient Rome. Nobody knows what the hell that is anymore.

[Devrim]

I have been a bit ill to get involved in this argument, but I would like to state our position on it even if I can't contribute much:


12. 'PARTIAL' STRUGGLES: A REACTIONARY DEAD-END
The decadence of capitalism has accentuated the decomposition of all the moral values of capitalism and has led to a profound degradation of all human relations.

However, while it is true that the proletarian revolution will engender new relationships in every area of life, it is wrong to think that it is possible to contribute to the revolution by organising specific struggles around partial problems, such as racism, the position of women, pollution, sexuality, and other aspects of daily life.

The struggle against the economic foundations of the system contains within it the struggle against all the super-structural aspects of capitalist society, but this is not true the other way around. By their very content ‘partial’ struggles, far from reinforcing the vital autonomy of the proletariat, tend on the contrary to dilute it into a mass of confused categories (races, sexes, youth, etc.) which can only be totally impotent in the face of history. This is why bourgeois governments and political parties have learned to recuperate and use them to good effect in the preservation of the social order.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Oh good lord. EKS just lumped pollution in with racism and the oppression of women. Yeah that paragraph would go over like a lead balloon in my city. Writing off racism, and patriarchy like that is like saying the ocean is made of melted chocolate and rainbows.

[Devrim]

There is no political argument here at all, so it doesn't really need a political response. It is a repeat of an argument that JHG came out with before:


Are we trod the path of economic reductionism, claiming everything is a matter of class? Yeah that'll get you laughed off the street of any American, working class neighborhood.

The basic flaw in this argument is that if you go round any working class neighbourhood in America, you will get laughed at for being any sort of communist or anarchist. It's not really as if NEFAC are recruiting hundreds of workers even to their organisation.

We think that leftist single issue campaigns have nothing to offer the working class. Why not try a political argument against it next time.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

There is no political argument here at all, so it doesn't really need a political response. It is a repeat of an argument that JHG came out with before:



The basic flaw in this argument is that if you go round any working class neighbourhood in America, you will get laughed at for being any sort of communist or anarchist. It's not really as if NEFAC are recruiting hundreds of workers even to their organisation.

We think that leftist single issue campaigns have nothing to offer the working class. Why not try a political argument against it next time.

Devrim

Not a basic flaw at all. If you had an earnest conversation with a random worker and calmly explained the precepts of anarchism, by and large they would be sympathetic. They probably wouldn't be fully convinced, but that's where struggle comes in.

However if they were interested, they might start talking about their own problems. And if they're a black worker, they would probably start talking about the police, and racial profiling. Or if they're a female worker, they might talk about the double burden of housework, and wage work. And if you told them that class war will ameliorate all that, and that we shouldn't engage in movements against racism, or sexism. They would stop listening and walk away immediately. Lumping pollution in with racism and women's oppression doesn't accord with the everyday experience of working people. And that is what it comes down to. Anarchism and communism should flow from the lived experience of the worker, and when it does not, the worker stops paying attention.

[Devrim]

I'd say that many workers show no interest in leftist campaigns against 'racism' or 'sexism' precisely because it doesn't relate to their own experience.

Workers can struggle against things like racism, but they have to do it on a class basis, not through the campaigns of various leftist groups, which are generally more attractive to students than workers anyway.

We say that workers have to struggle on a class terrain otherwise they get pulled into bourgeois politics.

Of course one could take the road of the 'Platformists' which I believe is voting in referendums to determine capitalist policy, taking part in ballots for the General Secretary of unions, organising joint platforms with supporters of armed nationalist gangsters, calling for nationalisation of certain industries.

To be honest I don't think they really know what a struggle on a class terrain is.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

i think you are wrong about workers not taking interest on racism. i dont know about the uk, turkey, lebanon or every other country you have lived but in the us race has always been a pretty central question ingrained in the hearts and minds of people. black youth from working class backgrounds are pretty angry people and have been rallied succesfully by black nationalists in various degrees.

america is very racist and reactionary - more so than a lot other countries. therefore the question of class is not as evident to people as in other countries. i dont thinik this means college new left idenitity politics are the answer though.

[Devrim]

i think you are wrong about workers not taking interest on racism.

I don't say that workers aren't interested in racism. I said that maybe they aren't interested in leftist campaigns.


black youth from working class backgrounds are pretty angry people and have been rallied succesfully by black nationalists in various degrees.

Well yes, that is part of my point.


i dont know about the uk, turkey, lebanon or every other country you have lived but in the us race has always been a pretty central question ingrained in the hearts and minds of people.

More so in the US than here in the Middle East, and also I think more than when I lived in Europe.


america is very racist and reactionary - more so than a lot other countries.

The question is whether campaigns offer a way to combat this.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I'd say that many workers show no interest in leftist campaigns against 'racism' or 'sexism' precisely because it doesn't relate to their own experience.

Workers can struggle against things like racism, but they have to do it on a class basis, not through the campaigns of various leftist groups, which are generally more attractive to students than workers anyway.

We say that workers have to struggle on a class terrain otherwise they get pulled into bourgeois politics.

Of course one could take the road of the 'Platformists' which I believe is voting in referendums to determine capitalist policy, taking part in ballots for the General Secretary of unions, organising joint platforms with supporters of armed nationalist gangsters, calling for nationalisation of certain industries.

To be honest I don't think they really know what a struggle on a class terrain is.

Devrim

Well we all know that you hate platformists. Go ahead and eat their children. That's been well established, though its not really pertinent to the discussion.

As Marmot said, race is very important in the US. America took racial stratification to something of an art form. Though Marmot shouldn't forget his residence either, since Mexico is pretty damn good at it too.

Anyway I'm glad that you see that racism and sexism should be combated by the working class. Though I'm confused as to what this "class basis" means. Is defending an abortion clinic, not sufficient class terrain. Does a group like INCITE (http://www.incite-national.org/), made of working class women, not fight on a class basis? And what's with constant slander against students? Most students are working class. We are shouldering studies, part time work, and huge loans.

[black magick hustla]

I don't say that workers aren't interested in racism. I said that maybe they aren't interested in leftist campaigns.

well that was my point. i think black nationalists, maybe not now as much as they were 40 years ago, made a lot of black workers very interested.

i dont think antiracist leftist campaigns did as much as the bourgeosie likes to claim. american life is still very segregated and although i think it did a difference for middle and upper class blacks (affirmative action, desegragation in the upper layers of society) i think poor black folk still live in defacto segregated neighborhoods and children study in defacto segregated inner city schools. still, leftist antiracist campaigns did gather the attention of a lot of working class black folk.

[black magick hustla]

Though Marmot shouldn't forget his residence either, since Mexico is pretty damn good at it too.

well its not my residence any more. anyway, i dont think mexico is as racist as the us. and i dont say it because of patriotism or because i like dissing americans because i dont see the world in that way. mexico is racist though - but i think its a bit different. for example, there are a lot of whites with money but i have never seen a white person in my life panhandling in the streets. i think the worst aspect is between the indigenous and non-indigenous, but i think it is more of a cultural thing. most mexicans are dark skinned and i dont think its that easy to spot who is indian or not from mere glance.

however, when i was in mexico i was never that aware of my race nor my friends were. i think in the us everybody is aware and can smell racial tensions in the streets - and this is coming from someone who is half mestizo and half middle eastern.

[Devrim]

Well we all know that you hate platformists. Go ahead and eat their children. That's been well established, though its not really pertinent to the discussion.

Well, no I don't. I disagree with their political ideas, and thinks that they have a negative effect. On a personal level I think the last time I met some Platformists I bought them a few beers.

My point is that they seem to get involved in things because people are involved in them. I think it is about there ideas of 'social insertion'. I think that they try to insert themselves into movements because there are movements without thinking about the basis of the movements.

All the things I mentioned are things they have done.


As Marmot said, race is very important in the US. America took racial stratification to something of an art form.

I accept this. I also think that it is not unconnected to the weakness of the working class in the US.


Anyway I'm glad that you see that racism and sexism should be combated by the working class. Though I'm confused as to what this "class basis" means.

Our point is about the working class combating these things themselves. It is not about little groups of activists doing it.


Is defending an abortion clinic, not sufficient class terrain.

Defending what sort of abortion clinic how?


Does a group like INCITE (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.incite-national.org/), made of working class women, not fight on a class basis?

I don't like to comment on things that I don't know about, but I would imagine that this is a similar sort of campaigning group. I wouldn't expect it to be on a class basis.


And what's with constant slander against students? Most students are working class. We are shouldering studies, part time work, and huge loans

It is not a 'constant slander'. It is just a comment that leftist campaigns tend to attract more students than workers. I think that its true.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well, no I don't. I disagree with their political ideas, and thinks that they have a negative effect. On a personal level I think the last time I met some Platformists I bought them a few beers.

My point is that they seem to get involved in things because people are involved in them. I think it is about there ideas of 'social insertion'. I think that they try to insert themselves into movements because there are movements without thinking about the basis of the movements.

All the things I mentioned are things they have done.

Again not pertinent to the discussion. Go eat their babies on another thread.




Our point is about the working class combating these things themselves. It is not about little groups of activists doing it. Drop the "working class" silliness. It seems like groups of workers can only be "working class" unless they pass some sort of Left-communist litmus test.




Defending what sort of abortion clinic how?A clinic where abortions are provided. Defending it from the myriad of attacks on its structure, workers, and the women who use it. You know, so that the women aren't scared away, workers aren't beaten, and facility isn't bombed.




I don't like to comment on things that I don't know about, but I would imagine that this is a similar sort of campaigning group. I wouldn't expect it to be on a class basis.It's a group of working class women, with pretty good class politics. But I'm sure they don't meet your exacting standards.




It is not a 'constant slander'. It is just a comment that leftist campaigns tend to attract more students than workers. I think that its true.

DevrimIt is though, becuase you imply that students aren't workers, which is utter nonsense. The vast majority of students are workers or are entering the workforce shortly. Just becuase they are young and go to school doesn't make them unworkers.

[Chapter 24]

Is the oppression of minority ethnic groups, women and GLBT people directly related to class oppression? If so how?
The oppression of these groups are not strictly class-related, but the ways in which they are oppressed reveals their role in the current class system. The African slave trade, for example, showed both race and class oppression: a racist system because of its labeling of blacks as property and class-related because of their role within society of being used as slave labor as a way of production.



What should be the action of revolutionaries on the matter of class and non-class oppression?
Revolutionaries strive for full equality of minority groups, women, GLBT groups. Otherwise they would not be as revolutionary as they claim to be.



Do non-class oppressions have to be fought in an independent battle? Or is the field of class oppression the sole battle ground?
When it comes down to it the working class knows no race, gender, or sexual orientation and therefore struggle for equality should be fought for by all.



Is non-class oppression even the concern of revolutionaries? Is combating it merely a priori moralism?
Both.

[Devrim]

There seems to be a lot of aggression there, Joe Hill's Ghost, but very little in the way of political argument, just insults and implications that I am anti-women or anti-student, which of course I am not.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

There seems to be a lot of aggression there, Joe Hill's Ghost, but very little in the way of political argument, just insults and implications that I am anti-women or anti-student, which of course I am not.

Devrim

*shrugs* Come back when you wish to address my points.

[Devrim]

What is your point here, Joe? That I don't like students? That I don't like women? You haven't made any points. Maybe you could restate them clearly without any insults, or implied slurs.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

Workers can struggle against things like racism, but they have to do it on a class basis, not through the campaigns of various leftist groups

What exactly does struggling against things like racism on a "class basis" involve? How is it different from the activities of other various leftist groups.


Our point is about the working class combating these things themselves. It is not about little groups of activists doing it.

What does allowing "the working class combating these things themselves" actually mean? Is this to say that combating non-class oppression is not the task of the party or any other working class political organisation?

[Devrim]

What exactly does struggling against things like racism on a "class basis" involve? How is it different from the activities of other various leftist groups.

There was an interesting comment on this on Libcom yesterday:
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/anti-bnp-marchlow-demo-turnouts-24062008?page=2


All of this smacks a bit of subsuming struggles against racism into economic issues. However, if we don't take up issues of racism in the areas where it affects people then I don't think they'd be particularly supportive of us, and as such themselves, in economic struggles
I completely disagree with this. I think a problem with this discussion is that it's all hypotheticals at the moment. things should become clearer if we look at the real world for a moment.
As I said before, I don't think there are many people whose biggest problem is the BNP. But As to the point more generally, I think actually you are separating racism and economic issues here.
We can't treat combating racism like some sort of single issue campaign which vies for priority with economic issues. The way we combat racism is in economic struggles showing that all workers of all races have one interest - our economic interest as workers
as most people here will know, local government workers are in a pay dispute with the government at the moment. Our main adversaries in this are the government, our managers, the unions sabotaging us, and the lack of confidence or solidarity of some of our fellow workers. This dispute was sparked by the massive increase in the cost of living which is hitting all working people in this country. In the course of struggling, we see who our friends are and who our enemies are - importantly this means we see our friends are our fellow workers of all ethnicities, and our enemies are the institutions I list above.(for what it's worth, while trying to build support to the pay strikes I've not had a single one of my 50% ethnic minority co-workers say that I should be more concerned with combating the BNP)
This is the type of action that brings workers together and combats racism, far more than having some white lefties demonstrate against or have a fight with some boneheads with no influence in society.



What does allowing "the working class combating these things themselves" actually mean? Is this to say that combating non-class oppression is not the task of the party or any other working class political organisation?

It means that it is not the task of the party, (or the organisation if you happen to be an anarchist) substituting itself for the class.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

There was an interesting comment on this on Libcom yesterday [...]

So is this to say there is no place for communists in the combating of Racism, Sexism, Homophobia etc. unless done so by the unity of these segments in the all encompassing worker's struggle?

Is there not a place for advocating the availability of abortion and contraception? Is there no place for advocating gay marriage? Is there no place for advocating an open boarders immigration policy? So on and so forth.


It means that it is not the task of the party, (or the organisation if you happen to be an anarchist) substituting itself for the class.Is aiding the proletariat in it's combating of non-class oppression really substitutionism? Has the party no place in fighting along side the proletariat in it's struggles?

Finally, what are the "tasks of the party"?

[Devrim]

Is there not a place for advocating the availability of abortion and contraception? Is there no place for advocating gay marriage? Is there no place for advocating an open boarders immigration policy? So on and so forth.

Do you mean advocating or campaigning for? If it is the latter definitely not.


Is aiding the proletariat in it's combating of non-class oppression really substitutionism?

Is running a campaign combating non-class oppression?


Has the party no place in fighting along side the proletariat in it's struggles?

Of course, it does, but are these campaigns the proletariat's struggles?


Finally, what are the "tasks of the party"?

The answer to the question is a bit beyond the scope of this thread.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

Do you mean advocating or campaigning for? If it is the latter definitely not.

What is the advocacy of such issues without a corresponding campaign? Are implying that campaigns combating non-class oppression within the framework of capitalism are not the in the interest of the class or are not the concern/task of the party?


Is running a campaign combating non-class oppression?

Good question. What then constitutes combating non-class oppression? Should such activity be perused by the class and/or it's party?

Of course, it does, but are these campaigns the proletariat's struggles[/quote]

Another good point. However, would you deny that campaigns against the various non-class oppressions are not in the immediate interest of the proletariat?

Sorry this has become just a matter of throwing questions, but they have to be asked.

[tormenta]

there is a very problematic aspect to this discussion. i am going to speak to the problematics as it concerns race and leave it to others to explore how LGBT, gender, etc come into play.
--
race is not some kind of appendage to class. indeed, the two are inseperable. especially coming from the USA, it should be impossible for a marxist to not be aware of this. we need a thorough re-thinking of race and class on the US left. there is no conceivable to resolve class contradictions without resolving racial ones. there are no answers to racism that are not class solutions.

slavery actually started with british convicts, street kids, and prostitutes being shipped to the colonies as way of deporting or exporting a surplus and troublesome pauperized class. the experience of white slavery set the template that african slavery was superimposed upon. for about a hundred years, africans and british were treated in very similar ways, each ranging from indentured servitude, to freeman, to chattel.

Bacon's rebellion in 1676 marked a turning point when race was invented as a way of
dividing the class against itself. even the poorest whites were barred from chattel status and were given the right/duty to police blacks. this set the basis for a deep split in the working class, where yes black slaves and poor white trash were both suffering and poor and proletarian but the latter had material incentives and clear social roles that objectively set them apart.

this is much different from from 'false consciousness' and the denial of any benefit accruing to white workers for their racism. up till the '70s and even still today in the US, very REAL material factors (largely having to do with home ownership and good union jobs) set white workers in contradiction to their black and brown brothers and sisters.

i am suggesting that there is a "settler colonist" aspect that is true and real when it comes to white american workers, but thats not all. there is also an integrated section of the working class where racism is not that big of a phenomenon. i personally think that this integrated section has the most revolutionary potential (NOT the workers with the least to loose and most to gain). but they need to be conscious of and need to be active anti-racists and even anti-imperialist vis a vis the US being a colonial state with entities/relationships/areas that resemble "internal colonies."

[tormenta]

there is a very problematic aspect to this discussion. i am going to speak to the problematics as it concerns race and leave it to others to explore how LGBT, gender, etc come into play.
--
race is not some kind of appendage to class. indeed, the two are inseperable. especially coming from the USA, it should be impossible for a marxist to not be aware of this. we need a thorough re-thinking of race and class on the US left. there is no conceivable to resolve class contradictions without resolving racial ones. there are no answers to racism that are not class solutions.

slavery actually started with british convicts, street kids, and prostitutes being shipped to the colonies as way of deporting or exporting a surplus and troublesome pauperized class. the experience of white slavery set the template that african slavery was superimposed upon. for about a hundred years, africans and british were treated in very similar ways, each ranging from indentured servitude, to freeman, to chattel.

Bacon's rebellion in 1676 marked a turning point when race was invented as a way of
dividing the class against itself. even the poorest whites were barred from chattel status and were given the right/duty to police blacks. this set the basis for a deep split in the working class, where yes black slaves and poor white trash were both suffering and poor and proletarian but the latter had material incentives and clear social roles that objectively set them apart.

this is much different from from 'false consciousness' and the denial of any benefit accruing to white workers for their racism. up till the '70s and even still today in the US, very REAL material factors (largely having to do with home ownership and good union jobs) set white workers in contradiction to their black and brown brothers and sisters.

i am suggesting that there is a "settler colonist" aspect that is true and real when it comes to white american workers, but thats not all. there is also an integrated section of the working class where racism is not that big of a phenomenon. i personally think that this integrated section has the most revolutionary potential (NOT the workers with the least to loose and most to gain). but they need to be conscious of and need to be active anti-racists and even anti-imperialist vis a vis the US being a colonial state with entities/relationships/areas that resemble "internal colonies."

[tormenta]

sorry for posting that last one twice.

but a couple of other points i wanted to make:
why is the working class presumed to be white? people refer to the working class struggle as seperate from the racial struggle, but oppressed races are only oppressed BECAUSE of their class position! white workers are racist against blacks and immigrants because they see them as threats to their bargaining power, ie: scabs. there's a cultural and psychological aspect too, which revolutionaries need to replace with revolutionary consciousness, but the main engine is the needs of capital that put workers in different roles in the division of labor and the pitting of these roles against each other like white and black have been for hundreds of years in the US.

campaigns vs. working class struggle as vehicles for combatting "non-class oppression"?

BOTH! police brutality happens on the streets, not on the job. campaigns agaisnt police brutality are not workplace struggles.

but many "non-class" issues manifest at the workplace. look at the League of Revolutionary Black Workers for an example of how these were addressed in a revolutionary working class fashion.