Ginger Rights

Ha ha, I think that's a joke-march.

It isn't. It's probably more a UK than US thing, but people do get seriously bullied for being ginger.

It is a logical conclusion from 'privilege theory' and identity politics. I expect we will be having big arguments on Revleft soon about whether 'Gingers without freckles' are more or less oppressed than those with them, and weather those with ginger in their beards understand the whole ginger experience.

Devrim

Reductio ad absurdum right there.

It's not a logical conclusion at all, really. Privilege theory needs to be something that is carefully used, but it is something that can and should be used to at least understand the issues certain groups in society face, without going all 'RIGHTS FOR GINGERS, PEOPLE UNDER 5FT 6, CAT OWNERS AND EVERYONE' batshit insane about it.

I don't think that this is reductio ad absurdium. It is, in my opinion, the logical conclusion of these sort of politics.

I don't think that 'privilege theory' is something that needs to be used careful. Rather I don't think it should be used at all. In my opinion it is a quasi-Maoist sociological theory that could only have originated in the country with probably the lowest level of class struggle in the Western world, and been developed in academia there. I don't think it is useful in any way.

Devrim

The logical conclusions of such an argument then are:

that the struggles of minority groups should be abandoned, because class struggle will solve all these problems collectively without having to address the single issues;

that the struggles of minority groups can be put on the back-burner - even if capitalism continues for years, decades or longer -, even though such groups face real discrimination and prejudice in our current society. Is this acceptable?

I think that there is a difference between an analysis of class, and a class analysis, and that this article whilst groping for the later ends up with the former precisely because class analysis is something that, in my opinion, can't be realised with the framework of privilege theory.

The point here is that workers are not 'oppressed' as workers, but exploited. This may sound like a semantic point, but I don't think it is and I think that it is fundamental to the question. The bourgeoisie are not 'privileged' in this relationship, but exploiting.

I think that the authors of the text realise that there is a fundamental difference between class and the other oppressions that are raised. but they either don't manage to explain it well or they can't quite see the significance of it:

I think that the reason for this is that the working class is exploited (i.e. surplus value is extracted from it), and I think that this does mean that they is a real difference between oppression and exploitation.

What I think that this use of privilege theory ends up doing is rejecting the idea of the working class as the revolutionary subject. I don't think that there is anything new in that, and it distinctly reminds me of the Euro-communists back in the day. Class ceases to be the defining factor, and the revolutionary subject becomes a collection of different oppressed groups, a sort of rainbow coalition as it were.

Now there is no doubt that some of this reaction was a necessary questioning of the workers' movement of the day. The worker was perceived as being a white male heterosexual. There were workers' issues and 'secondary' issues, some of which were relegated to a position of less importance, some were just plain ignored, and some were actively stigmatised (i.e. the position of many 'left-wing' organisations that homosexuality was a 'bourgeois deviation'.

I think to a certain extent the analysis presented here maintains the same dichotomy. 'Workers' issues' are contrasted to 'women's issues':

There is a problem with this and again the authors seem to recognise it:

It is 'the all encompassing struggle for two reasons. The first is that, for those with a class analysis, the working class is the revolutionary class, and the only group that in liberating itself can liberate humanity as a whole. After all, on a theoretical level capitalism could continue having done away with sexism, racism, homophobia, etc, but it could not continue without exploitation and the extraction of surplus value.

The second is that the working class today, and it becomes more and more obvious with the passing of time, is not this stereotypical white male worker, but is both male and female, black and white, and straight, and gay. The issues which divide the class are class issues. They can not be left as some seem to suggest that others are suggesting; "other oppressions won’t melt away “after the revolution”".

The fact remains though that a German factory worker (who may just for the sake of example be a white male) and an Indian peasant* (for the sake of the example a woman) are in very different positions. While the German worker may feel that he is privileged (in the traditional sense of the word) over the Indian peasant, it remains a fact that he is a part of the working class, and by his position relative to the means of production has interests directly opposed to his exploiters, and is forced to fight against them, and she is not a part of the working class, but a member of the petite-borgoisie. This despite the fact that she is undoubtedly more oppressed, and has worse living conditions than him. He is exploited and is part of a class that has the potential to enact a revolutionary transformation of society, and she is not.

In addition of course, the German factory worker today is not this stereotypical image of the old workers' movement, but is just as likely, probably even more so, to be a woman or Turkish or both.

I think that its roots were originally in US Maoism actually, but it was developed in the women's movement and academia. I think that its objective role has primarily been to aid the rise of a certain sector of the petite-bourgeoisie and sociological middle classes. There was a comment in the text that remined me of somebody in particular.

When I worked in London the leader of the local council was a woman called Linda Bellos. She was a black Jewish disabled Lesbian. She is described on her wiki page (so probably self described) as a 'revolutionary feminist':

I think that there are people who are constantly told to shut up, and that their experiences aren't valid. Generally it is working class people, whatever their race, sexuality, or gender who are on the receiving end of this, and those above them, whatever their race, sexuality, or gender, who are telling them to be quite.

I think that 'privilege theory' is one (and only one of many) of the tools for telling working class people to shut up.

Today, Linda Bellos, OBE, is a successful "businesswoman" and "runs her own consultancy and training company, EDHR Solutions LTD, providing equality, diversity and human rights consultancy and training services to the UK’s commercial, public and not-for-profit sectors".

*Used in its real meaning as a small landowning producer, not a landless rural labourer.

Of course we might laugh, and the foolish amoungst us might support such an effort, but the very purpose of this march is not to fight oppression, but rather it exists because they aren't oppressed.

Such a depoliticized march serves the purpose of giving us illusions of positivism, that our civilization has moved on from the various oppression it once sought to alleviate and now we are only moving on to insignificant remnant of the past to insignificant remnant. These marches are not signs that our society is willing to progress, on the contrary it is a sign that it is the same as before, that since there is no systematic oppression than naturally the system is more than glad to parade around these people. The very joke being that their claims are illegitimate but harmless and a parody. If we were to see blacks do this, or any other actually oppressed group, we'd hear all sorts of statistical distortions of facts and accusations of reverse racism to de-legitimize their protest. We'd hear nothing but popular out-roar over the idea that actual oppression exists. These sorts of marches of non-oppressed groups simply serve to reinforce this with parody.

Not only are gingers not systematically oppressed, but this march is indeed a deeply racist act and serves to reinforce injustice through absurdity.

Well people get bullied in the US too, but I think it would probably be similar in scale to people with glasses or orthodontic work. In other words, bullying, but not a restriction of specific rights for specific people.

So in a US context anyway, I would say it would only really be part of a broader anti-bully issue, not rights which need to be restored or extended.

It is 'the all encompassing struggle for two reasons. The first is that, for those with a class analysis, the working class is the revolutionary class, and the only group that in liberating itself can liberate humanity as a whole. After all, on a theoretical level capitalism could continue having done away with sexism, racism, homophobia, etc, but it could not continue without exploitation and the extraction of surplus value.

Of course we might laugh, and the foolish amoungst us might support such an effort, but the very purpose of this march is not to fight oppression, but rather it exists because they aren't oppressed.

Such a depoliticized march serves the purpose of giving us illusions of positivism, that our civilization has moved on from the various oppression it once sought to alleviate and now we are only moving on to insignificant remnant of the past to insignificant remnant.

These marches are not signs that our society is willing to progress, on the contrary it is a sign that it is the same as before, that since there is no systematic oppression than naturally the system is more than glad to parade around these people. The very joke being that their claims are illegitimate but harmless and a parody. If we were to see blacks do this, or any other actually oppressed group, we'd hear all sorts of statistical distortions of facts and accusations of reverse racism to de-legitimize their protest. We'd hear nothing but popular out-roar over the idea that actual oppression exists. These sorts of marches of non-oppressed groups simply serve to reinforce this with parody.

Not only are gingers not systematically oppressed, but this march is indeed a deeply racist act and serves to reinforce injustice through absurdity.

Even if they are oppressed/bullied, I wonder if they are just making the issue worse by going on such a frivolous march? Not committed to that, just a thought.

I worry that this kind of rubbish just devalues the many much more serious issues in the world that people have to picket about.

Most people have been bullied for one reason or another, but most don't arrogate their insecurities into the public sphere.

Why don't marches concerning sexism or racism make their respective issues worse?



How does it devalue anything? As far as I can see this march isn't saying that issues faced by oppressed groups somehow don't matter or matter less, just that the issues faced by ginger people (bullying) matter enough to march about.

It's easy to consider something frivolous if one is largely unaffected by it.



So bullying isn't a social issue?

You could well be right about all that. I can just imagine, tho, your average apolitical, apathetic asshole seeing this and thinking 'yet another bullshit march'. So maybe next time they see a much more oppressed minority on the street people paying less interest.

And +, I highly doubt this girl has suffered much in her life on grounds of her appearance

http://prntscr.com/1pvjfg

Why would "your average apolitical, apathetic asshole" give a fuck about any kind of march in the first place?

What makes you think she's typical?

In European culture, prior to the 20th century, red hair was often seen as a stereotypically Jewish trait: during the Spanish Inquisition, all those with red hair were identified as Jewish.[16] In Italy, red hair was associated with Italian Jews, and Judas was traditionally depicted as red-haired in Italian and Spanish art.[17] Writers from Shakespeare to Dickens would identify Jewish characters by giving them red hair.[18] The stereotype that red hair is Jewish remains in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia.[19]