back at it with another ridiculous question. As I have been developing my personal ideology, I’ve found that I reject much of the socially progressive ideas in corpo media and twitter (conservatives call it identity politics). Stuff like abolishing the nuclear family (or pride flag on drones joke) that doesn’t look to change any economic or material reality I find I don’t agree with.
First and second wave feminism I support as they changed the material realities for women, but the push for things like gender reassignment surgery under 16 years (i wanted to be in the cia when I was this age, people change personalities quickly during their teenage years) among other socially progressive ideas (bedtime abolition and the like) seem to be far removed from any type of class struggle and even hurt the working class.
Expressing this on Twitter got me called a nazbol (of course) but am I? Does being socially conservative but economically progressive make me a redfash? I understand intersectionality and that you can be trans and poor but focusing so heavily on non class issues seems detrimental for workers, even if they get some progressive tidbits.
plz feel free to own me if I’m spitting straight crap wrote this on my phone b4 work
edit: the thoughtful genzedong comments/commenters make this community the only place I’d be willing to ask a question like this, thanks for that, and the info you share so that myself and others can be better communists 💪🇨🇳👍
This is referred to as class reductionist and has been shown in theory and in practice to result in unsustainable outcomes. Intersectionality has been the dominant model for praxis for some decades now and, while it may be uncomfortable for some, it has been shown in theory and in practice to solve the issues inherent in class reductionism.
If your goal is to build a sustainable society without internal contradictions that will result in its collapse, you need to understand and use intersectionality.
Intersectionality abandons the idea that there is only form of oppression that matters and instead says that oppression of nearly all forms share a single root cause when you go back far enough in the abstraction. So, you still get your class-based analysis, which intersectionality is based upon.
But intersectionality then goes further to engage in dialectic with each form of oppression and in so doing simultaneously understand the system that oppressed more thoroughly (which makes you more effective in the revolutionary project) and build solidarity because you are able to address ever increasing numbers of people on their terms and not on yours. The result is that you end up with a revolutionary program that is adapted to your context, which is the actual make up the proletariat in your society, and therefore avoids mistakes of oppression for idealistic instead of material reasons. And this is required for success because oppression for idealistic reasons while running a revolutik are program on dialectical materialism is a contradiction that will be resolved when the oppressed revolt and overthrow the revolution or when the revolution literally physically exterminates sufficient numbers of oppressed to prevent them from revolting, which will inevitably lead to external humanitarian interventions, this overthrowing the revolution.
I definitely agree, I just feel that the class consciousness part should come first before expanding the discussion to a specific type of oppression because like you said that’s the stem of many issues. Corporate media loves to just pick the flowers and misdirect people from the root. I guess what I’m really against is the people who twist intersectionality to not include class, not the people who are fooled.
Good starting point.
Feels and shoulds. I hope you can find the humility to understand that there are people being stalked and murdered over these issues literally right now and that your feelings about what “should” be done are more than irrelevant to their trauma and their oppression.
All oppression everywhere is both different and the same. It must all be addressed together. We have learned this throughout the last 100 years of struggle, and the most marginalized of us have known it for far longer. If you require resolution of one lifelong struggle before even acknowledging the validity of other struggles, you are more than simply telling people to wait, you are perpetuating oppression because it is convenient.
This is a problem with propaganda, not with intersectionality. Do not aim your derision at the struggle of the oppressed, aim it squarely at the corporate media for exploiting the struggle of the oppressed to protect the bourgeoisie.
Precisely. And dialectically, we can see that those who are fooled while still being oppressed are fooled precisely because of the nature of their oppression, we can see that this nature of their oppression stems from the common root of class war, and we can see that denying people the legitimacy of their real struggle against oppression while wearing the hammer and sickle does not create the mass movement required to succeed. We can also see that acknowledging their struggle and learning about their oppression enables us to enrich our theory which we can then test in our practice by engaging in mutual aid and mutual defense, solidarity on the ground and in propaganda, and in the defense against and ultimate dismantling of oppressive systems.
We cannot wait, for if we wait, we starve ourselves of the necessary experiences that drive praxis, and we will build the revolution on false assumptions about the world, about our comrades, and about ourselves, and these contradictions will almost assuredly result in a failed revolution.
When I say feel I’m taking inspiration from mao running around china liberating peasants and abolishing the feudal culture (foot binding etc. ikyk). Without the class consious peasant army nothing could’ve been done. The people being stalked and murdered for their sexuality today can’t be helped under capitalism either. I also don’t think addressing class before other opressions means that other opressions aren’t being addressed at all or that we should completly win the class war before addressing other opressions. I especially think that Marxism and material analysis is the best framework to apply to one’s personal experiences
For example, I’d rather explain marx before queer theory to someone in that community as they can then apply marx to their own opression and empethize with other types of opression. They also don’t need me to explain queer theory as it’s something they live but that’s basically my point.
To clarify, my social “conservatism” is more anti ultra and western leftist (radlibs) and not a desire to go back to the 50s. I also see China and the DPRK who lean on culture and some nationalism to rally their people. The US labor movement has a long history and diverse culture that we should be proud to be a part of.
Liberals hyperfocus on identity issues because they cannot talk about class within the framework of a systemic critique of capitalism. The system is sacrosanct for them and in order to compensate and distract from their failures to materially improve the lives of the working class they over-emphasize and exaggerate their achievements in the cultural sphere. In reality actual progressive cultural achievements by liberalism have been extremely few and far between, and more tangible progress was achieved in terms of things like women’s liberation, anti-racism, etc. in revolutionary societies like the USSR and the People’s Republic of China within the span of the first few years of their existence than liberalism has achieved in decades. And most of the social progress in the West has benefited the well-off upper-middle class and above, while poor, working class women, people of color and LGBT people to name just a few groups, are still disproportionately victimized by the capitalist system. Even today while the US is backsliding heavily in terms of women’s reproductive rights and falling into anti-trans hysteria, China is quietly making steady progress on LGBT issues. It is clear only a revolutionary socialist system can achieve true liberation for all marginalized groups, and conversely only by allying with the most marginalized in our society - who are naturally the most revolutionary and the most aware of and opposed to the system that oppresses them - can we build a revolutionary movement rooted in the entire working class, not one divided against itself by various bigotries. Remember that bigotry serves an important function of social control for the ruling class.