poor leftists talk about poverty, labor aristocrats get uncomfortable and insist that sociological classes aren't materialist. "all that matters is that we're working class - we're all in this together"
black leftists talk about racism, whites get uncomfortable and insist that they're not personally part of the problem. "we mustn't allow the bourgeois to divide the proletariat along racial lines - we're all in this together"
female leftists talk about patriarchy, men get uncomfortable and insist that it hurts them too. "this men vs women stuff is reductive anyway - we're all in this together"
third world leftists talk about imperialism, americoids get uncomfortable and insist that red white and blue lives matter too. "what happened to the international working class - we're all in this together"

you don't have to invite yourself to every form and experience of oppression. anyone with a baby's consciousness of intersectionality ought to be capable of admitting when they have privilege

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Juice@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's a really interesting way of looking at it! I think that the reason they get equated is that the material effect had been historically the same. Patsocs advocate for socialist policies, but ideologically restrict who does and doesn't get the benefit. Class reductionists advocate for socialist policies for all, but when the time comes to redistribute wealth, geez you know we really tried. So like the american socialist movements of the early 20th century, moved popular support for socialism all the way to a New deal. But Black workers were excluded from union membership or any of the benefits of the new deal, until the UAW started admitting black workers in Detroit decades later. So even though the messaging was completely different, the historical effect was the same. If workers have the power to demand truly transformative reforms, like new deal policies, then we have to actually push beyond that because the ruling class is never going to let it go down the way we know it has to. They will always fight back with extreme violence. Anything we win has to be defended and we can only defend it if everyone is on board to defend it, and not everyone will be on board if it leaves most people out. Maybe it wins temporary concessions for some, but we are communists, dammit! It's all or we fighting. Its not enough for the workers to be united. We have to be united in struggle, or we will never get there. At least that's what I think.

[–] LovesAGoodPigRoast@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You're describing patsocs in the 20th century not class reductionist, so I don't believe those historical examples mean those beliefs have the same outcome. If they were solely basing policy on class, black workers would have been admitted solely on the merits of being working class. I think that's where we disagree.

I would say any historical context of exclusion based on race is the exact opposite of a class reductionist because they reduced their beliefs upon a racial identity first. Unless I'm unaware of the party in your example explicitly stating they were class reductionist, I don't believe those to be same thing. The only reason why, even as a black person, I have this line of thinking is because I've seen how effective these so called "concessions" have been to my community. They haven't. Being politically emancipated within this bourgeois, capitalist electorate hasn't done much more than made us feel betrayed, and angry. And I believe race, sex, gender, etc are such weak positions to argue leftism from. I know more and more black people (mostly men) supporting right wing ideology and something close to 40 percent of women (albeit within in the American context) vote for the further right wing party. That is what I hope people understand. Being apart of a marginalized group doesn't mean you're naturally apart of a centralized group, with any sort of political consensus. This is not the same thing as saying "the black situation is unimportant or doesnt need to talked about", it's saying "not all black people are or ever will be leftists/comrades so stop addressing the issue as if we are all political monolith".

[–] Juice@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean that's the challenge, to turn our correct principles into political reality. The left needs people to take the lead, to think differently about old dusty problems, and communicate and discuss and educate. Nothing is easy or straightforward, but its good to have comrades and work for the people

[–] LovesAGoodPigRoast@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

100 percent man. Thanks for the conversation. I have a much better outlook of this site. Probably not the best choice to jump into for my first thread lol.