Kasu wrote:So by aligning yourself with the bourgeoisie to fight against a specific groups oppression? By aligning yourself with the petty-bourgeois groups, the black nationalists, the feminists, the gay rights activists, who all align themselves with the bourgeoisie of the same race, gender, and sexuality. It's reactionary.
Who said anything about aligning yourself with the bourgeoisie? Yes there certainly are many identity-oriented groups out there that are liberal organization, but there are also many labor groups out there that share the same liberal ideology. That doesn't mean that when "radicals" also acknowledge that groups need to be looked at for their specific conditions of oppression some times thus makes those radicals liberal somehow.
There certainly are groups who fight for the bourgeoisie who engage in identity politics. And some anti-racist groups and feminist groups will point out who even ruling class women/people of color are portrayed in the media as problematic, and that will either lead them to ally themselves with the ruling classes, or just use certain kinds of portrayals/social customs/norms as examples of how deep certain prejudices are.
Most of the feminists and anti-racists I know are also anti-capitalists and certainly don't align themselves with the ruling classes. I can see how you think that identity politics (which itself is a loaded term and I'm not necessarily arguging for a move to identity politics mind you) would lead some to that direction, and perhaps it does. But it certainly doesn't
follow from being a feminist or an anti-racist that one will align themselves with the ruling class.
Eauz wrote:When Vera and I speak of economics at the heart of the oppression, we aren't ignoring historical and cultural conditions. Economics is directly connected to the historical and cultural conditions of certain people. In regard to the way blacks are portrayed, has its roots in the early development of early forms of mercantilism (not capitalism). Culturally, these people were viewed as only capable of performing manual, hard labour positions, nothing related to actual thought. They were sought after for economic goals and the culture of looking down on Africans was developed through this notion that they are only of use to an economy, as would be that of an animal that would perform hard labour (horse and other such animals that push, carry and perform other such tasks). From economics grew other aspects that eventually turned into cultural norms of the time. With the development of more modern forms of capitalism, the concept that one needed slaves was no longer a necessity, because of inventions in the area of means of production, where more could be produced in a shorter time and less cost than it would to have slaves.
And, as a Historical Materialist, I don't disagree with any point here. I don't see where we disagree actually.
Of course ideology is linked to economic development, I certainly do think that economics can explain the
roots of many forms of social oppression.
In regard to women, culturally, they were viewed a members who should stay at home (religion), but the economic roots go deeper into this issue as well. Economically, the structure of the family was based upon the idea that women would deal with the domestic economy (cook, clean, reproduce, care for children), while men were involved in the external economy (hunt, explore). The domestic economy has always been around and continues to exist, even in our present society, unfortunately, the domestic economy is not a paid position, despite the work that it involves. Economically, women are already at a weaker position, because of this difference in roles within society. Branching out from economics, cultures of domestic abuse, rape and unwanted sexual attention develop. The woman in this position is viewed as a weak member of society and should stay at home, be supportive of the man who is the one with money and thus early signs, developed from the seperation of economics, appear and turn into cultural norms that are accepted within society at the time and often continue through history. History is not broken into solid blocks where one moment starts and doesn't affect another moment.
Again, I don't disagree with anything here. I'm not advocating for some kind of liberal version of identity politics, but am just examining whether we, as Marxists, can sometimes not pay attention to specific forms of oppression. While the portrayal of date rape in a film can certainly be traced in certain ways to why something like that would ever be okay in a society to do via an explanation, some women on the left may not feel that just "refer to economic history" is enough for example. This is one of the criticisms of Marx that lead Engels to his writings on the family (not paying attention to things like the role of women).
Strange enough though, capitalism itself has actually helped reduce (in some ways) these cultural norms, not because it really cares for these people and feels bad that they are oppressed, no, it breaks down these social norms, because it requires productive citizens in society. The economy must continue to grow and develop and having the most number of people working in a society is important to a capitalist economy. This is partly why we just accept seeing so many immigrants in our country, not because we love multiculturalism, but because there are jobs out there that aren't being filled (don't want them or don't have enough people) by the domestic population. The unfortunate part though, is that when economies have problems, we often blame foreign workers for taking our jobs or corporations moving jobs overseas. This is just capitalism at work and if you don't like living under capitalism, then change the system. However, this issue is never brought up and we continue to encourage and promote racist / prejudice views often in the worst time of an economy, but again, it boils down to ECONOMICS.
Right, and for example, the dual earner system of family income was already quite well in place by the time of the feminist movement of the late 60s/70s. It certainly was the economic relations that changed in society to make such a movement possible.
No one is suggesting that these things should stay within a socialist society, but what is wrong in your understanding is that by encouraging the fight for a certain social group, it is only creating segments within the social movement that puts importance upon one certain group or a certain number of groups. It is encouraging reactionary ideologies. Equally enough, from my concept of developing socialism, I would imagine the members searching for socialist revolutions would be more interested in the concept of class-in-and-for-itself than it would be interested in whether the ideas they created were liked and would be voted for by women or Asians.
But if women are marganilized in a capitalist society, and that marganilization carries over into culture/media/etc. and after a socialist revolution, these things (like media) are not directly addressed, this can be a problem.
Again, my whole point has been that taking up the cause of having a group make gains within capitalism is not inherently opposed to a movement to build socialism, nor is it inherently reactionary. They certainly
can be reactionary, but there's nothing inherently reactionary about something like feminism for example. (Unless you consider all Marxist Feminism to be reactionary).
Edit for addition:
Here's a good quote from an article posted on the Monthly Review site which gets closer to my point (and it's dealing with feminism): (It's towards the lower middle part of the article)
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0705ehrenreich.phpWhat is Socialist Feminism? by Barbara Ehrenreich wrote:I think most socialist feminists would also agree with the capsule summary of Marxist theory as far as it goes. And the trouble again is that there are a lot of people (I’ll call them “mechanical Marxistsâ€) who do not go any further. To these people, the only “real’’ and important things that go on in capitalist society are those things that relate to the productive process or the conventional political sphere. From such a point of view, every other part of experience and social existence—things having to do with education, sexuality, recreation, the family, art, music, housework (you name it)—is peripheral to the central dynamics of social change; it is part of the “superstructure†or “culture.â€
Socialist feminists are in a very different camp from what I am calling “mechanical Marxists.†We (along with many, many Marxists who are not feminists) see capitalism as a social and cultural totality. We understand that, in its search for markets, capitalism is driven to penetrate every nook and cranny of social existence. Especially in the phase of monopoly capitalism, the realm of consumption is every bit as important, just from an economic point of view, as the realm of production. So we cannot understand class struggle as something confined to issues of wages and hours, or confined only to workplace issues. Class struggle occurs in every arena where the interests of classes conflict, and that includes education, health, art, music, etc. We aim to transform not only the ownership of the means of production, but the totality of social existence.