Are Marxists too reductionist about social oppression? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#1911597
You could apply this same reminder for someone who's just talking about class struggle too. I don't see how this is any sort of defense for reducing all social oppression to the class struggle or ignoring the specifics of a group's oppression, and labeling that attempt to fight it as ideological.


ok Kurt. What is your definition of oppression? How does 'social oppression' differ from 'economic oppression' (if this is, in fact, the dichotomy you are arguing).
The only way I can see identity politics saving itself from the ideological back burner is if it can be reduced to relations to production, but not necessarily class relations. Only in this way can one make the claim that eliminating class distinctions will not eliminate these type of 'group oppressions, by simply making the argument that the relations of production do not disappear under communism. But then, of course, you would need recourse to a particular economic mechanism and some detail and analysis to show this. I stick by my assertion: group identity politics are idealizations of the real, economic condition of men and women and, by this fact, it is ideological and pettit-bourgeois.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#1911856
ok Kurt. What is your definition of oppression? How does 'social oppression' differ from 'economic oppression' (if this is, in fact, the dichotomy you are arguing).
The only way I can see identity politics saving itself from the ideological back burner is if it can be reduced to relations to production, but not necessarily class relations. Only in this way can one make the claim that eliminating class distinctions will not eliminate these type of 'group oppressions, by simply making the argument that the relations of production do not disappear under communism. But then, of course, you would need recourse to a particular economic mechanism and some detail and analysis to show this. I stick by my assertion: group identity politics are idealizations of the real, economic condition of men and women and, by this fact, it is ideological and pettit-bourgeois


Again, the attempt to reduce all forms of social repression to economic relations flat out can be quite problematic. Imagine if in the fight for civil rights, the cultural, social, etc. aspects of racism were not dealt with: i.e. portrayals of blacks in films, tv, magazines, etc. and instead ONLY the economic relations were looked at. This would leave out a lot in the fight for the end of segregation for example. Now of course, fighting against economic exploitation was just as crucial, but that doesn't mean that it's the only aspect of oppression. It also doesn't follow that social/cultural oppression exists outside of economic exploitation: of course not.

But again, you're making the same kind of reduction and turning around and saying that "all identity politics are petite-bourgeois.

This claim isn't very founded, however. There certainly are many liberals who engage in identity politics and aren't aware of economic exploitation or how much it drives history. But you create this dichotomy with your reductionism that paints a framework where you can't fight for black rights, women's rights, etc (and yes even within the framework of capitalism) even though leftists have been doing this in places like America for quite some time.

Explain to me how Marxist Feminism, for example, is pettie-bourgeois.
User avatar
By Kasu
#1913274
You really aren't sure how one can fight against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.? Perhaps you ought to pick up a copy of Zinn's People's History of the United States and read it, that will educate you on how to do so.


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.
User avatar
By Eauz
#1913662
KurtFF8 wrote:But on the same hand, ignoring the historical and cultural conditions of a specific groups oppression when engaging in trying to fight for their liberation is just as problematic. No one is saying that you can only fight the specific oppression of a group or fight the general system itself. That is a false dichotomy, and one that has been brought up throughout history. Getting rid of the new system must take in specific ways in which groups have been oppressed into account, otherwise the new society that replaces that system may suffer some of the same problems (or new problems altogether). It isn't wise to just assume that everything will just fall into place if we achieve socialism.
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.

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.

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.

KurtFF8 wrote:I don't see how fighting racism and sexism directly are harmful for fighting for the rule of the working class. I actually see it as the opposite: the fight for socialism ought to come hand and hand with the fight for the full liberation of women, people of color, etc.
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.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#1913807
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.php

What 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 Marxists”) 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.”

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.
User avatar
By Eauz
#1915520
KurtFF8 wrote: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).
Feminism in its current form is actually very reactionary, since its based upon an ideology that has developed in opposition to another reactionary ideology: chauvinism. It is attempting to place special interest and ideals within the opposite sex (conflict), rather than attempting to resolve the conflict and create a more equal level between the two sexes. Now, I don't mean equal by the idea that men should start having babies and menstrual cycles, but viewing people in terms of humans, not sexes. This is not to suggest though that there have not been any effective forms of feminist movements that attempt to equalise humans as humans, but at present, the majority of feminists have fallen into an ideology (reactionary) of feminism.

Barbara Ehrenreich wrote: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.
I would agree with this point, which would have its roots in the philosophy of class-in-and-for-itself. Most Marxists are seeking to completely transform the totality of social existence, but it is reactionary at best to assume that while this transformation is occurring, we should wonder if the revolution is in agreement with what the store clerk on the corner likes or what the woman wearing the pink dress over there wants. The opinions of these people would be taken into consideration as a whole, within the philosophy of class-in-and-for-itself.

To be fair to you, your point is not incorrect, but misplaced. The interests of those in society who are currently oppressed in cultural terms is a concern in one form, but if we are segregating the populations within a struggle, you are only creating conflict and destruction of any early attempt to progress towards socialism. Will these issues be solves tomorrow or even after the revolution, probably not, but as even Ms. Ehrenreich explains herself, the goals is to completely transform the totality of social existence, which would come with time, as long as the goals of the revolution are as she has suggested.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#1915755
Feminism in its current form is actually very reactionary, since its based upon an ideology that has developed in opposition to another reactionary ideology: chauvinism. It is attempting to place special interest and ideals within the opposite sex (conflict), rather than attempting to resolve the conflict and create a more equal level between the two sexes. Now, I don't mean equal by the idea that men should start having babies and menstrual cycles, but viewing people in terms of humans, not sexes. This is not to suggest though that there have not been any effective forms of feminist movements that attempt to equalise humans as humans, but at present, the majority of feminists have fallen into an ideology (reactionary) of feminism.


You and the others here seem to be talking about Feminism quite wrongly. It isn't a single ideology that we can make generalizations about. There are many different feminisms and to say that feminism itself is reactionary is quite false and doesn't really have much substance.

You seem to be promoting this idea that it is somehow at conflict with Marxism or a socialist development, when clearly many people disagree with this.

Yes there are still liberal feminists and some may be reactionary and ideological, but to lump all feminism into such a category is a mistake.

I would agree with this point, which would have its roots in the philosophy of class-in-and-for-itself. Most Marxists are seeking to completely transform the totality of social existence, but it is reactionary at best to assume that while this transformation is occurring, we should wonder if the revolution is in agreement with what the store clerk on the corner likes or what the woman wearing the pink dress over there wants. The opinions of these people would be taken into consideration as a whole, within the philosophy of class-in-and-for-itself.


But understanding the sexes and why there are vast inequalities is quite important to understanding how the class system itself works. While gender is technically a social construct, sexual inequality that arises from the social relations generated by that ideology are quite real and quite intertwined with the class struggle.

The interests of those in society who are currently oppressed in cultural terms is a concern in one form, but if we are segregating the populations within a struggle, you are only creating conflict and destruction of any early attempt to progress towards socialism.


This is certainly a danger in being something like a feminist but that doesn't necessarily follow from it.

Will these issues be solves tomorrow or even after the revolution, probably not, but as even Ms. Ehrenreich explains herself, the goals is to completely transform the totality of social existence, which would come with time, as long as the goals of the revolution are as she has suggested.


Right, and this is why most feminists who are leftists and anti-capitalists don't view the struggle for the liberation of women as the "totality of the movement" or anything like that. They understand that the class struggle is a real thing and that working class rule is a desirable outcome (and necessary) (at least socialist feminists do). So of course they support the full transformation of social existence, I don't see where this would be inconsistent with being a feminist.
User avatar
By Eauz
#1916452
KurtFF8 wrote:You and the others here seem to be talking about Feminism quite wrongly. It isn't a single ideology that we can make generalizations about. There are many different feminisms and to say that feminism itself is reactionary is quite false and doesn't really have much substance.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I've posted. Even you quoted me as saying This is not to suggest though that there have not been any effective forms of feminist movements that attempt to equalise humans as humans. Indeed, there are a number of progressive thinking feminists out there, but for the most part they are drowned out by those ideas of the Bourgeois and radical feminists who promote opposite ideologies with regard to the feminist movement that are similar to the concept of women should rule and be in power, women are the best and men have controlled women for too long, style of reactionary ideology. Again, I am well aware of socialist feminists that exist, but their concept of progress for feminism is ignored by the majority of females within society.

KurtFF8 wrote:Right, and this is why most feminists who are leftists and anti-capitalists don't view the struggle for the liberation of women as the "totality of the movement" or anything like that. They understand that the class struggle is a real thing and that working class rule is a desirable outcome (and necessary) (at least socialist feminists do). So of course they support the full transformation of social existence, I don't see where this would be inconsistent with being a feminist.
The point I was trying to make here was that what the majority of these issues boil down to is economics. What I can extract from your argument is that you're worried that the same culture of oppressing women will only continue within a socialist society, unless we fight against this style of oppression now. However, I don't see this as being an issue, at least in the long-term. If, as we both agree, a large number of these issues are linked to the development of economics in its origin, then the elimination of said economic policies would see some form of healing with regard to the current culture related to rape and sexual abuse. Again, I want to remind you that I don't think that instantly will we see a drop to zero rapes and absolute respect for all humans as people, not commodities, but I do believe that creating a new culture from the start of a socialist society will help heal the wounds.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#1919750
I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I've posted. Even you quoted me as saying This is not to suggest though that there have not been any effective forms of feminist movements that attempt to equalise humans as humans. Indeed, there are a number of progressive thinking feminists out there, but for the most part they are drowned out by those ideas of the Bourgeois and radical feminists who promote opposite ideologies with regard to the feminist movement that are similar to the concept of women should rule and be in power, women are the best and men have controlled women for too long, style of reactionary ideology. Again, I am well aware of socialist feminists that exist, but their concept of progress for feminism is ignored by the majority of females within society.


Well the argument that just because liberal feminists and feminists who ally with the ruling class can harm a movement can hold for the labor movement in general too (in terms of social democratic and reformist actors). This is a issue of strategy of revolution socialists more than anything else.

Socialist Feminists obviously don't argue for female domination or rule, but instead argue for gender equality, which obviously Marxists assume is a goal as well.

The point I was trying to make here was that what the majority of these issues boil down to is economics. What I can extract from your argument is that you're worried that the same culture of oppressing women will only continue within a socialist society, unless we fight against this style of oppression now. However, I don't see this as being an issue, at least in the long-term. If, as we both agree, a large number of these issues are linked to the development of economics in its origin, then the elimination of said economic policies would see some form of healing with regard to the current culture related to rape and sexual abuse. Again, I want to remind you that I don't think that instantly will we see a drop to zero rapes and absolute respect for all humans as people, not commodities, but I do believe that creating a new culture from the start of a socialist society will help heal the wounds.


I don't disagree that economics is not the root of these issues. I think that you certainly can explain something like justifying date rape in a film to the historical development of the ideology of the role of women and that to understand that development, one needs to look at economics. That doesn't mean that the only focus needs to be economics. I refer again to the article I posted earlier.

And yes I do think that there could be problems that spill over in a socialist society, just as there can be problems with workers and their relation to production if the revolution goes awry. But the point of a socialist society is that the masses truly have power and can deal with these things directly, and looking at the position of certain groups can be beneficial in some cases. This is neither reactionary or "liberal"
By Ademir
#13076669
When people talk about focusing on class only, what exactly are you trying to say? That we should do this until the establishment of socialism, and then switch to fighting other issues, or that socialism necessarily entails an end to other forms of oppression?

If it's the latter, I'm not sure I understand. Why do we assume that socialism will be specially free of gender or race oppression, for example? It's clear that economics lies at the root of other social factors, but the elimination of one type of oppression does not mean the automatic (or even eventual) elimination of other types. Sexism has persisted through all historical stages, and Engels even said that it is older than class oppression. Why should we assume that this will change under socialism? Rather, issues of gender correspond and are inextricably linked to issues of class; but this can take many forms. Look at capitalism: it presided over some of the most brutal periods of sexism, but also over a period of comparative liberty for women, and definitely more liberty than they have ever had before. Why should we assume that socialism will be entirely different? Perhaps the fight for gender equality will continue after socialist construction, and later periods will achieve the goal while earlier periods, while perhaps better than capitalism for women, will pale in comparison to the later gains made.

I think what Kurt is trying to say is that socialism is necessary but not sufficient for ending other forms of oppression. I am inclined to agree. I think it's ridiculous to assume that sexism as a totality will vanish under socialism without actually fighting it. It will probably be greatly diminished - class equality will encourage better relations among all humans - but I don't see it ending entirely, because it's not specific to capitalism. Rather, a particular FORM of gender oppression, or expression of it, may end. As I said before, sexism has transcended all modes of production thus far. What has changed is its form, at times more intense, at times (such as now), a lot better for women than before.

Of course, you may present a convincing argument for socialism necessarily entailing an end to other forms of oppression if there is one. I would be interested to hear of it. As it stands, I believe that socialism is the only mode capable of ending other forms of oppression because as long as class oppression exists, so will other forms. Ending those forms begins with ending the "root" oppression, much as the surest way to fell a building is to destroy its foundations. But it does not necessarily follow that just by destroying the foundations, elements of the upper parts won't survive in some form. Socialism will need to destroy the totality of the old order if it is to end all of its oppressions.

Now, if we mean that we should focus on class only until the socialist revolution and then switch to other issues, I can see pragmatic reasons for this, as it may indeed be reactionary otherwise. But again, will it be necessarily reactionary? I think Kurt has a good point: it may be possible to form a revolutionary strategy which avoids these pitfalls.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13105437
but instead argue for gender equality, which obviously Marxists assume is a goal as well.


Absolutely not. Gender equality is not a goal of marxism. Gender analysis or categorization never enters the marxist lexicon because it has no relevance. This would assume, then, that there are different 'types' of bourgeoisie other than economics (examples, financial, industrial, etc) and, instead, insert a new categorization of a somewhat 'opressed' brouegoisie. So 'minority' bourgeoisie or 'female' bourgeoisie have some measurable instance of systematic oppression outside of economics relationships. This would be absurd, I would not go so far as to say a black bourgeois is oppressed or that a female bourgeouis is opressed. It makes no sense.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13105520
Absolutely not. Gender equality is not a goal of marxism. Gender analysis or categorization never enters the marxist lexicon because it has no relevance. This would assume, then, that there are different 'types' of bourgeoisie other than economics (examples, financial, industrial, etc) and, instead, insert a new categorization of a somewhat 'opressed' brouegoisie. So 'minority' bourgeoisie or 'female' bourgeoisie have some measurable instance of systematic oppression outside of economics relationships. This would be absurd, I would not go so far as to say a black bourgeois is oppressed or that a female bourgeouis is opressed. It makes no sense.


This is absurd. Ignoring gender is not something that is "of no relevance" to Marxists, I would say it's quite the opposite actually. Gender oppression certainly exists and as I was saying earlier in the thread: is a specific form of social oppression. For example, the domestic division of labor has been quite gendered under capitalism and continues, to a large extent, to be. This isn't just a question/issue for liberals but is certainly one for Marxists to take up as well (read the article I posted earlier entitled "What is Socialist Feminism")

And the point of being a Marxist AND a Feminist is that you understand class struggle ALONG WITH gender oppression. As for oppression within the bourgeoisie: it's certainly not the case that gender equality has been fully reached within bourgeois culture: for example abortion rights are not an issue just for the working classes. Although working class women are much more negatively affected by gender oppression under capitalism than bourgeois women of course. This is something that mainly only socialist feminists actually take into account and something liberal feminists don't take too seriously.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13105834
For example, the domestic division of labor has been quite gendered under capitalism and continues, to a large extent, to be.


Two things:
(1) Capitalism has gone a long way to erode the gender distinction between the public and private spheres. More specifically, since the late 1960s, hordes of women were thrown into the public labor force. What you speak of exists only in upper middle class families (mostly pettit bourgeoisie) and has no relevance to the majority of the working classes. Working women don't care about 'social oppression' in the guise of domestic labor vs. public labor, because many had to work at young ages and are not housewives. I was raised in a "broken home", do you think my single mother gave a shit about feminism in this specific instance? In fact, she hates feminism and always has.

(2) Regardless if it is gender specific or not, the problem is the particular division of that labor. (or perhaps its not a problem, who knows) That is, it is the distinction between domestic and social production that is constitutive of 'social' or 'class' division that is problematic, but then again this is a minor if not entirely non-existent issue in the present state of capitalist society. Trust me, if a woman can stay home instead of work, the family is doing alright - or living in poverty (but this would force the woman to work).

My point is simple, 'gender oppression' is the idealization of a concrete economic instance of oppression. Whether it is gender specific, sexual specific or race specific is IRRELEVANT because oppression is an ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13106471
(1) Capitalism has gone a long way to erode the gender distinction between the public and private spheres. More specifically, since the late 1960s, hordes of women were thrown into the public labor force. What you speak of exists only in upper middle class families (mostly pettit bourgeoisie) and has no relevance to the majority of the working classes. Working women don't care about 'social oppression' in the guise of domestic labor vs. public labor, because many had to work at young ages and are not housewives. I was raised in a "broken home", do you think my single mother gave a shit about feminism in this specific instance? In fact, she hates feminism and always has.


Women were thrown into the public labor since the early 60s/late 50s actually, significantly pre-dating the feminist movement in America.

Your claim that working class women don't experience social oppression is quite absurd. For example, abortion and reproductive rights is an issue that affects working women far more than it affects middle class women (just look at the experience of working women of color for example).

And women as domestic laborers in the division of family labor has indeed been significantly eroded by capitalism in places like America, of course. Not even liberal feminist movements of the 70s are concerned with this.

(2) Regardless if it is gender specific or not, the problem is the particular division of that labor. (or perhaps its not a problem, who knows) That is, it is the distinction between domestic and social production that is constitutive of 'social' or 'class' division that is problematic, but then again this is a minor if not entirely non-existent issue in the present state of capitalist society. Trust me, if a woman can stay home instead of work, the family is doing alright - or living in poverty (but this would force the woman to work).


I don't even see the point here. Of course the problem is the class/social division (the two cannot be completely separated of course.) Your points seem to be more along the lines of: "gender problems exist only in middle class and upper class circles" which is just false.

My point is simple, 'gender oppression' is the idealization of a concrete economic instance of oppression. Whether it is gender specific, sexual specific or race specific is IRRELEVANT because oppression is an ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP.


To say that race and sexual questions are irrelevant is quite absurd. It's quite difficult to understand the class society of America without pointing exactly to how RELEVANT things like race and gender have been in the oppression/exploitation of the working class.

Your solution seems to be: just ignore race and gender because once capitalism is gone, socialism will automatically fix these issues. Which itself is quite a problematic stance (unless of course you think that is not a fair characteristic of your stance).
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13106693
Your claim that working class women don't experience social oppression is quite absurd.


"gender problems exist only in middle class and upper class circles" which is just false.


You've misunderstood me. Of course working class women have many issues about abortion and such. I know this from personal experience (i.e. my own mother and grandmother). I don't know what "social class" you've experiences, be it middle or what have you but it has been my experience that women with this particular issue do not view it as a female issue at all, but as an economic one. Issues of abortion and such, as you speak, are a large problem with working class women, but that's because they're working class, not because of a particular gender. Without class, this is a non-issue. This is my point. I am in no way arguing that working class women, as men, don't experience 'social oppression', what I am saying is that their oppression is class specific, NOT gender specific.

To say that race and sexual questions are irrelevant is quite absurd. It's quite difficult to understand the class society of America without pointing exactly to how RELEVANT things like race and gender have been in the oppression/exploitation of the working class.


The only way I am able to illustrate my point is by reference to statistics. Let's take the 'black' example. You propose that in order to understand oppression, one must somehow synthesize 'race' as a category within the broader notion of 'opression'. By extension, a 'black' working class member of society would be, by definition, more oppressed than a white working class member of society (assuming we are in the United States). I don't agree with this conclusion but more specifically I want to point out the UNECESSARY addition of 'race' as a component of 'oppression' which makes it an 'idealized' form of 'opression', and by idealized I only mean a non-economic expression of an oppressive relationship.
Given this, let's take the counter-argument (mine), one which can understand 'oppression' only in economic terms but also explain the relationship between race and gender to class oppression. Back to the 'black' example in America. On average, a 'black' person has a higher statistical probability of being a member of the working class than a non-black member of society. Period. On average, a women has a higher statistical probability of being a member of the working class than a male member of society. Period. Why? Let's say its racism and sexism. Racism and sexism is oppressive if AND ONLY IF its target has, because of such racism or sexism, a higher probability of being a member of the lower classes of a particular society.
To conflate it more than this simply adds idealist elements to oppression that are non-economic specific and makes oppression a psycho-social state and in order to elucidate such an argument one would need to elucidate some type of 'humanist' theory. Plus, your account is problematic because there is much more social dichotomies that 'white' and 'black'. And example would be the epidemiological and historical root of the racist slur 'guinea' against Italians. 'Guinea' reffered to 'Papa new Guinea' which alluded to Italians being 'Black'. Italians were, historically, the second most likely to be lynched after blacks. We can also go into Irish social history in America or whatever other immigrant minority you prefer. Race and gender is irrelevant in the sense that it is not an empirical category of oppression, it is only useful in so far as it can guage a statistical probability of a particular individual belonging to an underprivileged strata of society.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13106763
You've misunderstood me. Of course working class women have many issues about abortion and such. I know this from personal experience (i.e. my own mother and grandmother). I don't know what "social class" you've experiences, be it middle or what have you but it has been my experience that women with this particular issue do not view it as a female issue at all, but as an economic one. Issues of abortion and such, as you speak, are a large problem with working class women, but that's because they're working class, not because of a particular gender. Without class, this is a non-issue. This is my point. I am in no way arguing that working class women, as men, don't experience 'social oppression', what I am saying is that their oppression is class specific, NOT gender specific.


Well it seems you're making the claim that oppression cannot be class AND gender specific then. For example, reproductive issues affect working class women differently than they affect men. There is also an entire ideology behind the oppression of specific social groups like racial groups and gender groups, which is what has lead many leftists to counter these issues directly. There's nothing that runs against working class liberation to also be a feminist, and I would argue that it's actually important to take up issues of race and gender, because the assumption that socialism will lead to some sort of "automatic" liberation of all races and classes could certainly lead to problems.

The only way I am able to illustrate my point is by reference to statistics. Let's take the 'black' example. You propose that in order to understand oppression, one must somehow synthesize 'race' as a category within the broader notion of 'opression'. By extension, a 'black' working class member of society would be, by definition, more oppressed than a white working class member of society (assuming we are in the United States). I don't agree with this conclusion but more specifically I want to point out the UNECESSARY addition of 'race' as a component of 'oppression' which makes it an 'idealized' form of 'opression', and by idealized I only mean a non-economic expression of an oppressive relationship.
Given this, let's take the counter-argument (mine), one which can understand 'oppression' only in economic terms but also explain the relationship between race and gender to class oppression. Back to the 'black' example in America. On average, a 'black' person has a higher statistical probability of being a member of the working class than a non-black member of society. Period. On average, a women has a higher statistical probability of being a member of the working class than a male member of society. Period. Why? Let's say its racism and sexism. Racism and sexism is oppressive if AND ONLY IF its target has, because of such racism or sexism, a higher probability of being a member of the lower classes of a particular society.
To conflate it more than this simply adds idealist elements to oppression that are non-economic specific and makes oppression a psycho-social state and in order to elucidate such an argument one would need to elucidate some type of 'humanist' theory. Plus, your account is problematic because there is much more social dichotomies that 'white' and 'black'. And example would be the epidemiological and historical root of the racist slur 'guinea' against Italians. 'Guinea' reffered to 'Papa new Guinea' which alluded to Italians being 'Black'. Italians were, historically, the second most likely to be lynched after blacks. We can also go into Irish social history in America or whatever other immigrant minority you prefer. Race and gender is irrelevant in the sense that it is not an empirical category of oppression, it is only useful in so far as it can guage a statistical probability of a particular individual belonging to an underprivileged strata of society.


I think you're making some great leaps in your reasoning here. To assume that all oppression is ONLY class related ignores the nature and function of social oppression. For example, reproductive rights (which include of course abortion) don't only affect those in the lower class, they affect those in the lower class differently, but not exclusively. For example, abortion issues can extend oppression to middle class and even bourgeois women, but it doesn't follow that feminism is a middle class or bourgeois ideology (as Marxist Feminism would disprove that any way).

Now obviously racism and sexism are themselves based in ideology, and to combat those ideologies with more ideology leads to significant problems. For example the liberal methods of dealing with continued racism and sexism in the US have fallen quite short of achieving full emancipation of those groups. This is why we, as Marxists are here to point out the lack of class analysis and other short comings. But our response shouldn't be "just ignore the problem and fight for class struggle" because that has been the response in the past and lead to many problems. I'm not arguing, by any means, that we should do anything short of fight against the totality of capitalism itself (yes I stole that straight from Zizek actually) but to completely ignore the specific oppression of social groups is just as problematic as a liberal response to social oppression in my opinion.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13108596
Kurt, you've failed to respond to my actual post. You quoted a 'chunk' from my post and actually didn't respond to it at all.

because the assumption that socialism will lead to some sort of "automatic" liberation of all races and classes could certainly lead to problems.


What problems? Race and gender issues are 'oppressive' only in the sense that they lead to a specific economic disadvtange or, if you will, a disadvantage relating to socio-economic CLASS. How else are any things 'oppresive' other than in the sense that they lead to a degradation of one's class?

As to the second chunk of your retort, let me rephrase my argument in a way that you can understand:

(1) I have issued a notion of opression that is economic centric that can explain and include notions of 'race' and 'gender'
(2) I can do the above without referring to any notion of oppression that is 'psycho-social' or humanist.
(3) As regarding number 2, you have failed to explain any notion of oppression that is not economic centric and that is not humanist
(4) Any humanist account of oppression is revisionist
(5) You are or rather your "Marxist-Feminist" argument is (failing any coherent, structural and specific account of oppresion that is not reduced to #2) revisionist (liberal-humanist).

My particular argument stands against all 'Marxist Feminism' without a strict articulation of oppression that isn't reduced to humanism
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13276484
So I'd like to rehash this argument briefly (especially considering I apparently never even responded to the last criticisms directed at my posts).

I wanted to return to this subject (and was going to start a new thread but this one is appropriate enough) because I was reading an article by Paul Patton titled Marxism and Beyond: Strategies of Reterritorialization where he argues that Marxism attempts to be a "totality" of explanation for social structures, leaving no room for things that Marxism cannot itself explain. So for example, he views Feminism as a more specific, localized attempt to explain a plight of a social group that strict class analysis cannot fully explain.

There's one section that I found particularly interesting in the article though:

Paul Patton wrote:One of the ways in which marxism's position as the "master discourse" of human emancipation is maintained is by the tacit privileging of its own perspective in debates with others. Where they are not condemned for failing to respect marxist criteria or assumptions, the positions of feminists, black activists, or environmentalists are reinterpreted in marxist terms, their political and theoretical priorities reordered according to marxism's own causal hierarchy. From the standpoint of those who do not share the commitment to marxism, this is a completely circular process of argument. It is, nevertheless, a powerful technique for enforcing adherence to the faith, commonly deployed, for example, against feminists who take the social relations of patriarch, rather than the social relations of capitalism, as their analytic point of departure. The possibility that both kinds of explanation together might enrich our understanding of society is not entertained: "For historical materialism, causal pluralism cannot be supported."


Now I reject the overall conclusion of Patton's article (it is worth a read though), as he comes to the conclusion that Marxism should cease to become a totality of explanation of discourse. I do, even though you may believe me to be a humanist or a revisionist, still hold historical materialism to be the primary explanatory factor for social oppression/exploitation. The point he brings up that I think is valid, is that things like Feminism do indeed attempt to further explain specifics of social oppression by say gender (in the case of Feminism). This is not necessarily a substitution for a class or historical materialist explanation of how the oppression of women is manifested in a specific way. In the same book that this article appears, Cornel West writes an article about the "Specificity of Afro-American Oppression" where he (although he is not a Marxist) is not willing to give up or substitute historical materialism, but is instead willing to offer cases where the Marxist understanding can be expanded. Just as Gramsci attempted to expand the knowledge of how ideology worked (through his explanation of hegemony, etc.), I believe that Feminisim (if it does what Patton doesn't want it to do: and is reinterpreted in Marxist terms) can do the same for the specific ideological oppression of women.

Again, I don't believe that this is a substitute for historical materialism or a class analysis as you claim I am doing. Patton would, for example, claim that I am just trying to retain the "totality" of Marxism to understand specific social movements and their solutions, and I would agree that I am, but disagree that that's a bad thing.
User avatar
By Donna
#13312883
The problem of feminist, gay rights and anti-racism movements today is that they largely reject the concept that group persecution/oppression is systemic of private property and capitalism itself. They have instead latched on to the bourgeois state in every imaginable way. At some periods feminists, gays and racial liberationists identified with the broader, more epic struggle of the working class over the capitalist class, correctly realizing that group persecution is symptomatic of capital, but this has not been the case since the early 1980's.

Going back to the mention of the conservative mores of many workers, there is no reason to necessarily assume that this will survive after a prolonged period of socialism (and a socialism that has successfully destroyed the bourgeoisie on a global scale), especially if one takes the position that the only culture the proletariat has ever possessed has been one relative to the capitalist mode of production.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13313502
Donald wrote:Going back to the mention of the conservative mores of many workers, there is no reason to necessarily assume that this will survive after a prolonged period of socialism (and a socialism that has successfully destroyed the bourgeoisie on a global scale), especially if one takes the position that the only culture the proletariat has ever possessed has been one relative to the capitalist mode of production.


Well, of course... But it is even more ridiculous to assume that workers will embrace the degenerate culture of liberalism and leftist petty-bourgeois intellectuals. Socialism itself, however, should be the affirmation of working class values over the remnants of bourgeois decadence. The Socialist state is, as such, a conservative state (culturally speaking).

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]