Are Marxists too reductionist about social oppression? - Page 3 - 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 KurtFF8
#13313506
Well that's certainly one possibility. But the assumption that workers are inherently conservative or inherently progressive is just as ideological as the "ideologies" you claim to be taking a stance against.
User avatar
By Donna
#13313665
VP wrote: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).


In some places the workers loath Marxism as much as their masters, or liberals, or conservatives, or even trade unionists, etc. etc. Do you know how many working men in this world like to get plowed on stout while copulating with casual women at the end of the work week? I think you're making a broad assessment of working class cultures around the world. I doubt the English working class, for example, would be able to reconcile whatever grasp on 'conservatism' they might possess with the conservatism of Asia or the Middle East. A healthy socialist state would unite the workers as a class alone, and spare little time for bourgeois riff raff, whether of liberal or conservative variety.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13313671
Kurt wrote:inherently conservative


I wouldn't say it is inherent (I'm not even sure this would make sense) - I am saying that workers are in reality conservative - only the segments of the working class that have been, under the auspices of the ideological apparatuses of the university, succumb to the cultural degradation of petty-bourgeois intellectualism.

Donald wrote:In some places the workers loath Marxism as much as their masters, or liberals, or conservatives, or even trade unionists, etc. etc.


Donald, you are completely confounding political liberalism and conservatism with cultural conservatism, liberalism or 'progressivism' (if that makes any sense). What workers loath, more than anything - in terms of policies - is the welfare apparatus and the culture associated with lumpenproletarians which exemplifies the same decadent and degraded culture of 'behind the veil' bourgeois society. They also hate immigrants - for understandable reasons.

Donald wrote:I think you're making a broad assessment of working class cultures around the world. I doubt the English working class, for example, would be able to reconcile whatever grasp on 'conservatism' they might possess with the conservatism of Asia or the Middle East. A healthy socialist state would unite the workers as a class alone, and spare little time for bourgeois riff raff, whether of liberal or conservative variety.


Well certainly there will be a difficult if not impossible task of 'reconciling' the cultural mores of various working class groups (nationally speaking). But this only exemplifies the nonsense that is multiculturalism. Socialism should aim at the assimilation to working class cultures and values (of the Western variety) through the systematic eradication of lesser cultures. What culture spawns from the complete reorientation of the world's socio-economic organization is only hypothetical and I do not wish to stoop to utopian-talk. However, in the short-term, a socialist state cannot take a liberal approach to its internationalism; rather it should assert the cultural mores of the dictating working class - and since the working class of Western society has the most developed cultural mores only because it is located in the most economically developed capitalist centres in the world, it is those norms and values that will be asserted.

Donald wrote:Do you know how many working men in this world like to get plowed on stout while copulating with casual women at the end of the work week?


The overwhelming majority do not, and the rate of such decadent behavior decreases proportional to the age and maturity of the worker. I do not deny there is an interaction of culture - and many get influenced and intermingle with elements of lumpenproletariat culture (I've seen this personally) - but this doesn't define the cultural norms of the working class- in fact far from it.
User avatar
By Eauz
#13313678
Vera Politica wrote:I do not deny there is an interaction of culture - and many get influenced and intermingle with elements of lumpenproletariat culture (I've seen this personally) - but this doesn't define the cultural norms of the working class- in fact far from it.
To be fair to Donald, the majority of North America's working-class culture has been eroded by a combination of liberal and lumpenproletariat culture. This is not to suggest that the working-class is non-existent but that their values and goals are being transformed by these two cultures.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13313685
Eauz wrote:To be fair to Donald, the majority of North America's working-class culture has been eroded by a combination of liberal and lumpenproletariat culture. This is not to suggest that the working-class is non-existent but that their values and goals are being transformed by these two cultures.


Well, no doubt this is happening in many portions of the working class, but a very important segment of the urban working class that live outside the gentrified city core but within the periphery of the city (i.e. the inner-city 'ghettos') remains largely unaffected - although this seems to be shifting for the younger people. This segment of the working class is still hostile to immigrants, homosexuals, welfare perks and at least the immigrant quarters are largely family oriented.

Promiscuity is the mark of petty-bourgeois culture in universities and 'behind the veil' bourgeois society as well as the lumpenproletariat segments of society. I agree, however, that this culture is pervading Western society and the working class' cultural mark is being squeezed.
User avatar
By Eauz
#13313703
Vera Politica  wrote:This segment of the working class is still hostile to immigrants, homosexuals, welfare perks and at least the immigrant quarters are largely family oriented.
Two factors involved that create this ideology that is not in any form specifically conservative by nature to the working-class.

(1) Capitalism and the economy - They are obviously going to hate others, no matter who they are, if the others are coming and taking employment opportunities or just aiding towards the lowering of wages in general. This philosophy is ideological and finds itself in reactionary roots (lumpenproletariat culture). Of course the immigrant quarters will be largely family oriented, due to their present environment. They can finally arrive in a country that respects people and living conditions (laughable, but in their opinion true) and want to bring more of their family over to the new country to experience a better life than they had. Again, reactionary roots are the cause of their ideological hatred but is not in any form a natural characteristic of the working-class.

(2)The Environment of Their Existence - The name of the game in the West is money and lifestyle. So the idea that some people are able to cheat the system and get away with great welfare programs from the government while others are struggling to pay bills with two jobs? Again, an ideology constructed from Liberal culture, both in terms of actually being able to continue to have a good job and be supported is only a dream at best. Buying into the idea that if only you work hard and do your best, you'll get what you want is only a philosophy that doesn't pan out in reality. Liberalism has promoted the existence of all sorts of ideologies (such as homosexuality), but it is a form of reactionary philosophy if the working-class assumes that men and not love men in general (non-ideological). I've worked side-by-side with a few homosexuals in a number of the minimum-wage and working-class positions in my life and never thought twice about whether they should exist or not. The concept that it is naturally part of the working-class to oppose the existence of sexual acts is idiocy. This is not to suggest that one should oppose the ideology of homosexuality, but these two concepts are not related.
User avatar
By Donna
#13313722
VP wrote:rather it should assert the cultural mores of the dictating working class - and since the working class of Western society has the most developed cultural mores only because it is located in the most economically developed capitalist centres in the world, it is those norms and values that will be asserted.


I find this incredibly adventurous, if not more so than the seemingly ambitious task of avoiding any positive or negative roles in misogyny, homophobia and racism in a developed socialist state.

This segment of the working class is still hostile to immigrants, homosexuals, welfare perks and at least the immigrant quarters are largely family oriented.


I'm not really sure what you mean by asserting the 'conservative culture' of the working class (well, the Italian/Catholic one that you grew up with in Montreal at least?). It sounds so blood-and-soil mystic for something that looks very abstract and geographically differentiated, even within the West, like the cultures of working people.

Promiscuity is the mark of petty-bourgeois culture in universities and 'behind the veil' bourgeois society as well as the lumpenproletariat segments of society. I agree, however, that this culture is pervading Western society and the working class' cultural mark is being squeezed.


Promiscuity is of no unique creation or feature of the capitalist mode of production and attempting to accuse certain classes of monopolizing promiscuity treads closely to demagoguery and moralization. It has existed under every imaginable system that has preceded capital, whether among exploiter or exploited.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13313973
Eauz, I agree to most of the extent of your analysis. What I need to make clear, however, is that I do not think there is any 'natural' characteristic of the working class, only the ideological component (i.e. the cultural component) that is expressed within the capitalist mode of production by a particular class and, then, who shares in it (so, the working class as a class exemplifies and expresses a particular culture in capitalism and so do other classes - it is common to see, however, particular individuals appropriate cultural mores not exemplified by their class). Thus, there is no 'natural conservativism' of the working class, saying something like this would be unMarxist. However, the working class, in the capitalist mode of production, marks and exemplifies conservative cultural mores - sadly, culture is in the purview of private sphere and has become only a individual market transaction (i.e. multiculturalism - read Neil Bisoondath on this) and so the cultural conventions and status quo of our society is NOT marked by working class values and, so, it is normal to see individuals even within the working class appropriate cultural norms which are not specific to their class nor rooted in their class.

That being said, hostility to welfare perks is actually rooted in the pride of one's work and expressed in the capitalist mode of production in the way that you describe (it is quite normal that this is so). And you are right about the hostility to immigrations, etc. But the fact remains this: the working class does not exemplify leftist values and norms - this is why the nonsense of liberalism does not resonate with them. Communists need to recognize this and need to uphold conservative cultural value while remaining progressive in terms of economic change.
Things like feminism, multiculturalism, etc etc do not resonate with the working class - and this is not the direction we Communists need to be moving in.
Moreover, another thing needs to be said, ALL culture is ideological, including the conservative culture of the working class. Ideology is actually inescapable, even under communism (see Althusser on this - he is dead on on this issue).

Donald wrote:Promiscuity is of no unique creation or feature of the capitalist mode of production and attempting to accuse certain classes of monopolizing promiscuity treads closely to demagoguery and moralization. It has existed under every imaginable system that has preceded capital, whether among exploiter or exploited.


Neither is racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. yet this take on specific characteristics and appropriated by certain segments in every socio-economic organization and, so, are exemplified in different ways. The same is true with promiscuity - promiscuity is sold to the working class it is not exemplified in their class as a cultural norm that emerged from their class. Promiscuity emerges from lumpenproletariat and bourgeois culture and, so, it has been taken on by this culture. "Sex and the City" is a bourgeois phenomena - the vast majority of the working class are not promiscuous, family oriented and faithful to their wives/husbands. In fact, "Sex and the City" resonates only with the youth of the working class, who have not come to exemplify the cultural mores of their class and who are dragged into the cultural marketplace of multicultural, bourgeois degradation. It doesn't resonate, however, with the mature working class.

well, the Italian/Catholic one that you grew up with in Montreal at least?


More specifically in Montreal's east-end - therefore a cultural norm that involved also an interaction with racist tendencies of the Quebecois (but they have largely come to like us ever since the Haitians started arriving in the late 80s). I grew up in a Quebecois working class neighbourhood and my cultural norms are sort of a mish-mash of my Italian and 'Quebecois' upbringing. There was a time in Quebec when the conservative working class values were asserted by the Catholic Church - but since the Quiet Revolution the French have gained positions of influence in business but Quebec (Montreal especially) has succumb to American consumerism and liberal nonsense. Multiculturalism is largely a myth in Montreal - it exists only in the gentrified core where individuals actually do not exemplify any culture of their own but, rather, have assimilated to some odd liberal-consumerist fetish. Actual 'multiculturalism' exists in Montreal's east-end where cultures are preserved through ghettofication - but it is hardly the Mosaic of the Canadian myth, it is poor, racist, hostile and violent - and being largely working class nearly all of its members (whether Haitian, Italian, Quebecois or Arab) are largely conservative.

I am not making any moral claims, I am only speaking about reality. This is why many Communists do not resonate with the working class - they are seen as kin to liberal and other leftists degenerates, so they mostly tune out and miss the core of Marxist analysis (which they largely agree with, although they do not know it).

So my point is simply this: there is no such thing as 'cultural progress' or 'progressive culture' - in the sense that the cultural norm of pettit-bourgeois intellectualism is not indicative of progress nor of the movement toward socialism (i.e. feminism, environmentalism, queer rights, multiculturalism, etc.). One can be progressive but hold on to what we call 'conservative values', at least in the way they are exemplified by the working class. We have no idea what culture will look like under communism - but it will hardly be this 'progressive' nonsense spewed by liberal-Marxists.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13314256
I wouldn't say it is inherent (I'm not even sure this would make sense) - I am saying that workers are in reality conservative - only the segments of the working class that have been, under the auspices of the ideological apparatuses of the university, succumb to the cultural degradation of petty-bourgeois intellectualism.


Sounds like something a tea-partyer in the US would say. It of course ignores significant historical developments where pockets of US workers helped fight against things like racism and end segregation.

Of course you'll probably be quick to cite that there were some racist unions and that there was some racism from below, which is of course true. But the fact is that those anti-racist workers were not just "under the auspices of the ideological apparatuses of the university"

That's such a simplistic reduction that ignores reality and is quite idealist itself.
User avatar
By Donna
#13315600
VP wrote:In fact, "Sex and the City" resonates only with the youth of the working class, who have not come to exemplify the cultural mores of their class and who are dragged into the cultural marketplace of multicultural, bourgeois degradation. It doesn't resonate, however, with the mature working class.


I get what you're saying, that many of the working class are conservative, but I question how relevant this really is when Marxism itself is loathed by workers in some (if not many) developed countries (especially Canada). I doubt we can seriously imagine the specifics of the politics of every nation's working class when they go from hostility toward Marxism to participation in violent revolution.

So my point is simply this: there is no such thing as 'cultural progress' or 'progressive culture' - in the sense that the cultural norm of pettit-bourgeois intellectualism is not indicative of progress nor of the movement toward socialism (i.e. feminism, environmentalism, queer rights, multiculturalism, etc.). One can be progressive but hold on to what we call 'conservative values', at least in the way they are exemplified by the working class. We have no idea what culture will look like under communism - but it will hardly be this 'progressive' nonsense spewed by liberal-Marxists.


Denying that there is a 'progressive culture', as you define it in contrast to the 'conservative culture' you claim exists, does not make much sense nor do you really explain it as such except to label "feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, multiculturalism" (specifically these?) as bourgeois. You appear to be misunderstanding or moralizing the capitalist mode of production if you associate 'feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, multiculturalism' with modern liberalism and petite-bourgeois intellectualism. Are you aware at all what role technological advances and expanding productive forces have played in culture and society? Whether it is woman's rights, environmentalism, gay rights or even multiculturalism, a materialist concept of history reveals the precise 'cultural' and socioeconomic role that they possess. You speak of decadence, yet the expansion of the forces of production has put decadence at your finger tips (internet porn, Sex and the City, etc.)
User avatar
By Eauz
#13315774
Vera Politica wrote:But the fact remains this: the working class does not exemplify leftist values and norms - this is why the nonsense of liberalism does not resonate with them. Communists need to recognize this and need to uphold conservative cultural value while remaining progressive in terms of economic change.
Things like feminism, multiculturalism, etc etc do not resonate with the working class - and this is not the direction we Communists need to be moving in.
But why pander to a reactionary philosophy of a part of society that is not actually a cultural value in-and-of-itself but a socially constructed cultural value? It seems as if you're suggesting that we resort to conservatuve cultural values just to ensure that we can please a certain group in the population. Maybe for propaganda purpose, this would be useful but Marxists are supposed to support a more progressive path of developing a society beyond capitalism and the idea that we should choose between liberal cultural values and conservative cultural values just to hope for the support of a certain number of people is illogical. Both cultural values SHOULD be knocked down with socialist cultural values. Just because liberalism has turned Marxism/communism/socialism into this evil monster through propaganda does not mean we should pander to another definition just to gain temporary support.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13315879
Eauz wrote:But why pander to a reactionary philosophy of a part of society that is not actually a cultural value in-and-of-itself but a socially constructed cultural value? It seems as if you're suggesting that we resort to conservatuve cultural values just to ensure that we can please a certain group in the population. Maybe for propaganda purpose, this would be useful but Marxists are supposed to support a more progressive path of developing a society beyond capitalism and the idea that we should choose between liberal cultural values and conservative cultural values just to hope for the support of a certain number of people is illogical. Both cultural values SHOULD be knocked down with socialist cultural values. Just because liberalism has turned Marxism/communism/socialism into this evil monster through propaganda does not mean we should pander to another definition just to gain temporary support.


I understand Eauz, but this isn't about pandering at all. I am conservative and my cultural values stemmed from a working class upbringing. Working class individuals do not associate with so called 'progressive values' or liberal policies - so my point is simply that this fact alone should be enough to discourage liberal Marxists. Everything else I've said simply stems from the culture in which I was raised and still live so it is ideological rubbish - but still working class rubbish.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13315938
Working class individuals do not associate with so called 'progressive values' or liberal policies - so my point is simply that this fact alone should be enough to discourage liberal Marxists. Everything else I've said simply stems from the culture in which I was raised and still live so it is ideological rubbish - but still working class rubbish.


Again, I'm having trouble accepting your blanket assessment that the working class is "just conservative." There are segments of the working class that are very progressive as well (e.g. within certain unions). You seem to hold the opinion that those progressive elements are just somehow being "duped" by liberal intellectuals, which is an absurd position.

There are obviously segments of the working class that are quite conservative and even reactionary, but that doesn't mean that the working class is inherently reactionary or conservative. History has demonstrated this to be false time and time again.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13315971
Kurt wrote:blanket assessment that the working class is "just conservative."


I'm not sure I made such a statement. What I did say was that the working class is overwhelming conservative - and I think this is fairly obvious in the blue-collar segments and industrial neighborhoods. Now I am, in no way, claiming conservative = reactionary. I do not think the working class is reactionary at all. I think, once again, there is a conceptual confusion here - or perhaps it has to do with the way in which I treat 'conservatism'. In particular, what I am reacting against is the younger 'leftist' 'liberal-Marxist' values - and by this I don't limit myself to theory but, rather, lifestyle. Drugs, promiscuity, etc. - this is overwhelmingly associated with the young 'radical left' who then think that certain cultural values are associated with Marxism (i.e. abortion, feminism, environmentalism, etc.). Now this is all vague, but I think that Marxist theorists should move toward a 'working class realism' in order to purge the intellectual decay of the current leftist trends and tendencies.

Put another way, the individuals of the working class in North America that are class conscious (i.e. consider themselves 'working class' rathert than 'middle class' or 'white collar' or whatever other off-hat distinction used to disassociate one's self from the working class) tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Thus, there are many segments of the working class which are not class conscious and it tends to be these segments which hark on 'gender equality in the workplace' and whatever other haphazard nonsense that is taken up in union dialogue today.
User avatar
By Eauz
#13316229
VP, please define working-class, because as it stands, I am lost. I know numerous working-class people who are doing much better off than myself, have a house and a car. I'm just renting an apartment and riding a bus to work.

It appears to me that you've attempting to define your own situation and suggest that that equals the values of the working-class. The values of working-class are the social constructs of capitalist society. I know Potemkin will question me again, but for the most part, as it stands now, the working-class is a reactionary class in North America. It's goals are rooted in two reactionary concepts, that of libertarianism (welfarism, stop taxing me, etc.) and that of liberalism. None of these are desirable for Socialism but that is the truth.

Cutting and pasting personal values into the picture and suggesting these are the values of the working-class is idiocy. I just don't see why it would be important to pander towards a group of individuals values and build our utopian revolution around that. I know it sounds elitist of me but come on, it sounds as if you're supporting Anarchist goals of let the workers decide nonsense, when you can't extract the workers from the socio-economic structure of society.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13316313
Eauz wrote:VP, please define working-class


I guess I am referring to the working class that is class conscious - that is, the working class that is proud to call itself a working class. And yes, you are right, it does seem that I am describing my situation - but my experience has been this. I grew up in such a class conscious environment, i.e. within a culture that was proud to identify itself as a working class and my experience has been, so far, that such segments of the working class are quite conservative.

Now, again, I am not saying that we should 'pander' to this segment and belittle ourselves. What I am saying, however, is that it is nonsense to appropriate the cultural values from so called young 'Marxists' and project them in any 'revolutionary front'. The progressive thinking of Marxists, thus, need not be associated with so called 'progressive' or 'enlightened' cultural norms.

There are certain things which are a detriment to the class-conscious working culture - i.e. its disdain for intellectual pursuits and the intellegentsia in general. However, as much as these class conscious workers have to learn from Marxists, these young Marxists these days have a lot to learn from these workers.
User avatar
By Eauz
#13316602
Vera Politica wrote:I guess I am referring to the working class that is class conscious - that is, the working class that is proud to call itself a working class.
In what way are they proud of themselves, compared to others? What distinguishes themselves from others of the same class? Are you suggesting that I'm not proud of myself or the class I'm part of? In reality, you've got to live within your environment and trying to sustain oneself and develop oneself is an equally important part of the working-class. As I've told you in a PM, I'm actually in the process of looking for a second job (part-time) to go along with my full-time job because of the rise in cost of living and the need to support my family. But I don't come from working-class roots (petty-bourgeois) but have become a member of the working-class.

What distinguishes the specific class your speaking of from the rest of the working-class? Is it that we have bought more into pop-culture and they haven't?
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13316628
Eauz wrote:What distinguishes the specific class your speaking of from the rest of the working-class? Is it that we have bought more into pop-culture and they haven't?


The distinction in North America is often evident. This particular segment of the working class differentiates itself from the rest of the working class by identifying themselves as a working class. This is why we often see it in the conservative, blue-collar segments of society. Other segments (often the white-collar) identify themselves as 'middle class' or, being white-collar, differentiate themselves from the 'working class' merely for their use of intellectual labor power (this is no longer true, as many portions of white-collar work have become more automated and drone-like than factory work) which they distinguish from manual labor.

My father, for example, has worked in the same factory since he was 16 years old (when he started part-time on and off). He is now 54 and rose to the highest level permitted for non-highschool graduates (he is a production foreman, only one spot removed from the general worker). Still, this job makes him work alongside general workers and the foremen share an office on the production floor itself. This is distinct from the 'white-collar' segment which is relatively new and who have offices outside of the production area and who make double the salary and determine production quotas, etc. etc. His team, however, is - more and more- acquiring engineers instead of young 'unskilled' laborers and these engineers who technically worker 'under' my father make substantially more than him (they have starting salaries around 60-70k). This formed a sort of 'working culture' that distinguished itself from the 'white collars' who consider themselves separate from the production process itself. Perhaps it was this that made my father proud to call himself 'working class' and was always insulted by the 'middle class' label (he considered these people to be the white-collar sort or workers with revenue property - this is wrong but it gives an idea of the sort of ideas workers have). I saw this type of thinking across segments of the blue-collar workforce.

This type of culture is an odd one. It either resents intellectual ambition or it forces schooling on their children but then resents their intellect.

Someone had posted a video that captured this quite well:
Working Class Playwright
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13316735
It seems here that you're making some odd typology where blue-collar workers have class consciousness and where white-collar workers seem to be trapped into a form of false consciousness.

Also your definitions of culture and the way in which you're using the term seem to ignore the rigorous analysis of working class consciousness and culture itself by Marxists over the past few decades.

I have a hard time following your logic of: if certain segments of the North American working class (and to be specific the "more valid, blue collar working class") are conservative: Marxism should take this form as well. But you're giving a strange validity to those conservative values and contrasting them with more progressive values that you see as just "intellectual liberalism." The problem here is that you are lacking any sort of investigation into the origins of those conservative values, that have been manipulated just as much by the ruling intellectual elite (or at least those who serve that elite) as any sort of "progressive" or "degenerate" values. To claim that those values are the "true independent working class values" is just absurd, as it's quite easy to show how those values come into play to divide the working class for the advantage of capital time and time again (e.g. desegregation movement, labor movements in general, etc.)

As Eauz pointed out earlier: some conservative sections of the working class are quite anti-Marxist as well: does that mean that as a Marxist strategy to emancipate the working class that we should adopt an anti-Marxist stance? This conclusion is of course absurd.
User avatar
By Kasu
#13316855
It's to be expected, given that he's a kantian idealist that rejects dialectical materialism. That's not marxism in my book.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]