[KurtFF8]

While I am certainly a Marxist, I think that some forms of oppression can't fully be reduced to a class analysis. I mean this only in the sense that it doesn't provide a full explanation for certain forms of social oppression. For example, the portrayal of women in film as simply objects is related to the commodification of things like sexuality, but the oppression of women is across class lines often (although for example women in the ruling class are socially oppressed in a different way than working class women). I recently read this article that has a sentence that is very problematic yet pops up from time to time by Marxists:

Once these economic forms are superseded, the trade in women will automatically disappear.

From Communism and the Family by Alexandra Kollontai

This just doesn't seem to follow for me. While I think the elimination of current class relations is quite necessary to truly liberate oppressed peoples, I don't think that it automatically follows that a socialist revolution will end things like social oppression.

For example, it isn't fully absurd to imagine a society where the means of production are held in common, yet films like "Observe and Report" are produced that paint date rape as not a serious crime (and even to be laughed at). This highlights a problem with assuming that socialism would "automatically fix" these problems, and also perhaps shows a problem with trying to reduce all oppression to class.

That said, I am still a Marxist and think that class relations certainly do explain why these forms of social oppression occur. For example, looking into the history of racism and how it changed over time was a result of changing modes of production.

So while a class analysis can explain why these forms of oppression came to be (or were "given an opportunity to flourish"), we don't need to stop there. Understanding how to fight the social oppression seems to require more than simply saying "refer to the class struggle".

[HoniSoit]

So while a class analysis can explain why these forms of oppression came to be (or were "given an opportunity to flourish"), we don't need to stop there. Understanding how to fight the social oppression seems to require more than simply saying "refer to the class struggle".

I very much agree with you. The issues of race and gender - which predate capitalism - cannot be explained away simply by referring to the existing economic system. While no doubt the current economic system helps preserve and exploits them, it doesn't necessarily follow once the economic system is changed, these issues will automatically disappear as well.

[Eauz]

Once these economic forms are superseded, the trade in women will automatically disappear.

I think what is being inplied here is that eliminating the economic forms that exist to continue the trade in women will help eliminate the oppression of women ending up in such situations but it won't prevent those who desire to be sexually active members of society. In other words, what would the purpose of accepting to have sex with people if there is no economic incentive involved? However, this does not mean that people will no longer desire to have sex with other people. This does suggest though that if someone wants to be active in society sexually, they can, without the force of economics pushing the women into certain situations.

When taking this into consideration, I'm not sure where the oppression exists, unless you are suggesting someone is oppressing oneself.

[Subversive Rob]

I think we have to be very careful about what we mean when we say 'Marxists'. My experience in the Marxist tradition has taught me that we really can't ever make a blanket statement about 'Marxists'. The tradition has always been composed of people who - whilst sharing something of a similar analytical framework and theoretical vocabularly - often come to different conclusions. This is important because what you have done is cite a particular person Kollontai, who was writing rather a long time ago. Furthermore, it seems to me that the sentence you quote is not talking about the oppression of women in general, but certain specific aspects of this oppression. It seems to me that she is talking specifically about prostitution and housework. Now, the thing is that these institutions are obviously economically rooted - prostitution is much less likely to occur when we eliminate social deprivation, educate people etc. Equally, the particular form of domestic slavery would disappear with the domestic sphere.

Now I think these points are important to address, lest we slip into making generalised assertions. Having got this pedantic point out of the way, it's important that I also make another one. Essentially, what you're saying really needs to be unpicked. It seems to me that the 'reductionism' you talk about has to be broken down into several different instances, that you seem to collapse. So, what are the different ways in which we might say that Marxists relate to social oppression:

1) The point that usually gets made (and I think you are making it) is that Marxists have usually had class exploitation as their salient category. Against this they will often attempt to explain gender or racial oppression as 'promoted' by the ruling class so as to split the working class etc. On this reading, social oppression will disappear with classes, and - more to the point - class struggle is seen as more important or primary to other forms of oppression. However, it is worth noting that there is no automatic political conclusion to this type of reasoning, whilst it can denigrate social oppression it can also lead to these Marxists arguing that racism and sexism have to be combated for the good of the class.
2) It is very important to distinguish the above idea, from a more general statement that social relations generate social oppression (or schematically that social oppression has an economic foundation). At this point it is useful to refer to what Honisoit says:

The issues of race and gender - which predate capitalism - cannot be explained away simply by referring to the existing economic system.

The problem with this, is that the general statement (and again I am putting this in a vulgar fashion) that 'economic relations are the source of social oppression', doesn't commit us to the idea that it is currently existing capitalism that caused them. So, for instance, Engels seeks to give an economic explanation for the oppression of women - in the formation of private property and the creation of the possesive family - which in no way commits him to the claim that it's all about the 'existing economic system'.

Racism could easily encompass a similar explanation, to do with the colonial experience, the historic role of certain national-ethnic groups in performing certain types of labour etc. Indeed, the Marxist position on this is very useful, as it is able to flag up the fluid character of race and racism and so avoid the pitfalls of essentialising race when combating racism.

So, as I say, I think it is important to say that we can have a historical-materialist account of social oppression - which locates it in past and present social relations, which doesn't simply reduce all these issues 'to class', if we're going to criticise the latter (and people have done) it's important to separate it from the former. I'd also point out that I can't really think of any other way of doing this. Oppression is not the sum total of individual psychological mores but is clearly something broader than that, insofar as it has a given material manifestation and we need to analyse and combat that. But even if oppression was down to individual psychology, that psychology has to come from somewhere and given that being determines consciousness, I hardly think it is illegitimate to locate these psychological issues in social relations.

Now, a final point is to say that there are plenty of Marxists who haven't approached these issues from the 'class' angle. There are Marxist feminists, socialist feminists etc. and equally there are the Black Panthers, a whole bunch of Marxists who specialise in race-issues etc. Personally, I am increasingly drawn to the Mao-derived model (which has survived in various forms in the earlier work of Althusser and Balibar) of primary-secondary contradictions. On this reading, class is the principal contradiction which articulates and shapes other contradictions (such as race, gender etc.), it doesn't say they result from class, but merely that in a class society they are refracted through it. But this model also says that - in given conjunctures - the primary contradiction can change, such that in a given situation, the issue of race or gender might assume primacy. I think this is an important, non-reductionist model, which nonetheless establishses the importance of class.

[KurtFF8]

I think what is being inplied here is that eliminating the economic forms that exist to continue the trade in women will help eliminate the oppression of women ending up in such situations but it won't prevent those who desire to be sexually active members of society. In other words, what would the purpose of accepting to have sex with people if there is no economic incentive involved? However, this does not mean that people will no longer desire to have sex with other people. This does suggest though that if someone wants to be active in society sexually, they can, without the force of economics pushing the women into certain situations.

When taking this into consideration, I'm not sure where the oppression exists, unless you are suggesting someone is oppressing oneself

Well I may have been taking the quote a little too out of context, but I meant to show it to demonstrate a greater sentiment by some Marxists that I sought to address here.

Thanks for your extensive reply Rob, I think you touched exactly what I was getting at with this thread. I'll return to it later if I can think of any points I need to touch on.

[HoniSoit]

The problem with this, is that the general statement (and again I am putting this in a vulgar fashion) that 'economic relations are the source of social oppression', doesn't commit us to the idea that it is currently existing capitalism that caused them. So, for instance, Engels seeks to give an economic explanation for the oppression of women - in the formation of private property and the creation of the possesive family - which in no way commits him to the claim that it's all about the 'existing economic system'.

I certainly agree with you on this.

The comment was directed more at the simplistic assumption that once capitalism is abolished women's oppression, for example, will be gone automatically - which reduces many forms of social repression into class. I am aware of socialist feminism, and crucially the reason we now have socialist feminists is that a lot of them became dissatisfied with the lack of attention given to the issue of gender and sexuality etc. in traditional communist/Marxist movement.

[Vera Politica]

I disagree, groups oppresions are specific economic, categorical oppresions. Be they race or sexuality. Italians and Irish were 'dirty barbarian hordes', Italians were lynched (the 2nd most ethnic group after blacks), seen as 'dirty, oily foreigners' 'non-white, oil skinned', until many entered the lower stratum of the sociological middle classes (the blue-collar working class, up from the immigrant underclasses (the semi-employed, udner the table, lumpenproletariat)). Then, suddenyl, Italians were perceived as 'white', not able to check off 'visible minority' in their application.

Women oppresion, other groups oppresions, or race oppresions are sociological categories and, thus, are SUPERSTRUCTUAL idealizations of economic realities. Thus, feminism is an ideology. Racism is an ideology. Multiculturalism is an ideology, etc etc. Marxism is not an ideology, what you are doing is turning it into one by importing social liberalism (feminism, 'socialist' feminism, as well as other things like environmentalism, multiculturalism, race identity theory, yada yada). Group oppresion is is in the last instance determined by material categories, i.e. economic categories. Equating oppression to group identity is ideological.

It is sad to see social liberalism still pervading in Marxist discourse.

[KurtFF8]

Equating oppression to group identity is ideological.

Since this is the overall argument you're making this is what I'll quote: This is where I disagree.

While I pointed out that the oppression of groups like women does indeed have a material base, that doesn't mean that all of the forms of oppression are inherently economic. Take the portrayal of women in the media (like films) that makes light of something like date rape (my earlier example). This is not a type of oppression or exploitation for material profit gain but is indeed the result of an ideology that posits gender identities as somehow manifesting themselves today in their natural form.

Feminism (while you seem to be lumping it all into one thing) is a counter to this ruling ideology, and while there are some forms of feminism that are just as wrapped up in ideology as well (take liberal feminism for example), there are other forms of Feminism (like Marxist/Socialist Feminism) that take the material basis for oppression into account and expand on it by taking into account the specifically social basis of oppression.

The point of this thread is that sometimes Marxists (or some Marxists I should say) tend to ignore the specific oppressions of women or racial groups and tend to focus on class struggle alone (at least when discussing theory), and Rob spoke to this pretty well I think.

I think you seem to think that I'm engaging in identity politics here, which I suppose is true to a very limited extent, but I am in no way giving up a class/material analysis in trying to focus on group identities.

[Dave]

Kurt, did you seriously not find the date rape part of Observe and Report funny?

[KurtFF8]

No, it's not funny to make light of a serious issue like that, especially when the film doesn't try to redeem itself: she is even painted as "screwing him over" towards the end of the film, when he was the one who raped her.

[Eauz]

The point of this thread is that sometimes Marxists (or some Marxists I should say) tend to ignore the specific oppressions of women or racial groups and tend to focus on class struggle alone (at least when discussing theory), and Rob spoke to this pretty well I think.

Although, you do have a point in regard to the exploitation of the feminist movement by social groups in history (50's & 60's), the idea of feminism in its current understanding within this thread is actually supporting and encouraging reactionary understanding which, as Vera Politica points out, finds its roots in ideology.

You might end up pointing out that Group A is being exploited in certains ways, but this does not mean that Marxists must return to the reactionary position of attempting to solve the issues and problems relating to a group, as opposed to general system itself. We can't look at the capitalist system as a closed, especially in regard to social groups within the society. Conditions of existence (with regard to these groups) were posited in a pre-capitalist period.

This is not a type of oppression or exploitation for material profit gain but is indeed the result of an ideology that posits gender identities as somehow manifesting themselves today in their natural form.

Vera is not really saying that people are gaining profits for the presentation of women in such films, just for economic reason, but their manifestation is connected historically by the economic structure of their social environment. Again, no one is suggesting that people will not have sex with multiple people, but the connection between what is Feminism as an ideology and what is Masculanism would be obsolete, given the elimination of a certain economic structure of society and seperation of class. As a final point to add to this issue, the desire to produce such a film is seen in the conflict of sexism, which boils down to economic at the roots. Would we see 0% rate of rape and sexual problems involving women at the start of a socialist economy? Probably not, but as I said earlier, eliminating the economic forms that exist to continue the trade in women will help eliminate the oppression of women ending up in such situations but it won't prevent those who desire to be sexually active members of society. However, I don't see how it is in anyway progressive or of use to the development of socialism (which attempts to eliminate exploitation in general), to concentrate its efforts on ideologies such as feminism, racism, which actually do more harm to the concept of class-in-and-for-itself than anything else.

[Kasu]

The point of this thread is that sometimes Marxists (or some Marxists I should say) tend to ignore the specific oppressions of women or racial groups and tend to focus on class struggle alone (at least when discussing theory), and Rob spoke to this pretty well I think.

Because when you start fighting to end racism and sexism within the framework of capitalist society, you start to form alliances with members of the same race and gender within the ruling class itself. Taking on such issues from a moral standpoint can only result in opportunism, and is ultimately petty-bourgeois in nature.

[KurtFF8]

the idea of feminism in its current understanding within this thread is actually supporting and encouraging reactionary understanding which, as Vera Politica points out, finds its roots in ideology.

In what way?

You might end up pointing out that Group A is being exploited in certains ways, but this does not mean that Marxists must return to the reactionary position of attempting to solve the issues and problems relating to a group, as opposed to general system itself. We can't look at the capitalist system as a closed, especially in regard to social groups within the society. Conditions of existence (with regard to these groups) were posited in a pre-capitalist period.

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.

There's a good example from history that Howard Zinn points out in the People's History of the United States:

When Susan Anthony, at eighty, went to hear Eugene Debs speak... they clasped hands warmly, then had a brief exchange. She said, laughing: "Give us suffrage, and we'll give you socialism." Debs replied: "Give us socialism and we'll give you suffrage."

This is an example of how these movements of fighting for the socially oppressed (and yes, taking into account specific manifestations of oppressions) must instead go hand in hand with fighting capitalism itself.

And while current social oppression of groups like women certainly dates back before capitalism, their oppression continues well into late capitalism, so we can't ignore that fact.

However, I don't see how it is in anyway progressive or of use to the development of socialism (which attempts to eliminate exploitation in general), to concentrate its efforts on ideologies such as feminism, racism, which actually do more harm to the concept of class-in-and-for-itself than anything else.

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.

This is one of the reasons I like the PSL, which fights specifically against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. along with calling for the end to private property while taking a Marxist-Leninist line.

Because when you start fighting to end racism and sexism within the framework of capitalist society, you start to form alliances with members of the same race and gender within the ruling class itself. Taking on such issues from a moral standpoint can only result in opportunism, and is ultimately petty-bourgeois in nature.

While it would be quite nice to fight to end these things within the framework of a socialist society, we are not in that framework. You seem to be falling into the same false dichotomy of "you either fight for socialism or you fight for the liberation of women and people of color within capitalism." It would be quite absurd to posit that fighting for gains under capitalism should all be discredited and not worth it (a notion that Marx himself opposed). I again point to the example of the PSL, who fights directly for those specifically oppressed groups while also fighting for an end to capitalism.

[HoniSoit]

Because when you start fighting to end racism and sexism within the framework of capitalist society, you start to form alliances with members of the same race and gender within the ruling class itself.

I see your point but this is not necessarily the case. Rob refers earlier to socialist feminists who analyse women's oppression from both gender and class perspectives. I mean there has long been a recognition since the 60s and 70s that not all oppressions - though often intertwined with the economic system and class - cannot be simply reduced to them.

Taking on such issues from a moral standpoint can only result in opportunism, and is ultimately petty-bourgeois in nature.

This kind of language is really what is and has been undermining the appeal of the Left.

[Kasu]

You can't forget about all the times where the revolution was sabotaged because of a crisis of this or that leadership within various socialist parties. You have to distinguish true revolutionary Marxism from other forms of opportunism, idealism, utopian socialism, pabloism, stalinism, etc, or else we'll repeat history and the revolutions will once again fail all over the world, all because any kind of discussion on the matter was silenced for the sake of unifying and popularlizing the left.

[HoniSoit]

You have to distinguish true revolutionary Marxism

The problem though is who gets to define what true revolutionary Marxism is.

[Vera Politica]

The problem though is who gets to define what true revolutionary Marxism is.

I thought that we all agreed that I do
Bunch of reactionary hacks

[KurtFF8]

You can't forget about all the times where the revolution was sabotaged because of a crisis of this or that leadership within various socialist parties. You have to distinguish true revolutionary Marxism from other forms of opportunism, idealism, utopian socialism, pabloism, stalinism, etc, or else we'll repeat history and the revolutions will once again fail all over the world, all because any kind of discussion on the matter was silenced for the sake of unifying and popularlizing the left.

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.

[Kasu]

Well it's easy to say "they're just focusing on class struggle", but can you provide specific examples of what you're talking about? And how would you go about fighting specifics of a group's oppression?

[KurtFF8]

Well it's easy to say "they're just focusing on class struggle", but can you provide specific examples of what you're talking about? And how would you go about fighting specifics of a group's oppression?

It was an analogy, I didn't make a claim that anyone was doing that. But yes revolutions are sabotaged by the groups you mentioned not because they decided to help fight specific group's oppression but because their attempts at liberating the working class were flawed in their methods.

And what do you mean how would you fight a specific group's oppression? 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.