Class consciousness without intersectionality is class reductionism
Intersectionality without class consciousness is identity politics
The issue at-least here in the US is not the left caring about all forms of oppression it is the liberal democrats(the centrists) using these issues and their absolute bare minimum bandaid solutions as a carrot to shut people up without actually addressing route causes
Is race a social construct created by the ruling class to keep us divided? Yes it is, but that does not suddenly mean that the oppression of people who have been marginalized is not real or is any less important or that they should need to just get over it because we swear it’ll be better once we only focus on this one division. It’s easy for those of us that are white working class men to brush off everything else accept the class struggle but you are absolutely wrong for doing so
The major issue here is that we exclusively and purposefully ignore actual class analysis in our society but all of these issues and all of the oppression we are seeing is connected and every facet of it does matter
Sorry I’m not a writer nor am I very articulate thank you for your work
Thanks you for a comment, love your formulation at the top! We've got to realise that everything is connected in one system. It's easy to think they're seperate when we talk about "race" over here and "class" over there. But they actually feed into the same social relations
The_Sodapop_Jesus makes what I believe is a seminal, core distinction, which you seem to elide over ("feed into" ... hm).
Bluntly, there are the oppressed, and there are the oppressors. And, importantly, there is a large group that feels itself to be neither. If you work for an MNC at a low salary, does that exculpate you for the acts taken in the board room at the same MNC? The difference, if there is one, is a question of class. Or it may be defined by race, but not directly. Wage level is a question of class, and it is the class of the two workers that distinguishes shop floor from board room. But it does not distinguish the goal towards which both together work.
I feel very strange in this "definitions" controversy. I am white, middle-class, professional and penniless. When BLM hit the headlines, I was as good as told it had nothing to do with me. Rubbish, it has everything to do with me. Not least because I stand on the other side of the argument in so many people's eyes, albeit not in my own. I was outraged, with nowhere to turn with my outrage.
Perhaps the distinction is neither one of race or class, but of values. "Values", which MNCs so creatively dream up for corporate reporting purposes, and which then get trashed with such consummate ease. No, not those values. Let's say, the values whose consequence is to make a white, middle-class professional ... penniless
Masterful analysis. Thank you so much. I’ve been struggling to articulate my own feelings on this for a while. I was introduced to the class-first angle by Adolph Reed and I resonate strongly with a lot of his ideas but can also see how a myopic focus on class destroys any chance to build coalitions. And a lot of what you said about race and racism reminds me of Karen Field’s take in Racecraft in that class exploitation is the terrain over which racism moves.
I had never connected identity politics specifically with neoliberal moralism and individualism. That was a huge connection for me.
Thanks a million for this incredible insightful read.
“Oppressed groups competing for the greatest grievance, the winner of which would be afforded more influence in decision making, and less scrutiny over exactly what they did or said. Politics became deferential; we had to listen to someone because of their identity; pay less regard to collective or global analyses; and take less responsibility for formulating our own politics. We abandoned the systemic for the interpersonal, where politics was primarily about individual behaviour modifications. Lived experience - important, sure, but singular and isolated - became the primary analytical method. A scarcity mentality dominated politics; there was never enough time, attention, concern, or even solidarity, to go around. And where there was it was rationed for only those who 'deserved' or 'earned' it.”
I just had to quote this because it was beautifully said and articulated my own critiques of liberal identity politics pretty well. When I began to embrace revolutionary and Marxist thought I saw class solidarity as essential but I tried to minimize other issues related to class. Capitalism is very resilient in America because of white supremacy, patriarchy, xenophobia, etc. An understanding of Marxism has to be based on an intersectional understanding. Capitalism is at the forefront of exploitation and dysfunction in our society but it is upheld and reinforced by other systems/dynamics in our society.
This is good. I would add two caveats. 1. All politics was an identity dimension, with 'white' and 'male' identity politics often ignored. We can't 'abolish' identity, but we can transform it. But this lead to the next caveat. 2. The working class in the U.S. is not 'being fragmented,' it has always been fragmented. This may be subtle, but it matters. Its main subgroups I name as the Four 'E's--the expropriated (African slaves), the exterminated (Native peoples), the exploited (Indentured servants) , and the enclosed (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc). Giving birth to a proletariat for-itself and united, is another ongoing but critical project, and it proceeds through victories over divisive barriers all along the line. It is a 'becoming.'
A good observation for the US context. I'm speaking from the UK context where migration from the Commonwealth created a racial underclass, which at the time was much more united (than it is now) as it viewed itself through an anti-colonial, anti-Empire lens. There were also huge victories in the same period of the 'white' working class which were transformative in terms of bringing the trade union movement together across identity fractures. Thatchers strategy was decisive and deliberate, and was aimed squarely at breaking up these class blocks and identities.
I'm here from a repost by Sean Mann. Hello, Shanice.
I don't do "-isms". To be honest, I need to keep a glossary of them next to my desk so I can follow, and a lot of them mean different things to different people. But your message is unmistakable. Thank you for a very comprehensive essay.
When BLM erupted after Floyd's murder, I tried to plead a case on social media that this was a chance for all oppressed groups to bind in opposition. One (white) person of my acquaintance shouted me down somewhat abruptly: "Grow up." I shan't say she didn't give me cause for thought, but I gradually came to a conclusion: that she, rather than I, should grow up.
My parents and their generation voted for Mrs Thatcher. They're in the hereafter now, but I honestly have to say that, if they saw the results of what they started in 1979, they'd be horrified. Their generation (of WWII) let themselves be guided by a heavy measure of self-restraint. What Profumo shocked the nation with back when would pass today almost as normal. Like the affairs of a French president. The lack of any self-restraint in today's neoliberal crusade against the working class needs to be met in like fashion by the working class. And when the point of fairness, wherever that might be drawn, is reached, will we halt? Or will we continue as Bolsheviks (sorry, that's an -ism)?
I wish to take issue with you on the use of one word in your title: radical. I know it's political shorthand, but, tell me, does it fall to be regarded as "radical" to take an all-inclusive view of the society in which you live? Is it radical to love your fellow man with an ardour that justifies the very appellation "civilisation"? Is it to this point that we have been so successfully reduced: to regarding our mutual assistance as a radical idea? Well, if it is radical to stand again with pride - regardless of who it may be who stands at my side - then I am radical, if radical I must be.
Please, even if for no other reason than to know what the other side is saying, look up Jennifer Bilek. I don´t know how to share links on here, some of her stuff is not paywalled. She´s a journalist who does forensic research into the dark money behind the trans movement. You write incredibly well and have a clear ability to think critically...trans is not the civil rights / liberatory movement that you think it is. Don´t take my word for it, look up Jennifer Bilek´s work...
Stopped reading when you used the phrase ´trans people´ There is no such thing as ´trans´ No one is ´born in the wrong body´ The trans cult tells people who are simply gender non conforming that they are ´really´ the opposite sex. 20 years ago these people would have been masculine or androgynous presenting women most likely lesbian or effeminate gay men. Please. Stop with the trans cult. Its eradicating a generation of young lesbians and gays by telling them they are ´really´ the opposite (hetero) sex.
And 250 years ago there were no 'gays' and 'lesbians because industrial capitalism hadn't yet created a large working class and urban areas, where sexual subcultures could emerge because people were able to congregate and socialise en masse like never before. When it did, people used the same moralistic argument as you are: it's
new, therefore, is somehow unreal. Putting this suspect premise aside: people have long stepped into other genders: women living as men to enter the workforce, or to live publicly married to other women. Men living as women to avoid the draft, or as part of gay subcultures. Cultures where gender isn't a binary, archeological evidence of matriarchal societies where gender would have no resemblance to how we understand it. Culture and identity aren't fixed, never have been, never will be. Things change, the world moves, people understand themselves in new ways, get over it.
It's also really not a flex to declare publicly you stopped reading something because of the use of one word. Open your mind.
Class consciousness without intersectionality is class reductionism
Intersectionality without class consciousness is identity politics
The issue at-least here in the US is not the left caring about all forms of oppression it is the liberal democrats(the centrists) using these issues and their absolute bare minimum bandaid solutions as a carrot to shut people up without actually addressing route causes
Is race a social construct created by the ruling class to keep us divided? Yes it is, but that does not suddenly mean that the oppression of people who have been marginalized is not real or is any less important or that they should need to just get over it because we swear it’ll be better once we only focus on this one division. It’s easy for those of us that are white working class men to brush off everything else accept the class struggle but you are absolutely wrong for doing so
The major issue here is that we exclusively and purposefully ignore actual class analysis in our society but all of these issues and all of the oppression we are seeing is connected and every facet of it does matter
Sorry I’m not a writer nor am I very articulate thank you for your work
Thanks you for a comment, love your formulation at the top! We've got to realise that everything is connected in one system. It's easy to think they're seperate when we talk about "race" over here and "class" over there. But they actually feed into the same social relations
The_Sodapop_Jesus makes what I believe is a seminal, core distinction, which you seem to elide over ("feed into" ... hm).
Bluntly, there are the oppressed, and there are the oppressors. And, importantly, there is a large group that feels itself to be neither. If you work for an MNC at a low salary, does that exculpate you for the acts taken in the board room at the same MNC? The difference, if there is one, is a question of class. Or it may be defined by race, but not directly. Wage level is a question of class, and it is the class of the two workers that distinguishes shop floor from board room. But it does not distinguish the goal towards which both together work.
I feel very strange in this "definitions" controversy. I am white, middle-class, professional and penniless. When BLM hit the headlines, I was as good as told it had nothing to do with me. Rubbish, it has everything to do with me. Not least because I stand on the other side of the argument in so many people's eyes, albeit not in my own. I was outraged, with nowhere to turn with my outrage.
Perhaps the distinction is neither one of race or class, but of values. "Values", which MNCs so creatively dream up for corporate reporting purposes, and which then get trashed with such consummate ease. No, not those values. Let's say, the values whose consequence is to make a white, middle-class professional ... penniless
Masterful analysis. Thank you so much. I’ve been struggling to articulate my own feelings on this for a while. I was introduced to the class-first angle by Adolph Reed and I resonate strongly with a lot of his ideas but can also see how a myopic focus on class destroys any chance to build coalitions. And a lot of what you said about race and racism reminds me of Karen Field’s take in Racecraft in that class exploitation is the terrain over which racism moves.
I had never connected identity politics specifically with neoliberal moralism and individualism. That was a huge connection for me.
Thanks a million for this incredible insightful read.
“Oppressed groups competing for the greatest grievance, the winner of which would be afforded more influence in decision making, and less scrutiny over exactly what they did or said. Politics became deferential; we had to listen to someone because of their identity; pay less regard to collective or global analyses; and take less responsibility for formulating our own politics. We abandoned the systemic for the interpersonal, where politics was primarily about individual behaviour modifications. Lived experience - important, sure, but singular and isolated - became the primary analytical method. A scarcity mentality dominated politics; there was never enough time, attention, concern, or even solidarity, to go around. And where there was it was rationed for only those who 'deserved' or 'earned' it.”
I just had to quote this because it was beautifully said and articulated my own critiques of liberal identity politics pretty well. When I began to embrace revolutionary and Marxist thought I saw class solidarity as essential but I tried to minimize other issues related to class. Capitalism is very resilient in America because of white supremacy, patriarchy, xenophobia, etc. An understanding of Marxism has to be based on an intersectional understanding. Capitalism is at the forefront of exploitation and dysfunction in our society but it is upheld and reinforced by other systems/dynamics in our society.
I'm so glad I found you today Shanice!!! Standing O 👏🏽 👏🏽 👏🏽 👏🏽
Thank you! 🙏🏿
This is good. I would add two caveats. 1. All politics was an identity dimension, with 'white' and 'male' identity politics often ignored. We can't 'abolish' identity, but we can transform it. But this lead to the next caveat. 2. The working class in the U.S. is not 'being fragmented,' it has always been fragmented. This may be subtle, but it matters. Its main subgroups I name as the Four 'E's--the expropriated (African slaves), the exterminated (Native peoples), the exploited (Indentured servants) , and the enclosed (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc). Giving birth to a proletariat for-itself and united, is another ongoing but critical project, and it proceeds through victories over divisive barriers all along the line. It is a 'becoming.'
A good observation for the US context. I'm speaking from the UK context where migration from the Commonwealth created a racial underclass, which at the time was much more united (than it is now) as it viewed itself through an anti-colonial, anti-Empire lens. There were also huge victories in the same period of the 'white' working class which were transformative in terms of bringing the trade union movement together across identity fractures. Thatchers strategy was decisive and deliberate, and was aimed squarely at breaking up these class blocks and identities.
Point taken. We're on the same page.
I'm here from a repost by Sean Mann. Hello, Shanice.
I don't do "-isms". To be honest, I need to keep a glossary of them next to my desk so I can follow, and a lot of them mean different things to different people. But your message is unmistakable. Thank you for a very comprehensive essay.
When BLM erupted after Floyd's murder, I tried to plead a case on social media that this was a chance for all oppressed groups to bind in opposition. One (white) person of my acquaintance shouted me down somewhat abruptly: "Grow up." I shan't say she didn't give me cause for thought, but I gradually came to a conclusion: that she, rather than I, should grow up.
My parents and their generation voted for Mrs Thatcher. They're in the hereafter now, but I honestly have to say that, if they saw the results of what they started in 1979, they'd be horrified. Their generation (of WWII) let themselves be guided by a heavy measure of self-restraint. What Profumo shocked the nation with back when would pass today almost as normal. Like the affairs of a French president. The lack of any self-restraint in today's neoliberal crusade against the working class needs to be met in like fashion by the working class. And when the point of fairness, wherever that might be drawn, is reached, will we halt? Or will we continue as Bolsheviks (sorry, that's an -ism)?
I wish to take issue with you on the use of one word in your title: radical. I know it's political shorthand, but, tell me, does it fall to be regarded as "radical" to take an all-inclusive view of the society in which you live? Is it radical to love your fellow man with an ardour that justifies the very appellation "civilisation"? Is it to this point that we have been so successfully reduced: to regarding our mutual assistance as a radical idea? Well, if it is radical to stand again with pride - regardless of who it may be who stands at my side - then I am radical, if radical I must be.
Please, even if for no other reason than to know what the other side is saying, look up Jennifer Bilek. I don´t know how to share links on here, some of her stuff is not paywalled. She´s a journalist who does forensic research into the dark money behind the trans movement. You write incredibly well and have a clear ability to think critically...trans is not the civil rights / liberatory movement that you think it is. Don´t take my word for it, look up Jennifer Bilek´s work...
Stopped reading when you used the phrase ´trans people´ There is no such thing as ´trans´ No one is ´born in the wrong body´ The trans cult tells people who are simply gender non conforming that they are ´really´ the opposite sex. 20 years ago these people would have been masculine or androgynous presenting women most likely lesbian or effeminate gay men. Please. Stop with the trans cult. Its eradicating a generation of young lesbians and gays by telling them they are ´really´ the opposite (hetero) sex.
And 250 years ago there were no 'gays' and 'lesbians because industrial capitalism hadn't yet created a large working class and urban areas, where sexual subcultures could emerge because people were able to congregate and socialise en masse like never before. When it did, people used the same moralistic argument as you are: it's
new, therefore, is somehow unreal. Putting this suspect premise aside: people have long stepped into other genders: women living as men to enter the workforce, or to live publicly married to other women. Men living as women to avoid the draft, or as part of gay subcultures. Cultures where gender isn't a binary, archeological evidence of matriarchal societies where gender would have no resemblance to how we understand it. Culture and identity aren't fixed, never have been, never will be. Things change, the world moves, people understand themselves in new ways, get over it.
It's also really not a flex to declare publicly you stopped reading something because of the use of one word. Open your mind.