• poor leftists talk about poverty, labor aristocrats get uncomfortable and insist that sociological classes aren’t materialist. “all that matters is that we’re working class - we’re all in this together”

  • black leftists talk about racism, whites get uncomfortable and insist that they’re not personally part of the problem. “we mustn’t allow the bourgeois to divide the proletariat along racial lines - we’re all in this together”

  • female leftists talk about patriarchy, men get uncomfortable and insist that it hurts them too. “this men vs women stuff is reductive anyway - we’re all in this together”

  • third world leftists talk about imperialism, americoids get uncomfortable and insist that red white and blue lives matter too. “what happened to the international working class - we’re all in this together”

you don’t have to invite yourself to every form and experience of oppression. anyone with a baby’s consciousness of intersectionality ought to be capable of admitting when they have privilege

  • pillow [she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
    27·
    1 year ago

    im going to be real with you, you have the line of a section of the left that marginalized ppl eventually learn to detect so that we can stay far away, like being able to smell rotten eggs at 10 parts per billion or whatever

    the idea of a person seeing themselves as a worker first-and-only (that is, of class reductionism) is something that makes the most sense to cishet white male etc workers. they have no other material interests, really, besides as workers and as consumers, so they’re focused on that narrow conversation. for them it seems frustrating and “postmodern” for people to advance their interests on different fronts besides the simon-pure marxian vision of two great classes pitted against each other. actually they’re doing what everyone is doing - representing their own interests - but they alone have this conviction that everyone else’s interests are lesser. they have the strongest possible white fragility / male fragility / cisheteronormative / etc reaction of fearing that the oppressed are seeking, as you put it, “not… solidarity, but supremecy” and that we have a “competitive mindset”

    the strength of marxism is not in dogmatically subsuming minority interests to some ideal homogeneous collective for the sake of “solidarity,” but in being able to identify that our interests are connected by our common class oppression. that means that, for example, I will advance my interests as a woman, without one iota of compromise to you - not sorry - but I can work on common goals with leftists who want the same thing I do, i.e. an end to class society

    my favorite marxism quote:

    What is right for the working class, cannot be wrong for the women. Being oppressed, devoid of rights and, in many instances, disregarded, it is not only their right, but their duty to defend themselves and to adopt any method that appears good to them, so that they may win an independent position. […] Woman, in order to attain her aim more quickly, must look about for allies, and she naturally finds such allies in the proletarian movement. The class-conscious proletariat has long since commenced to storm the fortress of the state that is founded on class rule, which includes the rule of one sex over the other. - August Bebel

    • LovesAGoodPigRoast [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      As a black man, focusing on my individual oppression doesn’t seem to be productive when speaking to the wider leftist community as we are all here to seek the liberation of wage slavery through the emancipation of labor ownership. I don’t see the point in seeing your identity as a woman as forefront of your leftist beliefs in the same way I don’t see my identity as a black man. I’d rather a cis white male see me as a comrade than acknowledge the black struggle in the US. The latter is what we just call the white liberal and only cares about my precieved status socially. Personally, I think the inability to put one’s individualism aside for the sake of solidarity (not comprising beliefs but just not hyper focusing on them) is just a reductionist to the group you belong to, like a race or feminist reductionist. Only collectives with a strong centralized identity are able to have revolutions. A bunch of groups with a common goal that will betray each other the moment they think that others are antagonistic is called the Spanish Civil War.

      • pillow [she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        I’d rather a cis white male see me as a comrade than acknowledge the black struggle

        this approach fails even on its own terms of trying to achieve a common revolution for everyone. all of those other “individual oppressions” are key sites of class struggle! you can’t leave them out and mutually agree that everyone will act like the only thing that matters is worker identity, at least without completely hobbling your efforts.

        A bunch of groups with a common goal that will betray each other the moment they think that others are antagonistic is called the Spanish Civil War.

        it’s nice that you’re so trusting, but I’m not. you’re talking like they’re not the ones with a proven record of betraying. taibbi and most patsocs have already decided that publicly crucifying the trans is just going to have to be the price to be paid to gain popular support for their programs. us history is a nonstop parade of cases of labor militancy collapsing when its middle class support is bought off with concessions to split them away from labor. or black history my god, the number of times white socialists decided it was tactically expedient to keep blacks and immigrants out? this kind of thing is not all behind us. you have to be vigorous in militating for your own interests or else you’re just depending on whatever consideration you get ambiently from liberal society- which will not serve you well as material conditions continue to deteriorate.