-
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
deleted by creator
There was a second comment that was removed as well further down the chain.
it seems that I totally had his number too. saying “intersectionality is economically challenged” - idk how this is even a discussion it’s classic stupidpol
To elaborate on this, I think ideologically your ideas of intersectionaility will become challenged under worsened material conditions, let alone violence. I think intersectionaility is sign of a privileged society that has worked passed the needs of survival. I mean using slavery in the US as an example, abolitionists weren’t necessarily concerned about Mexican independence. Not that, that wasnt important, it just wasn’t needed for survival, in that moment. I do agree that we are not at a point of survival and for the record I heavily support intersectionaility and liberation for all oppressed peoples. So I do agree with you that this space needs to be inclusionary. I’m looking to learn as much about the groups here too.
I’m of course speaking of a hypothetical that doesn’t apply. My opinion is that I have a duty to my fellow humanity to abolish capitalism before a duty to my identity.
Please don’t hate me for saying this, I’m new here so feel free to educate me on your perspective.
Thanks for that. I’ll look into what a patsoc is. Are they bad for just being assholes or is it more of an ideological issue?
“Patriotic socialist” is someone who combines false consciousness nationalist populism with non intersectional and exclusionary class politics. Like “dictatorship of the proletariat” but then will define the proletariat very narrowly and chauvinistically. Its a common grift. Socialism wrapped in an american flag (and all that it entails).
So I looked this up and from what I saw, they label the CCP this. Is that just western propaganda or is that kinda true?
I would say no. Patriotic Socialism is more like the movement that inspired the Nazis to add “socialism” to their name. The CCP has a nationalistic quality, like you have to be born in China to hold positions in the party, but for example there is proportional representation, they really make sure their minority populations are properly represented in the government and party. Patsocs try to use the contradictions that arise as a result of trying to reform a nation, and movements that push for progressive reforms for all, to make it into progressive reforms for some, if not completely derailing any progressive agenda. Sometimes patsocs will make appeals to the nationalist character of China or Cuba to argue for patriotic socialism, but I’ve never seen it argued for in good faith. People are either confused or lying, regardless of what anyone thinks about the CCP, they helped the Chinese people organize and defend themselves. No patsoc movement has ever come within 1000 miles of relevance, let alone victory (unless you count Nazis which wouldn’t be a victory for progress!)
So why do people equate patsoc with class reduction? Tell me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like patsocs are using socialist ideology/esthetic to rally around some sort of nationality/ethnicity/race, wouldn’t a class reductionist be the opposite of that?
That’s a really interesting way of looking at it! I think that the reason they get equated is that the material effect had been historically the same. Patsocs advocate for socialist policies, but ideologically restrict who does and doesn’t get the benefit. Class reductionists advocate for socialist policies for all, but when the time comes to redistribute wealth, geez you know we really tried. So like the american socialist movements of the early 20th century, moved popular support for socialism all the way to a New deal. But Black workers were excluded from union membership or any of the benefits of the new deal, until the UAW started admitting black workers in Detroit decades later. So even though the messaging was completely different, the historical effect was the same. If workers have the power to demand truly transformative reforms, like new deal policies, then we have to actually push beyond that because the ruling class is never going to let it go down the way we know it has to. They will always fight back with extreme violence. Anything we win has to be defended and we can only defend it if everyone is on board to defend it, and not everyone will be on board if it leaves most people out. Maybe it wins temporary concessions for some, but we are communists, dammit! It’s all or we fighting. Its not enough for the workers to be united. We have to be united in struggle, or we will never get there. At least that’s what I think.
You’re describing patsocs in the 20th century not class reductionist, so I don’t believe those historical examples mean those beliefs have the same outcome. If they were solely basing policy on class, black workers would have been admitted solely on the merits of being working class. I think that’s where we disagree.
I would say any historical context of exclusion based on race is the exact opposite of a class reductionist because they reduced their beliefs upon a racial identity first. Unless I’m unaware of the party in your example explicitly stating they were class reductionist, I don’t believe those to be same thing. The only reason why, even as a black person, I have this line of thinking is because I’ve seen how effective these so called “concessions” have been to my community. They haven’t. Being politically emancipated within this bourgeois, capitalist electorate hasn’t done much more than made us feel betrayed, and angry. And I believe race, sex, gender, etc are such weak positions to argue leftism from. I know more and more black people (mostly men) supporting right wing ideology and something close to 40 percent of women (albeit within in the American context) vote for the further right wing party. That is what I hope people understand. Being apart of a marginalized group doesn’t mean you’re naturally apart of a centralized group, with any sort of political consensus. This is not the same thing as saying “the black situation is unimportant or doesnt need to talked about”, it’s saying “not all black people are or ever will be leftists/comrades so stop addressing the issue as if we are all political monolith”.
I mean that’s the challenge, to turn our correct principles into political reality. The left needs people to take the lead, to think differently about old dusty problems, and communicate and discuss and educate. Nothing is easy or straightforward, but its good to have comrades and work for the people