I sent this article to my boyfriend who keeps repeating class purist talking points because I think he knows better and this will give him the tools to put it together
I have frequently been accused of "repeating class purist talking points" in different milieus as a strawman, so I am going to state my thoughts here in the hope of achieving some clarification.
It is certainly true that talking about class to the exclusion of all else has the effect of excluding the lived experience of many people, who frequently do not view class as the primary axis through which people experience their oppression.
The overwhelming majority of "left" critique at the current time, and also during most of my adult life, has approached the question of "left" politics from a movementist perspective. In this orientation, the progress of the left is measured based on a sense of whether "the movement" is able to organize against "repression". "Repression", in turn, is defined synthetically, so that what comes from class oppression, i.e. capitalism, is combined with other types of "repression", such as, in this article, "systems of domination".
My criticism is that defining politics in this synthetic way is itself subordinated to identitarian politics. "Class politics" does need to be synthesized with the insights that are coming from other political approaches. But the specific content of working class politics is revolutionary, and not movementist. Whatever synthesis is created, if it does not contain this element, then in the final analysis it betrays both sides.
When Jae talks about how identitarian politics can produce a black police chief or a queer CEO, they raise the question of class differentiation within various oppressed groups. A movementist approach assumes that mass opposition to this class differentiation can reduce these problems, and that's great. But these are class problems. There is no identitarian means of formulating that problem that cuts across all possible groupings. The aim of a "class perspective" is class war, i.e. open opposition to the capitalists, and ultimately revolution. It is not a "mass movement". That is the only sense in which I am a "class purist".
I do not see a description in this article of how workers, black people, etc. can be won to a revolutionary perspective, rather than just a mass organizing perspective. The "socialism" in this article could mean either social democratic reformism or revolutionary Marxism, i.e. Communism, or perhaps anarcho-syndicalism. But because it is not specified, and there is nothing concrete in here of these approaches to the "class" question, I assume that the organizing behavior and orientation corresponding to this article is small group or nonprofit organizing, or something along the lines of Labor Notes or the DSA. These are my presumptions. I give them as an illustration of my perspective, not to put something on the author.
It is no answer to say "we must organize the masses before we can talk about these things". That argument has been made since the 19th century, before the days of Lenin. The mass struggle is happening before our eyes. The tendencies towards the right and left are differentiating at this moment and we are accountable for what we say today.
That is my issue. I don't have any need to talk about class. What I am looking for is some evidence of a political perspective that is not liquidationist.
Hello Richard, thank you for clarifying your thoughts and I have some of my own. I view class as the foundational point of oppression but class society intersects with other forms of racialized, patriarchal, and colonialized forms of oppression. Just as Engels alluded to in his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”.
The state serves capital in its current iteration but capital is elastic in how it functions and the forms of division it takes. Now the idea of a “movementist” perspective is loaded, I don’t know what you mean by that term. If you’re talking about spontaneous movement of the masses I clearly don’t believe that is possible to overcome oppression and the systems which underpin it (namely capitalism and imperialism).
What I am advocating for is left movements in the gendered, racial, and otherwise marginalized sense to come together under solidarity to see our shared struggle. When I talk about “systems of domination” I am talking about the structural justifications for oppression which is mainly the economic and political systems which underpin our society. The major system of domination is capitalism, as I’ve stated in other works.
It’s difficult because I come from a Marxist-Leninist background but I do not see the oppression of the working class from a solely economic standpoint, I don’t think any contemporary Marxist would. Capitalism also dominates culturally, politically, and psychologically.
Dialectical materialism would posit that the economic base would influence the superstructure but the superstructure also influences the base.
I obviously think that revolution is the path forward as reformism has failed repeatedly in the past. So a “movementist” approach of social reformism is not what I’m advocating for at all. I am advocating for a deeper understanding of lived experiences under this system outside of solely class. Class is important, but it is not the only way workers are divided.
It was not clear to me whether you came from a Marxist background rather than, say, DSA. I am excited to hear it is the former. I myself became political through meeting the longshoremen in the Bay Area.
I agree with what you just wrote in terms of intersecting the lived experiences of workers, and also that in many cases class is not the primary axis by which many workers experience oppression.
I was using the term "movementist" because the focus of your article appeared to be on building a mass movement and the article speaks of redistribution rather than expropriation. (I understand you critique that perspective now.) To be fair, the majority of Marxist groups I am aware of talk of building a mass movement that can fight capitalism. But every group that I am aware of in the US lacks a mass base, nor do I think that any group is capable of building a class-struggle (however that is defined - I don't mean "class purist", just that it is opposed to capitalism) mass base at the present time. The DSA arguably has a mass base, but the political foundation of that base is Democrat.
When I was in a group, its orientation was as a propaganda group, but with the proviso that we engaged in "exemplary" mass or trade union work. That included initiating two general strikes in countries outside the US, so comrades were not sitting around. But it was not a mass orientation and we did not claim that.
I would find it helpful if someone would clarify the distinction of "class" as used here versus "socioeconomic class identity". I sense that "class" as used here is referring to roles in oppressive structures distinct from socioeconomic class identity. But as I understand it, socioeconomic class identity arises from and supports the oppressive structure and, at the same time, inherently reflects oppressive positions, making it easy to conflate identity with "class". Please help.
This was excellent; thank you for sharing. I especially appreciate the thought you gave to action--not just talking about doing something, but recommendations on how we can do something.
this was really informative to put into perspective the ways in which fragmentation lends itself to every aspect of capitalist society. working class people are conditioned to dislike other working class people for their identities, and so many leftists (me included) would just see their bigotry and insensitivity as a personal problem and a sign of that person's lack of morals, not understanding that the REASON they are insensitive is our collective indoctrination. we're actually just feeding more into the fragmentation by seeing people who don't know better as disposable. amazing piece!!
Great analysis. When you discuss representation politics, I wonder whether it also intersects with—or even facilitates—neoliberal feminism. I’m thinking specifically of how “empowerment” has been marketed in recent years as a path to autonomy, yet often results in increased individualization and consumerism. In this framework, collectivism (which I see as a core principle of feminism) largely disappears. Instead, the focus shifts toward self-optimization and productivity in service of a capitalist system, all while sustaining the illusion that we are “breaking glass ceilings.”
High-signal stuff. You've correctly identified the software bug in the Leftist operating system, as the false binary between Identity and Class.
However, I must offer a warning: The powerful engine of Solidarity does nothing if the vehicle is already on a crash trajectory.
History is littered with righteous movements that successfully seized power, only to become the monsters they fought. Not because they were bad people, but because they ignored the topology of the system.
The flaw in these systems is that the procedure is rigid, a monolithic design that ignores the feedback from reality, the oppression felt by any given Identity.
My view of an architectural fix is a collaborative network of sensors, the pain of Black women, disabled workers, and trans people needs to be a signal that is forcibly carried up the spine of our society, and used to debug and calibrate the procedure.
I call that Structural Humility. It's paranoid attention to lived reality. Combined with the moral clarity you exhibit, it safeguards the righteous from the monstrosity of the system.
I sent this article to my boyfriend who keeps repeating class purist talking points because I think he knows better and this will give him the tools to put it together
I hope it helps!
I have frequently been accused of "repeating class purist talking points" in different milieus as a strawman, so I am going to state my thoughts here in the hope of achieving some clarification.
It is certainly true that talking about class to the exclusion of all else has the effect of excluding the lived experience of many people, who frequently do not view class as the primary axis through which people experience their oppression.
The overwhelming majority of "left" critique at the current time, and also during most of my adult life, has approached the question of "left" politics from a movementist perspective. In this orientation, the progress of the left is measured based on a sense of whether "the movement" is able to organize against "repression". "Repression", in turn, is defined synthetically, so that what comes from class oppression, i.e. capitalism, is combined with other types of "repression", such as, in this article, "systems of domination".
My criticism is that defining politics in this synthetic way is itself subordinated to identitarian politics. "Class politics" does need to be synthesized with the insights that are coming from other political approaches. But the specific content of working class politics is revolutionary, and not movementist. Whatever synthesis is created, if it does not contain this element, then in the final analysis it betrays both sides.
When Jae talks about how identitarian politics can produce a black police chief or a queer CEO, they raise the question of class differentiation within various oppressed groups. A movementist approach assumes that mass opposition to this class differentiation can reduce these problems, and that's great. But these are class problems. There is no identitarian means of formulating that problem that cuts across all possible groupings. The aim of a "class perspective" is class war, i.e. open opposition to the capitalists, and ultimately revolution. It is not a "mass movement". That is the only sense in which I am a "class purist".
I do not see a description in this article of how workers, black people, etc. can be won to a revolutionary perspective, rather than just a mass organizing perspective. The "socialism" in this article could mean either social democratic reformism or revolutionary Marxism, i.e. Communism, or perhaps anarcho-syndicalism. But because it is not specified, and there is nothing concrete in here of these approaches to the "class" question, I assume that the organizing behavior and orientation corresponding to this article is small group or nonprofit organizing, or something along the lines of Labor Notes or the DSA. These are my presumptions. I give them as an illustration of my perspective, not to put something on the author.
It is no answer to say "we must organize the masses before we can talk about these things". That argument has been made since the 19th century, before the days of Lenin. The mass struggle is happening before our eyes. The tendencies towards the right and left are differentiating at this moment and we are accountable for what we say today.
That is my issue. I don't have any need to talk about class. What I am looking for is some evidence of a political perspective that is not liquidationist.
Hello Richard, thank you for clarifying your thoughts and I have some of my own. I view class as the foundational point of oppression but class society intersects with other forms of racialized, patriarchal, and colonialized forms of oppression. Just as Engels alluded to in his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”.
The state serves capital in its current iteration but capital is elastic in how it functions and the forms of division it takes. Now the idea of a “movementist” perspective is loaded, I don’t know what you mean by that term. If you’re talking about spontaneous movement of the masses I clearly don’t believe that is possible to overcome oppression and the systems which underpin it (namely capitalism and imperialism).
What I am advocating for is left movements in the gendered, racial, and otherwise marginalized sense to come together under solidarity to see our shared struggle. When I talk about “systems of domination” I am talking about the structural justifications for oppression which is mainly the economic and political systems which underpin our society. The major system of domination is capitalism, as I’ve stated in other works.
It’s difficult because I come from a Marxist-Leninist background but I do not see the oppression of the working class from a solely economic standpoint, I don’t think any contemporary Marxist would. Capitalism also dominates culturally, politically, and psychologically.
Dialectical materialism would posit that the economic base would influence the superstructure but the superstructure also influences the base.
I obviously think that revolution is the path forward as reformism has failed repeatedly in the past. So a “movementist” approach of social reformism is not what I’m advocating for at all. I am advocating for a deeper understanding of lived experiences under this system outside of solely class. Class is important, but it is not the only way workers are divided.
It was not clear to me whether you came from a Marxist background rather than, say, DSA. I am excited to hear it is the former. I myself became political through meeting the longshoremen in the Bay Area.
I agree with what you just wrote in terms of intersecting the lived experiences of workers, and also that in many cases class is not the primary axis by which many workers experience oppression.
I was using the term "movementist" because the focus of your article appeared to be on building a mass movement and the article speaks of redistribution rather than expropriation. (I understand you critique that perspective now.) To be fair, the majority of Marxist groups I am aware of talk of building a mass movement that can fight capitalism. But every group that I am aware of in the US lacks a mass base, nor do I think that any group is capable of building a class-struggle (however that is defined - I don't mean "class purist", just that it is opposed to capitalism) mass base at the present time. The DSA arguably has a mass base, but the political foundation of that base is Democrat.
When I was in a group, its orientation was as a propaganda group, but with the proviso that we engaged in "exemplary" mass or trade union work. That included initiating two general strikes in countries outside the US, so comrades were not sitting around. But it was not a mass orientation and we did not claim that.
I would find it helpful if someone would clarify the distinction of "class" as used here versus "socioeconomic class identity". I sense that "class" as used here is referring to roles in oppressive structures distinct from socioeconomic class identity. But as I understand it, socioeconomic class identity arises from and supports the oppressive structure and, at the same time, inherently reflects oppressive positions, making it easy to conflate identity with "class". Please help.
Class in the Marxist tradition is defined as: A group of people sharing common relations to labor and the means of production.
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm
👍
This was excellent; thank you for sharing. I especially appreciate the thought you gave to action--not just talking about doing something, but recommendations on how we can do something.
Appreciate that! We have to share practical tips along with some of the theoretical stuff going on.
this was really informative to put into perspective the ways in which fragmentation lends itself to every aspect of capitalist society. working class people are conditioned to dislike other working class people for their identities, and so many leftists (me included) would just see their bigotry and insensitivity as a personal problem and a sign of that person's lack of morals, not understanding that the REASON they are insensitive is our collective indoctrination. we're actually just feeding more into the fragmentation by seeing people who don't know better as disposable. amazing piece!!
Great analysis. When you discuss representation politics, I wonder whether it also intersects with—or even facilitates—neoliberal feminism. I’m thinking specifically of how “empowerment” has been marketed in recent years as a path to autonomy, yet often results in increased individualization and consumerism. In this framework, collectivism (which I see as a core principle of feminism) largely disappears. Instead, the focus shifts toward self-optimization and productivity in service of a capitalist system, all while sustaining the illusion that we are “breaking glass ceilings.”
High-signal stuff. You've correctly identified the software bug in the Leftist operating system, as the false binary between Identity and Class.
However, I must offer a warning: The powerful engine of Solidarity does nothing if the vehicle is already on a crash trajectory.
History is littered with righteous movements that successfully seized power, only to become the monsters they fought. Not because they were bad people, but because they ignored the topology of the system.
The flaw in these systems is that the procedure is rigid, a monolithic design that ignores the feedback from reality, the oppression felt by any given Identity.
My view of an architectural fix is a collaborative network of sensors, the pain of Black women, disabled workers, and trans people needs to be a signal that is forcibly carried up the spine of our society, and used to debug and calibrate the procedure.
I call that Structural Humility. It's paranoid attention to lived reality. Combined with the moral clarity you exhibit, it safeguards the righteous from the monstrosity of the system.
Precisely! You said it very well. A divided working class is easier to exploit and control.
Per the merriam-Webster definition: discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of transgender people.