General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe Need A Class Consciousness Revival
During the Cold War, and especially the McCarthy era even organized labor in the US worked to get rid of any Marxist influence in organized labor. And yet without a strong sense of what Marx called class consciousness... people tend to see themselves in non-economic terms... gun owners, gay, christian, anti-abortion, white, black, hispanic, immigrant rights, whatever.
If class consciousness is promoted as a frame to interpret the world... even many right wingers would see through the Trickle Down bullshit and the divide & conquer tactics of the Right.
I think the Dems have been dragged too far into the realm of identity politics by some of the groups in the Dem coalition. Yes, there will always be a need to recognize some legitimate issues of identity repression, but I believe economics is a more universal issue to unite the masses... and Dems have forgotten this lesson.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)What we are talking about is basically civil rights...
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I've yet to find many of the most liberal Dems stand up a basic civil right of equality in the vote so every vote weighs the same in terms of representation... which has leads to the disenfranchisement of Dems by giving us the Bush and Trump Juntas.... and where Senate Dems represent 33 million more people than the GOP... yet the GOP has control....
Yet we're to get hung up on transgendered bathrooms?
Please don't lecture me on "civil rights" if civic equality in the vote has never occurred to you.
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)60 years ago...some might has said the same about the civil rights bill that gave protections for African - American folks...Human rights are not negotiable period... You are a Democrat I assume since you are here. How do you not understand that? As for 'civic' equality sadly...this was left to the states. They draw the gerrymandered districts up...so rather than attack Democrats for protecting the rights of all, go after the bad guys...the GOP. We can win elections without throwing the most vulnerable under the bus.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Really... if one says there are BIGGER civil right issues... that our system is FAILING to provide morally legitimate government... and is making a mockery of the very concept of SELF GOVERNMENT because SOME citizens get a bigger vote than others.... you're STILL going to maintain that transgendered bathrooms are a BIGGER ISSUE?
Our antidemocratic system IS THROWING DEMOCRATIC VOTERS UNDER THE F*CKING BUS!!!
Our antidemocratic system IS THROWING DEMOCRACY UNDER THE F*CKING BUS!!!
Our antidemocratic system IS THROWING ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AND GET REPRESENTATION FOR THEIR BELIEFS UNDER THE F*CKING BUS!!!
Those issues you clearly don't care about.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)because a nation that is willing to throw people's civil rights under the bus will NEVER be able to build a class consciousness. Why the hell should working class people feel unified if they know the white males who tend to be the big voices hate the women and minorities as much as the GOP does? How the hell do you build class solidarity when you know that the person marchign next to you still thinks you are inferior because of your skin color or gender?
Social and economic issues are two halve of the whole, because you cannot have one without the other.
And to say she does not care about the issues because she does not want this party to jettison minorities in favor of the good old days when union members could utter race expletives and beat their wives and still be considered allright fellas is BS. Many of us Hispanics tried to join unions, only to be shown the door and have people demonizing us as "spics."
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Just because YOU "think" that trying to get Dems to stop placing economics on the back burner hardly means a return to what you cited above. What utter bullsh*t.
But thanks for another example of how identity politics can make some irrational... or put another way how you seem determined to deny that there are any ECONOMIC Identity issues.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)As I have said, you cannot put either on the back burner because they are TWO HALVES OF A WHOLE. If you do not defend the right of people to have economic power AND civil rights, then all the powers that be will do will simply attack one side or the other, makes people poorer and give them less access to the government, and keep the infernal wheel turning.
But thanks for another example where you demonize everyone who does not agree with you because we think this [arty needs to walk and chew gum at the same time else we get back to the days where certain people were the privileged pets of the powerful.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You seem to believe that if Identity Politics isn't front and center then all the social gains for historically oppressed groups will be lost. I disagree with that assessment. While we're never going to totally eradicate sexism, racism, etc... I think great social progress has been made that isn't going to be reversed.
But the Census numbers also proves that despite all the liberation politics... economic inequality has GROWN. The top share of aggregate income by the lowest 4 quintiles has decreased the past 50 years....
For the lowest quintile.... from 5.7% in 1974 to 3.7% in 2015.
The second highest quintile reached it's peak in 1969 at 12.4% and is now down to 9.2%
Third quintile has declined since 1976... from 17.7% to 15.2%
The forth quintile was 24.6% in 1981 and is now 23.2%
It comes as no surprise that these shifts take place where two major developments happen... the far Right goes on an offensive to turn America into Amerika... and part of their strategy is inviting into the GOP coalition social reactionary groups and then Dems increasingly getting involved in identity politics and losing site of its commitment to labor solidarity.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-families/f02ar.xls
Somewhere in your argument you ignore the fact that class/economic solidarity economics can also be a form of identity politics that can work to negate right wing reactionary politics.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)apprantly you missed the part where I said we have to do BOTH, BOth need to be on front burners because we need BOTH, because frankly, if you do not have both, you will lose both.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"I think the Dems have been dragged too far into the realm of identity politics by some of the groups in the Dem coalition. Yes, there will always be a need to recognize some legitimate issues of identity repression, but I believe economics is a more universal issue to unite the masses... and Dems have forgotten this lesson."
I was saying that too many Dems were lost in identity politics to the exclusion of more basic economic issues. I said there was a place for both.
I look forward to reading your posts where you told that to those who were critical of my OP... some to the point of irrationality, that there needs to be more emphasis on economic.
As I wrote elsewhere, Dems have to pick their fights in a way that can drag back perhaps 4-5% of GOPers who seem to believe Trump has the interest of workers at heart. What really bothers me is that so many liberal Dems are so lost in micro issues like trans bathrooms that they lose sight of those huge issues like economics and if someone merely suggests a reevaluation they go ballistic babbling about civil rights even while they are BLIND to the simple civil right that each citizen's vote should weigh the same. It's the LACK of that right that has given us the Bush and Trump Juntas... and now a GOP Senate where Dem senators represent 33 million more people. Antidemocratic government... one where those who represent a MINORITY rule over the majority, IS ALSO A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. So is that our generation not be stealing money from future generations so we can party at their expense. So is grotesque wealth inequality because the Right has gamed an antidemocratic system.
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)so YOU are welcome!
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)You would be wrong to do so...You talk of Identity politics...I talk of civil rights...honestly your views are shared by many Trump supporters...who go on and on about 'identity' politics. I believe in the big tent Democratic party...so people have different opinions...I just think you are wrong period.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I responded to your post... ALSO speaking of civil rights you seem determined to believe don't exist. You ran away with some smart ass remark. So what else am I to think except you had no response, but also refused to concede the weaknesses of your position.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And the Dems should just be a disorganized party of identity groups each with their own agenda... hoping other groups care enough to support them. In the mean time Dems should NOT give a shit about another BASIC CIVIL RIGHT... that the vote of each citizen weigh the same so we can have have morally legitimate government. Ya, fuck that! And let's not unite Dems with a broader economic message.
So pray tell Einstein... how's that brilliant strategy been working out lately? Granted HRC won the election... though how much of her vote was an anti-Trump vote is another question. How are those House, Senate, and state legislatures races going?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)"I think the Dems have been dragged too far into the realm of identity politics by some of the groups in the Dem coalition."
Your post seems cut from a particular pattern.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Try reading for comprehension... hardly "right wing"
I think the Dems have been dragged too far into the realm of identity politics by some of the groups in the Dem coalition. Yes, there will always be a need to recognize some legitimate issues of identity repression, but I believe economics is a more universal issue to unite the masses... and Dems have forgotten this lesson.
Your retraction is noted.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)who gets to determine which "some" get the attention?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)At what point does getting dragged into small issues blind Dems to the BIG issues they perpetually ignore?
Were the hell are Dems on that BIG issue that we should have a morally legitimate government based on DEMOCRATIC principles?
Were the hell are Dems on that BIG issue that those who represent the MINORITY should never "win" elections?
Were the hell are Dems on that BIG civil rights issue that the vote of every citizen should be EQUAL in weight in terms of representation?
Were the hell are Dems on that BIG civil rights issue that voters should have a right to vote their conscience and get representation for what they believe?
How many of those issues Dems are concerned about such as growing wealth inequality, global warming, run away corporate power... if not our subjugation to the corporate form are ROOTED IN ANTIDEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT?
In the grander scheme of things... those issues THAT AFFECT EVERYONE deserve some attention. But I guess EVERYONE doesn't qualify as a valid identity group... thus proving something I've noted for a long time: Dems are AWOL on defending democratic principles. Yup, no civil rights issues there!
But, man.... some can certainly get riled up about trans bathrooms.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Maybe if you understood people can't fully function in society without their equal rights (which are currently being eroded) you'd get why they're important.
All I'm reading from your thoughts is "not my problem, so stuff it". Fortunately if you're not a woman or POC - you're a minority among Dems. You don't set the agenda- and thank his for that.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)This is what drives me nuts about the PC intolerance and irrationality of many at DU.
I was pretty clear in my OP:
"I think the Dems have been dragged too far into the realm of identity politics by some of the groups in the Dem coalition. Yes, there will always be a need to recognize some legitimate issues of identity repression, but I believe economics is a more universal issue to unite the masses... and Dems have forgotten this lesson.
But some PC extremists here are so fucking threatened that anyone suggests that there are also other issues out there... little things like income, economics, winning elections, better strategies to combat the right... they think it's fair to accuse someone:
"You sound genuinely resentful that women, LGBTs and POC have legit basic human rights issues...."
Go to hell.
So in your warped world only THOSE groups deserve "equal rights" and you can't even show support for something as basic to DEMOCRACY as something that affects ALL of us: civic equality in the vote... a concept so basic IT'S CENTRAL TO MORALLY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT?
How's that Bush and Trump Junta working out for you? How's that GOP Senate working out when Dem Senators represent 33 million more Americans than the GOP?
I was clear I can support both... but unlike you I HAVE SOME PERSPECTIVE and never want to lose sight of BIG issues. I don't want to be penny wise pound foolish in the political sense. Everyone has to pick their battles. Everyone has to strategize how to form a governing majority... especially in an antidemocratic system that Dems refuse to try and reform. In that fight I believe pushing economic solidarity is a more inclusive message than micro issues like trans bathrooms... if you don't like it... sue me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You have repeatedly done.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)I think the right has purposely led the Democrats into it, and the Democrats have let it happen.
What better way to sabotage the party that once identified with an FDR platform?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm old enough to remember the 60s and 70s when the historically oppressed groups were breaking free... sometimes with the help of government with legislation and court decisions, but often through activism such as the civil rights, birth control, women's lib, and gay pride movements. Each was accompanied with requisite consciousness raising. These liberation movements also created reactionary movements on the right which then intensified the determination of the liberation movements. The GOP already had the racist vote going back to Nixon's southern strategy... and with Reagan the GOP invited into the GOP the reactionaries.
But when these activist groups... left and right duke it out... it can destroy any economic solidarity that many in these groups might share... and it helps the right consolidate wealth and power.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)is the term is stuck behind giant invisible walls of nationalism and corporatism. And those walls are maintained by guns and prisons and property rights. And those systems are maintained by desperate men who are willing to murder and maim to protect what little status they have in the system. And for why? To support a family, usually.
We're barely (and possibly back-sliding) beginning to admit rights over women's own bodies, let alone acknowledging a global class problem.
Thus, it seems to me anyway, that women must have full autonomy over their own bodies before anything else will begin to budge.
If I were to pick one "cause" that would seem the most effective right now, it would be to admit that all women of this planet need birth control. The age-old link between sex and childbearing is the primary tool of oppression. It's behind everything else.
So, even though I was a Bernie supporter in the primaries, I think Hillary is on the right track by stating that "the future is female".
Michael Moore recently said something to the effect of "Guys, relax, and let women run things now. It's okay. Lay down your swords. They'll run it better. Really, they will..."
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So feminism as an ideology is fine... but not thinking in terms of about the ways the uber rich have tried to rig the system to then benefit?
They really are two issues... and as I wrote in my OP
"Yes, there will always be a need to recognize some legitimate issues of identity repression, but I believe economics is a more universal issue to unite the masses... and Dems have forgotten this lesson."
Lanius
(599 posts)White women weren't as inclusive as they could have been and, historically, have considered feminism to be a white, middle-class women's movement. Class consciousness was similar in that minorities tended to be marginalized for and by the white working-class.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)as the entire edifice of modern, global civilization is hierarchical, phallic, Apollonian, etc. It will not change unless women, as a global class, are liberated to having full control over their own bodies. That is where all the world's power truly lies.
It's not the control of production, but the control of reproduction that is the key to unraveling the entire class system.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I think you are blinded by your own ideology. Feminism may be an useful antidote to toxic paternalism and those poisoned by testosterone, but it really doesn't help deal with the problem of most average Americans being blind to the class warfare of the rich and the divisive tactics of the Right.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)as the poor. Only their daughters get to choose whether they have children or not, while poor daughters just keep getting knocked up. If history is any guide, then the only way to fight the masters is for the slaves to out-breed, rise up, and overthrow their oppressors. Violently. We'd like to get out of that trap.
But, of course, birth-control can also be used as a tool of oppression. I guess nothing is that simple.
It just seems to me that money trumps class, and sex trumps money, ultimately. And "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac", as Kissinger says...
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)There ARE more issues out there... but feel free to be oblivious... thus proving my point in the OP.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Until you color-blind class warriors realize that the issues are you believe are non-economic are a source of economic oppression to us, your message will always die.
Signed--a Marxist
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
JHan
(10,173 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If you're saying I've deluded myself that class consciousness will magically deal with all social problems of racism, sexism, what ever... that's complete and utter nonsense. What I'm saying is too many vote against they economic interests... and the Dems better find out why. I think it's obvious... that instead of an over arching economic message, the Party is dragged by corporate Dems to favor the professional class, and dragged by too many coalition groups into the culture wars.
Class consciousness can be a way to inoculate many lost to the right to see through their divide and conquer tactics of pitting race or ethnic group against race and ethnic group. Of course it's not going to matter if the Dems don't have attractive economic positions of their own. I'm with Bernie and Thomas Frank that Dems have given up on labor and need to refocus on basic economics.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)The people you're talking about have heard the GOP dog-whistling (which isn't even subtle now under Trump) for years and years.
The immigrants and illegals are stealing our jobs!
Equal pay costs too much!
Insert any other group the rightwing has been demonizing for decades and you'll find that most of the people lapping it up believe it's about $$.
The only thing the Democrats can do about that is walk away from them.
Find out what non-voters (half the fucking eligible population) are thinking
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)" people tend to see themselves in non-economic terms... gun owners, gay, christian, anti-abortion, white, black, hispanic, immigrant rights, whatever. "
For one thing, categories like "gun owner" do not belong in the same list as black, Hispanic, "whatever" to which we can add LGBTQ, women, disabled, and the aged. Gun owners aren't oppressed.
When you sit and think hard why you wrote "non-economic" on the beginning of a list that included people who definitely do get oppressed economically on the basis of their physical inborn characteristics, then you'll figure out where you blew it.
Class encompasses the effects of race, gender, etc. These issues are not non-economic.
The WWC knows all about their own sense of class--several of them are in unions. Some of them still voted for Trump. They are often really racist. That's not a mystery and shows up in polling too.
What Dems need to do is expand voter protections for the section of the working class that has shown a willingness to save its own ass--the people who voted for Hillary, or couldn't because of voter id laws.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I wrote "And yet without a strong sense of what Marx called class consciousness... people tend to see themselves in non-economic terms... gun owners, gay, christian, anti-abortion, white, black, hispanic, immigrant rights, whatever."
I did NOT just write
" people tend to see themselves in non-economic terms... gun owners, gay, christian, anti-abortion, white, black, hispanic, immigrant rights, whatever. "
I did NOT say people NEVER think about economics. I did say strong class consciousnesses may clarify thinking and inoculate many to right wing tactics. But it's also true those other considerations do COMPETE with economic self interest... combine that with half the Democratic Party going corporate over the last 25 years... giving up on labor and supporting free trade... these Dems have made it worst by muddying the economic issues. It should be giving Dem strategists pause to know that the GOP could grab onto the issue of worker disenchantment when it's GOP that is most willing to screw them.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I didn't edit anything. Don't know what you are on about. I'm not obliged to ring it around with what ever other piece you think qualifies the problem parts. They don't.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)THAT'S CALLED EDITING... and since you did so clearly to change its meaning... I think this discussion is over.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edit
transitive verb
1
a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation
b : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging
c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose <carefully edited the speech> <edit a data file>
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)No one is obliged to copy and paste an entire paragraph to discuss a phrase. Editing would mean I altered the words in the section I quoted. I did not.
And now I am done with your inability to be informed.
You have zero recs, and four posters have agreed with me. Take some time for self-reflection.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"No one is obliged to copy and paste an entire paragraph to discuss a phrase. Editing would mean I altered the words in the section I quoted. I did not."
First, no one is talking about entire paragraphs. You EDITED A SENTENCE... and did so to deliberately misrepresent my position which the entire sentence made more clear. So then you debated your own strawman.
You must be so proud of your revisionism and sleazy debating tactics. I can only assume their designed to cover for the weakness in your position.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry, I'm not that shallow.
But it seems you are.
Dems SHOULD be the party where democratic reforms come from because we know the right has contempt for democratic principles. But that's not the case.
Dems are oblivious to their central contradiction of pretending to value democratic principles... when they are supporting an antidemocratic system that is robbing them of the political power they've EARNED in elections.
At that point SOMEONE needs to knock a few heads together.
Response to eniwetok (Reply #84)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #85)
Post removed
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)This...If I could recommend your post, I would!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)That's why the Southern Strategy worked.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)But we DO know the Right has a vested interest in keeping racism and the culture wars alive as part of the divide and conquer strategy.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We've been telling white working class people that they are voting against their interests for DECADES. We've provided evidence. We've experienced the results. Racism still wins.
The idea that it will work if we just ignore identity politics and embrace class identity is already proven wrong.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The idea that it will work if we just ignore identity politics and embrace class identity is already proven wrong.
Yup... we've noticed... not sure they have... that they are voting against their economic interests... yet does it ring true? Since 1993 the Dems have largely given up on labor and started pushing free trade... while the GOP that REALLY wants to shaft labor, hands out tax cuts funded with borrowed money. It's not as simple as "we've been telling them...".
But then you add to the errors in your thinking by assuming, falsely, that race is reason... and therefore there's no need for the Dems to emphasize REAL economic issues.
People are multidimensional. They vote for many reasons... and no doubt many are racist. But the culture wars and identity politics crowds out that larger, overarching issue which is economics. The Dems... more precisely, corporate Dems, have muddied the water further and given up on the Dem's core advantage that has the broadest appeal. Now Trump has stolen that issue... for a while.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)When a racist and sexist was all right as long as he voted for the union?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Pray tell, how can anyone conclude that from anything I said? I've been suggesting using economic solidarity as way to better brand the Dems as the party of the bottom 80% and weaken the right's divide and conquer tactics and you come to the amusing if not utterly irrational conclusion that I want to return to to the days of racism and sexism?
As Spock would say... fascinating.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)You are reinforcing the old idea that we need to turn away from what the right brands as "identity politics" , which oddly enough, is what the right wants to do too. Do I think you are deliberately doing that, no, but you are being blatantly ignorant of the fact that is what your argument leads to. By the way, the smirking and insults do not win your point, it only reinforces your denial, a very Trumpian tactic.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And that's a laughable diversion.. as is your amusing accusation that I'm using "Trumpian" tactics. I think it's proof your argument is running out of steam but you like keeping up appearances.
But speaking of the right... it was many decades ago that I read or heard somewhere that it was the Right... maybe even JE Hoover's COINTELPRO who wanted to encourage identity politics as a way of weakening the left so it might never be a unified threat. I've never been able to track this down, but given how the Dems lost their commitment to labor... I think identity politics played a big role. But I'd also blame cowardice on the part of Dems to stand up to the GOP especially starting in the Reagan years. Here we are 35 years into Starve The Beast... a strategy that poses an existential threat to the liberal hope to use government to do good for it's people... and with the exception of Bill Clinton who was on the verge of debt paydown... the Dems show virtually no willingness to expose the dark motives of the Right in creating massive debt... the same with national health care. How did the GOP go from 80% of GOP senators being cosponsors to bills with an individual mandate in 1993... to a virtual rejection of national health care the next year?
But I stray.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Trump will do NOTHING to economically help these people. Most of them will vote to re-elect him anyway. Why? Because he hates the brown people and so do they.
You can "corporate Dem" this and "REAL economic issues" that, but you are pissing in the wind.
Insofar as economic issues are concerned, they have been offered the idea that their enemies are "illegal immigrants" and poor people overseas. And they have bought it. And plenty of so-called progressives will actually agree with them on that.
It's bullshit. Always has been.
Demsrule86
(68,552 posts)They say it all the time about how...the left needs this yada yada...so I don't understand a Democrat on a Dem site saying that we need to abandon 'identity' politics...which are civil rights issues anyway.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Then get back to me on class.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If there's such a thing as "economic identity" politics based on class... pray tell, how does that NOT work against racism?
Inquiring minds want to know!
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)because so far you seem to believe that tossing out a few words constitutes a devastating argument/rebuttal.
kiranerys
(54 posts)Our great national myth is that we are a classless, colorblind meritocracy, where anyone can be rich and successful if they just work hard and follow the rules. The corollary being that if you're not rich and successful it must be your fault.
Most people know this is a bunch of BS, and yet we can't seem to let go of the idea.
I think some of that is because race is a fundamental, insidious part of the American class structure. You can't have real class consciousness and unity in this country, IMO, without pulling up the poison of racism root and branch from the American psyche.
AJT
(5,240 posts)
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)I'm sympathetic to this line of thinking, although there are nuances here that doesn't make it an "either/or" proposition.
Firstly there is NO organized Marxist system that recognizes racism or any form of discrimination as a legitimate reason to deny the benefits of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat to anyone, no matter WHAT their identity. So a revival of Marxist class consciousness would be the OPPOSITE of, tacitly or overtly, encouraging discrimination. That's only found in capitalism. Malcolm X famously said, "You can't have capitalism without racism" and I believed him when he said it and I believe him now.
Secondly, Marx recognized surplus value (profit) as a form of oppression, so a revival of true Marxist class consciousness would also recognize this basic fact of class struggle. There are OTHER forms of oppression under capitalism, but this basic Marxian form is usually ignored by strict identity politics.
Thirdly, individual discrimination and bias becomes a personal issue alone when everybody has enough to live on in a shared, socialist economy. If the white guy has absolutely NO control over your economic well being and standard of living, then his bias has nothing to do with oppressing you. Only a system can oppress, not individuals. If he doesn't want to associate with you because of your color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, then it's his loss, not yours. Your well-being will have nothing to do with his biases, so he can safely be ignored. The only caveat to this is if he personally and physically attacks you because of his biases. But that will be a rare occurrence and you will be free to defend yourself if a personal attack happens.
Fourthly, almost all identities are workers or at least members of the working class. Most are not part of that tiny sliver that are the bourgeoisie and, for the most part, the identities that ARE part of the bourgeoisie have MUCH more in common with other members of their class, even the racist, misogynistic, discriminatory ones, than they do with workers who share their identity. IOW, the interests of their class are MUCH more important to a member of the bourgeoisie than the interests of their identity. A revival of Marxist class consciousness would provide members of the working class with this same, basic commonality of interests.
Now, with all this said, we don't live under socialism. So to ignore the special oppression and super exploitation that happens under capitalism or to sweep those oppressions under the rug in order to foster some sort of forced unity by IGNORING the discriminatory impulses of some of the working class would also be a betrayal of Marxist ideas. We are scientific socialists, not utopian ones, so we can't avoid recognizing what IS in society. A Marxist can't compromise on this. We can't tell the white racist, not overtly or tacitly, who's a worker that his racism is OK because he's a worker. Being a member of an oppressed class doesn't mean he can get away with being an oppressor himself.
I know and interact with Marxists of ALL races, ethnicities, genders, and orientations and they can ALL find a basis for ending discrimination against their identity, indeed ending ALL systemic discriminations under a Marxist framework. They don't ignore their identity and the special problems that come from their identity, but they also recognize that Marxism is the framework that ends discrimination all together.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm not a Marxist... at least haven't been one since my undergrad days in the early70s'... and my use of the term class consciousness wasn't intended to call for a Marxist analysis. It was merely a recognition that Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time... that they're tending to get bogged down in the cause of the day and forgetting that economics and making people aware of the right's divide and conquer tactics can go a long way to act as a uniting theme. If there had been more class consciousness and less social identity politics perhaps the Democratic base could have prevented the rise of corporate Dems back in the 90s.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)can prevent the rise of corporate interests. Concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy is a part of Marxist economics. It was there from the beginning. Specifically the Democratic Party became the workers' alternative in the USA in order to prevent a more radical anti-capitalist alternative that was a real and growing possibility during the 1930s. So even when it was throwing a few more crumbs to workers back in the day, it was STILL serving the interests of capital.
IOW, lacking a true left working class based alternative, it was inevitable that the Democratic Party would turn to corporate interests in a more overt fashion. They never stopped serving corporate interests, that support just became more overt.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Our system included some advances from the Enlightenment but it was still created in large part on class warfare... and to protect slavery. Madison was clear he wanted the Senate to be the protector of the "minority of the opulent" and our system gives elites a veto over the People at every turn. So it comes as no surprise that the corporate form, a tool that protects the private wealth of corporate owners... one of many freebies from government that I'd argue makes great wealth possible, has largely gotten out of civic control. With the help of the Right, the corporate form has become our Frankenstein... and it's engineering the system that created it to suit its needs rather than the other way around. I'd argue this is largely a result of our antidemocratic form of government.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)is a good way to put it. Marx would call it the dictatorship of capital, but it means the same thing. Yes, the US Constitutional system WAS set up to protect the property of the people who "owned" that property and who passed it on to their descendants through capitalist property relations, i.e., inheritance. Thus, it IS undemocratic at its core.
But one thing that most forget is that society doesn't matter to capitalism except as a means to protect their ownership of the means of production and their property. And that it's all based on profit. Even those protections are based on profit. Nothing else in society matters. Capitalism isn't concerned with society, only with profit and the PROTECTION of that profit. Anything else is WAY secondary to profit. Those are the rules of the system.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)When I say antidemocratic I'm referring to the political system which is mathematically un- and antidemocratic. The EC can impose on the nation a president that was REJECTED by the People. 18% of the US population now gets 52% of the seats in the Senate where they just don't have a veto over the House... but have special powers. The amendment formula now gives the 12 smallest states with 4% of the population the ability to thwart any reform... yet states with 40% can ratify any amendment. And of course this also makes the functioning of the Senate antidemocratic... say in the filibuster or nominations. I wasn't referring to whether the economy has been democratized.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)from the economic system. The political system was set up FROM ITS INCEPTION to support the economic system. That's why it's called "bourgeois" democracy instead of "democracy".
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The creation of the modern, limited life, limited liability, corporate form doesn't occur in the 1790s. And Hamilton's ideas on promoting domestic industry were the result of a congressional vote... not a direct creation of the Constitution.
So I'm not totally buying your argument.
But the very nature of states rights federalism, competition between states on offering limited liability, some SCOTUS decisions... AND the rise of the corporate GOP taking advantage of our antidemocratic system DOES explain the mess we're in today.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)For all practical purposes anyway. It is a natural outcome of a class based society, but Marx was the one who first (I believe he was the first to use the term) pointed it out and elaborated on it the most. So if you use the phrase "class consciousness" you should expect a Marxist to respond with a Marxist analysis. 
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Given it's a Marxist concept... what better term could I use... and I'd maintain it's still very useful given the best defense against the divide and conquer tactics of the right is an individual being inoculated against that sort of manipulation. But using it doesn't mean I buy into the whole Marxist scheme. I cherrypick from many political traditions.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Americans have been taught to believe that there are no classes in the US.
Americans are taught that anyone can get rich.
Americans are taught that anyone can become President.
It is obviously very difficult to overcome that early childhood indoctrination/teaching/socialization.
That said, capitalists use racism as the main dividing point for workers. Racism is the foundation of US capitalism. While the outcome is economic inequality, we cannot forget that racism is the key element used in the division process so racism must be the first thing we attack.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You wrote: "That said, capitalists use racism as the main dividing point for workers. Racism is the foundation of US capitalism. While the outcome is economic inequality, we cannot forget that racism is the key element used in the division process so racism must be the first thing we attack."
Obviously racism exists. But absent from your thesis it that antidemocratic government is the root of many of our social problems. Why have so many other nations been able to create common sense single payer systems and the US can't? Why is wealth inequality so great, and social mobility decreasing in the US compared to other nations?
If certain political viewpoints are excluding from the halls of power because of a braindead two party system, and small minorities can not just block even the desirable social and corporate reforms... but the minority can even govern... as evidenced by the Bush and Trump Juntas.... and an antidemocratic Senate.... why isn't THAT the foundation of US capitalism?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)by the slaveholding 1% who wrote the Constitution.
One example is the Electoral College. Another is the Senate. Both favor what were the slaveholding states.
So I agree with you that while this type of government is nominally founded on democratic principles, in application the government favors the rich.
Lanius
(599 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)One way to minimize the voice of the workers. Just as Citizens' United performs that function today.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Because Europe had the racism bled out of it in the period of self destructive behavior known as World War II, and, in case you do not read current trends, many of the far right wing are actually coming back, as shown by the highly racist Brexit vote.
Europe had it's social mobility because they had to take racism head on or die, the way a drunk realizes that they cannot have one beer or one glass of wine unless they want to end up in jail or a morgue. Sadly, Europe is forgetting that now. It is the root of many social problems, including and especially the current mutation of capitalism, because it sells the lie that only it can protect people from mobs, while we know that corporations ARE mobs.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry... there are more variables in the real world than race and one is the system's political nature. Democratic systems can better take on corporate power and design an economic system that is more egalitarian. Our system is not just antidemocratic, it works against democratic instincts which is why not even a Bernie Sanders would suggest that VT doesn't deserve the power it has in the government. Currently states with just 18% of the population get 52% of the seats and Senate has a veto over anything that's comes out of the House... and then there's the amendment process where states with just 4% of states can block any reform. Our system allows ultra tiny minorities to block even the most common sense reforms. Who blocked even the discussion of Single Payer? One Senator: Max Baucus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Baucus#Opposition_to_single_payer_health_care
So I'm not buying your theory that we don't have single payer, less wealth inequality etc because of racism.
FigTree
(347 posts)that Karl's notion of class was theoretically dichotomous: owning means of production vs. owning one's work force. Although, at bottom, this remains of course true, the capital has evolved over the past century or so, a large buffer zone where it is possible to own the means of production of one's survival through merchandises, both material (e.g. backyard, car, phone) and immaterial (e.g. identity markers). The revolutionary theory had to expand its critique to this new landscape, which a few have articulated in the mid-sixties (e.g. Debord). Without clear awareness of such actualized critique, there cannot be "class consciousness". Merely pathetic discussions about survival.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)"And yet without a strong sense of what Marx called class consciousness... people tend to see themselves in non-economic terms... gun owners, gay, christian, anti-abortion, white, black, hispanic, immigrant rights, whatever.
That happens to be what I think of this drivel.
If Karl was your professor and you submitted this shit as a paper he would literally laugh you out of the office.
In fact, since I already schooled you before you even wrote this crap, let me quote myself. Read and learn.
(Racism is a form of oppression from the ruling class) is technically correct. The problem is how that theory is applied. The fact is, the concept of "Whiteness" and "Blackness" are basically the analogue to bourgeoisie and proletariat in Europe; not that the latter doesn't exist here, but essentially we have two (and really three if you take cismale versus not-cismale into account) dynamics of base versus superstructure intersecting in America, and they affect the entire nature of classism.
read below if you want to hear a bit of heavy Marxist class/race analysis :
Essentially the key to the American class structure is the concept of "Whiteness", aka, the group of people that are considered full people in society. The thing to understand here is that it's a very sliding scale - at some point, European groups like Spaniards/European Hispanics, Chinese, Slavs, Irish (!), Italians (!!), and even Germans (!!!) were not considered "white" (which is why some of those groups were enslaved, and others used as cheap labor that wasn't quite as bad as slavery but wasn't too far off). Thus we see that "whiteness" has no relation to European descent, so much as it relates to where you are in the power structure and how much and what kind of resources one has access to.. Whiteness has adapted however, by incorporating these groups, giving them more privilege, and thus maintaining the underclass (Irish, Italians, Slavs, and even some Hispanics became "white", Asians are still affected by racism but they've been encouraged as a model minority and as such have gotten more access to resources)
Right now it's even trying to adapt by elevating people of the most marginalized groups as long as they adhere to the power structure (Ben Carson, Milo Yiannopoulos , Caitlyn Jenner as examples.). While one may struggle with class oppression as a "White" person, there is a powerful psychological wage associated with being "White" that mitigates that oppression, as well as provides avenues for escaping it (basically the proverbial American Dream, and a huge source of the myth that if you work hard enough you'll make it). For example, even poor whites get better access to services, infrastructure and opportunities than non whites.
(I'd argue that some groups of nominally "White" people are in the process of being kicked out of the club that that's outside the scope of this conversation)
So the struggle regarding "White" people in America is to get them to voluntarily *give up* their Whiteness, to give up the preferential access to resources, prestige and respect that Whiteness confers, so as to struggle with marginalized groups for a better, more equal world that in the long run, will serve them better. Of course, this is hard and risky so people would rather not deal, and would pretend that it's not THAT big a problem, even if you're nominally left. Trying to argue that "fixing class will solve everything" doesn't work, not because class isn't important (it does intersect with everything) but because it betrays a lack of understanding of how class in America works.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm not a Marxist. I'm borrowing a CONCEPT from Marx... that of class consciousness as a way to build solidarity around economic issues and to try and inoculate Dems against the divide and conquer tactics of the right. If you think I'm not using the term canonically, too bad. I'm not here to split hairs.
But I have to wonder what Marx would have thought of a fragmented working class, too many fixated on their separate non-economic issues.
jalan48
(13,859 posts)people would prefer to change places with those in the privileged places in society rather than to work to change the economic system itself. It's not about everyone sharing, it's about oneself, or at best, one's identity group. Maybe it's just tribal or human nature, however, I don't think humans are capable of thinking on the grand scale that is necessary for a class consciousness that will last. It appears all we are capable of at this point is smaller, identity groups competing against one another within an accepted and exploitative capitalistic system.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I agree that the dynamics of our system tends to put groups in conflict with each other. But it's also true that the Right has a minority agenda of protecting the interests of the uber rich and corporate power. BUT THEY CAN'T ACCOMPLISH THAT without a governing majority.
The Right has been very successful in cobbling together a coalition of their own identity groups who are so interested in their single issues they don't care about about wealth inequality and growing corporate power... worst, the longer groups stay with the GOP they become increasingly susceptible to the GOP's trickle down narrative.
Realistically what would nationally shift power back to the Dems... 3-4-5% of GOP voters? How do Dems steal back these GOP voters? It has to be with some broader appeal... and economics fits that bill. And if promoting class consciousness can also make one aware of how the right uses divide and conquer by pitting one group another, so much the better.
jalan48
(13,859 posts)From what I see however, most people would rather be able to trade places with those who they perceive to be privileged. To enjoy the benefits of the system without having to change the system itself. Kinda like, "It's your turn to be on the bottom now".
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The 1971 Powell Memo set in motion a long term, multi-front, coordinated strategy to turn America into Amerika. We see that infrastructure being built then... Heritage and Cato, ALEC, the Federalist Society... long term strategies such as Starve The Beast, a No New Tax Pledge; defunding the Democratic Party by going after unions and trial lawyers. Did the Dems respond? Sure... but moving to the right.
Dems seem to have NO long term vision of where they want to take the US in 20-40-60 years... and without a vision, they're not going to create a similar strategy. Hell, Dems can't even wake up to the fact that our system's antidemocratic nature is doing them in. When I posed the simple question why Dems can't even support Civic Equality in the vote... even if that's WHY we got the Bush and Trump Juntas... the question fell on deaf ears. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028707874 And you can see the response here where so many are opposed to the Dems stressing an economic message instead of narrow identity politics. It's political equivalent of being penny wise, pound foolish.