I'll preface this by noting that the tone of this post is very blunt and to the point, and it's not intended to vicious or hostile but just...neutral. Frank observation. I feel I need to clarify this in advance.
You know what, fuck it, I'll post my response to this, even though it's largely reflexive anger to a "controversial" statement that gestures insistently at something and then doesn't indicate what that thing is.
You don’t seem to understand that it isn’t sufficient to just point out how hypocritical the liberals are in their cynical usage of idpol, but to offer an alternative to those narratives, instead you offer denial and demands of conformity and uniformity,
"We are not enemies, we may be different based on race, gender, sexuality, and so but we all share a common class relation, a common lived experience as a working person. I have more in common with you, a black/female/homosexual colleague, than I do with any white male cishet billionaire. These petty divides are exactly how the ruling class - the real enemy to all of us - keep us divided, atomized, competing against and despising each other. That capitalism forcibly socializes our production, forces us, a disparate group of individuals from wildly different backgrounds, to come together as one entity and combine our labor in order to accomplish the needs of mass production. This makes us the revolutionary force that drives history. We are organized in such a fashion that the means of production are literally operated by our hands while being owned by others - we merely need to take that power into our hands in order to fundamentally change society!"
This is literally the alternative pitch to liberal idpol. The is the dialectic of class struggle. And it has never fundamentally changed even since Marx published his original writings. This is the alternative to "More :clap: female/black/gay :clap: war criminals!" And it requires the emphasis on class, the connection of intersecting liberation struggles for oppressed minorities such as women, racial minorities, and LGBT people. Class is the one force that unites that centrifugal demographics that can otherwise be easily turned against each other.
Prejudice arises not as a personal moral failing, but as a lack of understanding and social interaction resulting from discriminatory and prejudiced social structures. Capitalism reduces the material relation of production to that of working class and owning class. It forces people of wildly disparate backgrounds - race, gender, sexuality, region, etc - to interact with and depend on each other on a regular basis. On a class basis. This interaction would never occur on a regular basis in precapitalist modes of production. That is why Marxism centers the class struggle as the fundamental driver of historical progress, especially under the capitalist system. And, as far as I am aware, personal social interaction is the most effective eradicator of prejudice. As Western labor history has proven, the labor movement's class struggle does not necessarily eradicate these prejudices...but it is only by the class struggle that the true culmination of these liberation struggles can be achieved. This is precisely the "limitations of trade union consciousness" that Lenin wrote about. This is the fundamental difference between Marxism and liberalism. This is why we must be communists.
This is what happens when you decouple the concept of class from its social dimension, you end up developing 101 blind spots and butchering Marx in the process
On one hand talking about the dialectics of class struggle while simultaneously asserting that said struggle hasn't fundamentally changed since Marx published his original writings, you do realize history is an ongoing process and not a static 19th century stage-play between workers, the King, the foreman, and the industrialist, this is the most un-Marxian analysis of class struggle I've heard in a while
It forces people of wildly disparate backgrounds - race, gender, sexuality, region, etc - to interact with and depend on each other on a regular basis. On a class basis. This interaction would never occur on a regular basis in precapitalist modes of production
I really want to know what your conception of precapitalist modes of production looked like, cause that is an astounding sentence
As Western labor history has proven, the labor movement’s class struggle does not necessarily eradicate these prejudices
Oh thank god, you've finally discovered the social dimension of class.......
but it is only by the class struggle that the true culmination of these liberation struggles can be achieved
.................aand you lost it, (Matt Christman voice) JESUS CHRIST YOU JUST REFUTED YOUR PREVIOUS POINT IN THE SAME FUCKING SENTENCE!
This is precisely the “limitations of trade union consciousness” that Lenin wrote about
Bruh he was literally talking about you
I swear to god these kids man, I'm reverting back into a Left-com over these takes, I haven't been this peeved since I had to explain the Marxian conception of price signals to PK's dumbass
What are you trying to fucking say? This is what I meant by "insistently gesturing at something while failing to explain what that thing is". You keep alluding to this fundamental shift in relations of production that allegedly makes Marx obsolete and the Marxist class struggle relegated to the dustbin of the 19th century. But you fail to actually explain what this shift entails, and why it relegates my oh-so-lacking interpretation entirely wrong and obsolete.
Yes there have been shifts in the relations of production. Yes Marx failed to anticipate certain developments he could never have possibly anticipated. But this is not a fundamental shift in the relations of production as Marx originally described. Labor is still exploited, all that is solid is still melted into air and reduced to a class relation. The shift - the neoliberal social engineering project - has merely rendered collective action more difficult on a practical level and more unthinkable on a psychological level in the Orwellian sense of the word. Yes, we are pringles in tubes. But this does not fundamentally alter the nature of exploitation of labor and socialization of production. It merely obscures it more effectively, renders conscientiousness more difficult. It has never fundamentally changed the class struggle at hand.
That my colleagues travel increasingly farther distances to commute; live in neighborhoods far, far away from my own and interact with me on a far lesser basis; have difficulty communicating outside of relations to media spectacle and social media; this does NOT fundamentally change the fact that we come to the same place to work, divide our labor between each other to accomplish a particular task, and interact with each other on a regular basis. It makes organization harder, but it does not fundamentally change our common class relation and lived experience.
These same people who nod their heads in agreement when I spout explicit Marxist rhetoric will also say some of the most vile homophobic shit I've ever heard the next hour. Do I push back against this? Of course. Does this mean I consider organizing them impossible and therefore cancelled? Absolutely not. Is it "class reductionism" to center class in my appeals to them? Fuck no. This is how I fucking break down their barriers of prejudice. It's how I open them to alternatives to views that have been entrenched by decades of institutional indoctrination. That's not "class reductionism", that's probing weak spots in a fucking wall.
Never said Marx was obsolete, quite the opposite, I said your conception of class (and by extension Marx) is wrong, which is why you keep running into these deadend takes, when it comes to class you ignore its social dimensions, you ignore its historical dimensions and then posit a static version of class struggle bereft of the developmentism inherent in Marxism
It's cherry-picking designed to minimize the social aspect of the class struggle which are the defining aspects of our time
I am literally talking about the social dimensions of class struggle throughtout
To be more direct, stop gesturing insistently at something hidden under a tarp, and show what's under the tarp. You are continuously claiming that I am missing or misinterpreting some crucial context - such as the "social dimension of class struggle". Yet, despite my apparent inability to grasp this oh-so-sacred concept, you are not deigning to actually explain what this is in our patented condescending fashion, and how it departs from what I am saying.
I'm not infallible. I am not black. I am not female. I am not homosexual or transgender. Perhaps I am indeed missing some crucial context, context that is not readily evident in theory but much more so in lived experience. Please enlighten me. I insist.
stop gesturing insistently at something hidden under a tarp, and show what’s under the tarp
What fucking "tarp" it's literally as simple as getting a coherent definition of class instead of your weird mechanistic version of it, FIX your fundamentals and everything else will follow, I guarantee it Marx will start making a lot more sense to you when you recognize the role sociology plays in class dynamics
you are not deigning to actually explain what this is in our patented condescending fashion, and how it departs from what I am saying.
The fact you would tolerate racism and homophobia within your hypothetical working class coalition IS YOU dismissing the social dimension of class out of hand, that shit would never fly in the real world, the minute a minority member encounters that bigotry is the moment your movement is shot, to entertain the idea that anything other than that outcome would be likely, is idealism of the highest order and all you have to offer to counter that alienation of a large segment of the working class is "get the fuck over it"
Bruh we tried that shit during the second international it was a fuckin disaster, good luck duplicating that stellar success
I'll preface this by noting that the tone of this post is very blunt and to the point, and it's not intended to vicious or hostile but just...neutral. Frank observation. I feel I need to clarify this in advance.
You know what, fuck it, I'll post my response to this, even though it's largely reflexive anger to a "controversial" statement that gestures insistently at something and then doesn't indicate what that thing is.
"We are not enemies, we may be different based on race, gender, sexuality, and so but we all share a common class relation, a common lived experience as a working person. I have more in common with you, a black/female/homosexual colleague, than I do with any white male cishet billionaire. These petty divides are exactly how the ruling class - the real enemy to all of us - keep us divided, atomized, competing against and despising each other. That capitalism forcibly socializes our production, forces us, a disparate group of individuals from wildly different backgrounds, to come together as one entity and combine our labor in order to accomplish the needs of mass production. This makes us the revolutionary force that drives history. We are organized in such a fashion that the means of production are literally operated by our hands while being owned by others - we merely need to take that power into our hands in order to fundamentally change society!"
This is literally the alternative pitch to liberal idpol. The is the dialectic of class struggle. And it has never fundamentally changed even since Marx published his original writings. This is the alternative to "More :clap: female/black/gay :clap: war criminals!" And it requires the emphasis on class, the connection of intersecting liberation struggles for oppressed minorities such as women, racial minorities, and LGBT people. Class is the one force that unites that centrifugal demographics that can otherwise be easily turned against each other.
Prejudice arises not as a personal moral failing, but as a lack of understanding and social interaction resulting from discriminatory and prejudiced social structures. Capitalism reduces the material relation of production to that of working class and owning class. It forces people of wildly disparate backgrounds - race, gender, sexuality, region, etc - to interact with and depend on each other on a regular basis. On a class basis. This interaction would never occur on a regular basis in precapitalist modes of production. That is why Marxism centers the class struggle as the fundamental driver of historical progress, especially under the capitalist system. And, as far as I am aware, personal social interaction is the most effective eradicator of prejudice. As Western labor history has proven, the labor movement's class struggle does not necessarily eradicate these prejudices...but it is only by the class struggle that the true culmination of these liberation struggles can be achieved. This is precisely the "limitations of trade union consciousness" that Lenin wrote about. This is the fundamental difference between Marxism and liberalism. This is why we must be communists.
This is what happens when you decouple the concept of class from its social dimension, you end up developing 101 blind spots and butchering Marx in the process
On one hand talking about the dialectics of class struggle while simultaneously asserting that said struggle hasn't fundamentally changed since Marx published his original writings, you do realize history is an ongoing process and not a static 19th century stage-play between workers, the King, the foreman, and the industrialist, this is the most un-Marxian analysis of class struggle I've heard in a while
I really want to know what your conception of precapitalist modes of production looked like, cause that is an astounding sentence
Oh thank god, you've finally discovered the social dimension of class.......
.................aand you lost it, (Matt Christman voice) JESUS CHRIST YOU JUST REFUTED YOUR PREVIOUS POINT IN THE SAME FUCKING SENTENCE!
Bruh he was literally talking about you
I swear to god these kids man, I'm reverting back into a Left-com over these takes, I haven't been this peeved since I had to explain the Marxian conception of price signals to PK's dumbass
What are you trying to fucking say? This is what I meant by "insistently gesturing at something while failing to explain what that thing is". You keep alluding to this fundamental shift in relations of production that allegedly makes Marx obsolete and the Marxist class struggle relegated to the dustbin of the 19th century. But you fail to actually explain what this shift entails, and why it relegates my oh-so-lacking interpretation entirely wrong and obsolete.
Yes there have been shifts in the relations of production. Yes Marx failed to anticipate certain developments he could never have possibly anticipated. But this is not a fundamental shift in the relations of production as Marx originally described. Labor is still exploited, all that is solid is still melted into air and reduced to a class relation. The shift - the neoliberal social engineering project - has merely rendered collective action more difficult on a practical level and more unthinkable on a psychological level in the Orwellian sense of the word. Yes, we are pringles in tubes. But this does not fundamentally alter the nature of exploitation of labor and socialization of production. It merely obscures it more effectively, renders conscientiousness more difficult. It has never fundamentally changed the class struggle at hand.
That my colleagues travel increasingly farther distances to commute; live in neighborhoods far, far away from my own and interact with me on a far lesser basis; have difficulty communicating outside of relations to media spectacle and social media; this does NOT fundamentally change the fact that we come to the same place to work, divide our labor between each other to accomplish a particular task, and interact with each other on a regular basis. It makes organization harder, but it does not fundamentally change our common class relation and lived experience.
These same people who nod their heads in agreement when I spout explicit Marxist rhetoric will also say some of the most vile homophobic shit I've ever heard the next hour. Do I push back against this? Of course. Does this mean I consider organizing them impossible and therefore cancelled? Absolutely not. Is it "class reductionism" to center class in my appeals to them? Fuck no. This is how I fucking break down their barriers of prejudice. It's how I open them to alternatives to views that have been entrenched by decades of institutional indoctrination. That's not "class reductionism", that's probing weak spots in a fucking wall.
Never said Marx was obsolete, quite the opposite, I said your conception of class (and by extension Marx) is wrong, which is why you keep running into these deadend takes, when it comes to class you ignore its social dimensions, you ignore its historical dimensions and then posit a static version of class struggle bereft of the developmentism inherent in Marxism
It's cherry-picking designed to minimize the social aspect of the class struggle which are the defining aspects of our time
I am literally talking about the social dimensions of class struggle throughtout
To be more direct, stop gesturing insistently at something hidden under a tarp, and show what's under the tarp. You are continuously claiming that I am missing or misinterpreting some crucial context - such as the "social dimension of class struggle". Yet, despite my apparent inability to grasp this oh-so-sacred concept, you are not deigning to actually explain what this is in our patented condescending fashion, and how it departs from what I am saying.
I'm not infallible. I am not black. I am not female. I am not homosexual or transgender. Perhaps I am indeed missing some crucial context, context that is not readily evident in theory but much more so in lived experience. Please enlighten me. I insist.
What fucking "tarp" it's literally as simple as getting a coherent definition of class instead of your weird mechanistic version of it, FIX your fundamentals and everything else will follow, I guarantee it Marx will start making a lot more sense to you when you recognize the role sociology plays in class dynamics
The fact you would tolerate racism and homophobia within your hypothetical working class coalition IS YOU dismissing the social dimension of class out of hand, that shit would never fly in the real world, the minute a minority member encounters that bigotry is the moment your movement is shot, to entertain the idea that anything other than that outcome would be likely, is idealism of the highest order and all you have to offer to counter that alienation of a large segment of the working class is "get the fuck over it"
Bruh we tried that shit during the second international it was a fuckin disaster, good luck duplicating that stellar success