Grant Lee wrote:
>Once again, read my last post.
My response: this is part of a post you made two days ago to which I respnded:
>As a historical materialist, however, my belief is that issues regarding
>wage labour itself
>remain the key issues in regard to the class consciousness of wages
>earners
>_as_a_whole_, GLBT or straight. Therefore, the political left will be
>non-revolutionary in direct proportion to the time it spends on issues
>which
>are a material concern for only a small section of that class, such as GLBT
>workers, rather than the class as a whole.
Tell me where I misunderstood you. I am glad to hear that you do not like the label "homophobia." But it isn't meant as insult. I wouldn't reduce it to an insult of an individual person. I think we are all capable of reproducing the oppressions inherent in this society. Pointing that out isn't meant as an insult to anyone.
As to the "class as a whole" it is a multi-racial, multi-national, male-female, gay, straight, trans, bi multi-ethnic class. When we ignore the special oppression of particular sections of our class as a whole we tend to leave ourself open to ruling class divisiveness. That was the point of my post.
I'll give one example. I hope it doesn't bore. When textile workers in Pawtucket, Rhode Island back in 1823 went on strike, there were essentially two main segments of the working class in the mills: white men and white women. Women were mainly unskilled and underpaid; men were skilled and higher paid. The newly organized union was segregated by sex as well. When the workers struck, initially they were united, following the analysis of class you presented in your post: all workers have the same relation to capital. Unfortunately, the texile owners dealt with the men: recognized their union and moved on some of their demands. The men called off the strike and the women workers got zilch. Sexism that was not addressed initially became a point of division that weakened the struggle as a whole -- unless one thinks that white, male workers getting what they want in the short term is a strong movement. What was a material concern for a small section of the class -- overcoming male supremacy -- proved to be the weakest link for the class as a whole.
Examples of this sort can be found in every small section of the work class throughout US history: racism, sexism, and homophobia. See my interview with Howard Wallace in Political Affairs in which he describes the effort to organize mostly gay restaurant workers by straight activists who didn't really want to address so-called gay identity politics. They failed because employers could use that division to their own advantage.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/113/1/29/
Best,
Joel Wendland
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/