> 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 think the misunderstanding turns on the word "non-revolutionary". To explain this we have to remember that the key dialectic -- some would say the only dialectic --- which concerned Marx himself was the dialectic of labour and capital. This is a dialectic of primarily economic entities. Therefore, any political activity which does not lead _directly_ towards the economic class consciousness of wage earners is non-revolutionary. It seems to me that there are two main ways in which this can be the case: (1) political activity regarding essentially symbolic issues (e.g. the design of a national or state flag) or; (2) political activity which strengthens the position of the capitalist classes, or segments of those classes, usually --- but not always --- in addition to the intended beneficiaries (e.g. protectionism).
I accept that, in some cases, such activities are genuinely popular causes and are worth supporting because they will succeed. Those factors does not make such causes revolutionary. I guess I would describe such cases as "necessary downtime".
> 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.
I'm not going to say "some of my best friends are..." But I have discussed these issues with them --- some agree and some do not. IMO, playing the homophobe card is just as unhelpful as someone saying we should not discuss "minority issues".
> 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.
As I've said in previous posts, I couldn't agree more; as I've just said the problem is that some left causes are either virtually symbolic, or the way their success plays out in a capitalist society benefits capital more than labour.
As an aside, I'm presently completing a thesis which deals with labour and race in a 19th century colonial/settler society. The Pawtucket case you cited is all to familiar to me --- not that case itself, but the way it played out. John Sayles' movie _Matewan_ depicts a great example of how these kinds of situations can be tackled.
> 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.
I read the article and I can't help thinking it's ironic to mention -- in this context -- the case of _heterophobia_ described in that article, quote: "Well one of the things the employer used was, "If they get in here, you'll all lose your jobs. They'll be taken by straights." Apart from which it appears to be a case of the reverse of what you're saying, i.e. a failure to sell the importance of economic class, by pointing out why it was unlikely that straights _would_ get the jobs.
regards,
Grant.