[lbo-talk] Re: boycotting the unorganized (miidle class)

Etienne tim_boetie at fastmail.fm
Tue Jan 25 03:04:06 PST 2005


On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:44:53 -0500, Turbulo at aol.com said:
> 3) No, I don't think the class struggle is one among many (for gender
> eqaulity, gay rights etc) I think it's more fundamental because I believe
> the expoitation of the working class by the capitalist class is the basis
> of our entire society, while special oppressions, though hideous, are
> not. One can be for the abolition of racial and sexual oppression without
> opposing capitalism. One can't be for the abolition of expoitation of the
> working class without doing so. I do think, however, that if the working
> class is ever to overcome capitalism, its struggle must embrace
> opposition to all froms of oppression and (human) inequality.

But why is that? Surely it must be because these forms of oppression support capitalism; that is, the current form of capitalism is determined (in part) by racism, sexism and homophobia, while the current forms of these prejudices are determined (in part) by capitalism.

So that means you should actually be on Brian's side of the argument - by being racist, sexist or homophobic, a union is siding with the bosses, and so solidarity with the working class requires that we _break_ solidarity with such a union. Now, it's a difficult question in precisely which circumstances prejudice within a union amounts to a betrayal of the proletariat; clearly merely having prejudiced members isn't sufficent, while, equally clearly, an actively racist picket line would be. I don't know enough about contemporary US politics to be sure either way, but if opposition to gay marriage is a central part of contemporary American homophobia, it seems conceivable that, by opposing gay marriage, a union might set itself beyond the bounds of solidarity. --

"There are very few members of the establishment press

who will defend the idea that things like aggressive

flatulence, forced feedings of swill, or even a barely-

muted hostility on the part of the candidate would

justify any kind of drastic retaliation by a professional

journalist - and certainly nothing so drastic as to

cause the Democratic front-runner to cut short a major

speech because some dangerous freak was clawing at his

legs and screaming for more gin."

-- Hunter S. Thompson Tim http://www.huh.34sp.com/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list