Separate Organisations, Conditioning and Class Struggle

They're simply ruling class plots

I tend to agree with the gist of your statements. I would take the fact that there are glass ceilings for women and blacks in bussiness, academia, etc. that there is something more than, although compounded by, class exploitation happening.

I tend to think that there isn't a general formula that can be applied and that each cases relation to class struggle is different.

I agree. The out-castes of India and Indigenous Australians are groups excluded from employment. I don't see how their assertion of rights is divisive in the long term. In a way, aren't they demanding to be recognised as proletariat?

What are these benefits though? How do I benefit from racism or sexism (or patriarchy, if you prefer)?

I don't benefit if, for instance, the Polish workers in my work are paid less than me, if anything, I suffer from this, as it undercuts my wages and conditions.

Similarly, when women first started to enter the workplace, the inequal position of women and men was used by bosses to undercut their male employees, while at the same time benefitting from not having to pay their female employees as well.

The only beneficiares in either scenario are the bosses involved.

What this (and seperate organisations) leads to is identity politics - if there's enough black business representation, women members of parliament, gay relationships on TV etc. etc. then our problems are solved - class mobility rather than the end of class relationships.

Is it better to have black/female politicians than white male ones - Condoleeza Rice, Margaret Thatcher, Anne Widdecome? Does/did their position in politics benefit the position of working class women? If people are organising on the basis of "representation" on a gender, racial or ethnic basis then I think it makes sense to argue for organisation on a class basis rather than one based on identity. That doesn't mean that racism or sexism are "illusions", but they can only be dealt with effectively if they're seen as part of the wider class struggle, not seperated into single issues which are easily diverted into electoralism, new markets etc.

But there have been strikes, for example, where male workers have been against women workers striking for equal pay - does that mean they shouldn't strike? Who would need to change their attitudes to start expressing class solidarity?
It's correct to say one can't have an abstract line on this - there are reactionary political/ideological reasons why people might want to organise separately on grounds of nationalism, religious prejudice or feminism. There are also specific situations where prejudice within the class needs to be confronted, organised and acted against by those suffering it. If a line of separation is being drawn against blacks, women etc then those being separated have little choice but to organise, beginning from that point; not to reinforce their separation, but to overcome it. That doesn't necessarily mean an Organisation, but does mean organising.
None of this can be equated with equal career opportunities for citizens of bourgeois society etc.
One also has to recognise that the bringing to the forefront of issues of racism, sexism etc in bourgeois society was largely brought into the open by a process that included, as expressions of growing confidence, self awareness etc, independent self-organisation of blacks, women etc. The legacy of this is both good and bad in different aspects - obviously every struggle that is not 'the final victory' gets recuperated. But that's not an excuse, as some would like to pretend, to dismiss the whole process.
Leave the useless rigid 'correct' lines to the party hacks.

excellent post.

Yeah i'm not infavour of seperate organisations but I do support people fighting against particular forms of oppression, and that the struggle is the defining matter. If women workers are being abused, assualt and discriminated against i stand right behind them in fighting back, now if men want to support their struggle then all the better but they should never keep quiet because of fear of dividing the class.

Likewise palestinians are forced to struggle against specific forms of oppression and if the Israeli working class isn't ready to make common cause that's their problem not the people watching their houses bulldozed, land cleared and kids shot. In the same way I reject nationalism but would never for a second deny the validity of the Bogside Riot in fending off the RUC. Now working class prods might not be ready to make common cause and so the riot might end up polarising things in the long term but that's always a risk. The fact is you have to confront oppression as you experiance it and whilst as a communist i want to see this done in a manner that leaves open the potential for making unity with other workers outside that particular oppression, it doesn't always guarantee it will happen.

I was hoping someone was going to bring that up.

My statement was a logical staement pointing out that all divisions in society can not be directly related to class exploitation. Definitely, the danger is there of ID politics. The challenge of class politics is to be relevant to these other divisions, which in general it is. However, it would be a step backwards to deny these other divisions their own dynamic.

You make a good point in that in the long term no-one benefits. However, if both an Anglo Australian and an Aboriginal went for the same job tomorrow, I would bet the Anglo gets it. I think this counts as a short term benefit, which I think TF was getting at.

There are endless situations where one category within the class is more combative than another, and enters into struggle first. In a particular workplace it could be members of a particular union. It could be women workers. It could be a group where one 'ethnic' identity is the majority.

None of this is a justification for separate organisations. On the contrary, it's a reason for keeping the forms of organisation adopted by the struggle open to all workers, because the first lifeline of the workers going into struggle is to convince other workers to join them. Separate organisations would be an immediate barrier to extending the struggle beyond its initial limitations.

It is also important to be able to distinguish between the struggle against such divisions and oppressions within the class, and attempts to organise against such oppression across class lines, as in the case of feminism and black nationalism or gay pride. I agree with 'libcom' (that glitch should get sorted!)that this is the road to identity politics and bourgeois reformism.

i think the 'glitch' is catch not bothering to log out of the admin account to post in debates

(i mean fair enuff like, you don't see me building/fixing the site)

But this is the real point. Intra-class division and oppression a priori means that the proletariat is not at a sufficient stage of consciousness and unity. So the most oppressed will probably organise separatly. And yes, 9 times out of 10 this means bourgeois political channels. But they can't be expected to spontaneously adopt some revolutionary class consciousness, especially when it is other proletarian involved in their oppression. So single issue groups are a symptom of the deeper problem. To say they're not justified is a pretty abstract stance. I mean I don't support them financially or materially, I may offer expressions of solidarity and try to communicate my views. But my question to those who out right reject separate organisations: What do you say to Aboriginals to convince them of a class approach when every worker they've met calls them a coon?

Explain why the worker has fallen victim to the divisions that the ruling class propagate in the working class. That the bosses want to keep us divided. That the only way to overcome such divisions is to understand and confront them, and to refuse to fall into the traps set up by the capitalist state such as separate organisations for this or that group.
This does not mean denying or playing down the oppression that the aboriginals have suffered, but explaining that there is no way of getting rid of this oppression without getting rid of capital.
What is the alternative? Defending the idea of a separate organisation for this ethnic group? If you do not think there is an answer to this oppression within capitalism, how can you tell someone to set up or join an organisation that offers no answer? This only makes sense if one believes that some how one can get rid of or lessen this oppression under capitalism

Yeah, I miss my old self

Hi Ernie. I agree we have to explain our point of view and I expressed this sentiment above, though only fleetingly (my apologies). My point is that the anti-capitalist movement is not currently strong enough to offer anything practical. So until organised labor starts making the hard yards up the middle, all this amounts to just talk. So our talk has to be A-grade.

Unfortunately I think this statement oversimplifies the origins and dynamics of societal divisions and thus we are back to the issue of why the anti-capitalist movement struggles for relevance. I have tried to make statements above to the effect that societal divisions effect bourgois society as well as proletariat society, so logically these divisions predate/overlay capitalism and cannot be reduced to a bourgois conspiracy (although obviously exploited by the bourgoisie). I would also suggest the cases of Zambia and India where there are cases of urban proletarisation breaking down traditional ethnic and caste divisions. Again, this is contrary to the logic that all such divisions are a capitalist plot. My contention is that dogmatic assertions that its all class based denies the reality of the divisions, and diminishes subjective relevance. So not only don't we have the strength and unity to offer anything practical, we are beset with a lack of a proper analysis that would increase our relevance to marginalised groups. Separate issue groups need to be viewed within this framework.

I agree with you Jason, social divisions need to be addressed through the thorough application of a theory of hierarchy, not merely by Marxist slogans. I see hierarchy discussed very little on libcom and yet it is much more useful for understanding a great many struggles than simple class analysis.

With regard to separate organisations it makes no sense to rail against the spontaneous expressions of resistance that are thrown up in all kinds of situations around the world; people will tend to group around shared struggle rather than ideological dictates and this doesn't have to give rise to single issue politics or reformism, on the contrary it is just as likely to begin a process of radicalisation that might well lead to a broadening of local struggles.

It isn't up to anarchists to demand that people abandon organisations that serve them well, we would be better off trying to find common ground and keeping a good dialogue going. Why should we seek one organisation now if what we want of a free society is unity in diversity?

So now we can't lessen our oppression under capitalism, oh yeah it's all because of decandence. Yo oppressed person don't struggle for your own immediate needs/desires as defined by you, but struggle for abstract idealogy call commie-ism which predetermines what is in your own best interests you stupid morons.

Yep, good point Jason Cortez,as i've said before the whole of the ICC's politics spins on the theory of decadence, take that away and the tubes are left flapping about in the wind.

Hi Jason

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think that to develop the discussion we need to be very clear on the foundations; 1.The ICC does not and has never denied that men and women exist, that people have different racial and ethnic origins, that people group up in diffirent national states, there there are different sexual orientations, that there are different religions in the world. Nor has or does the ICC deny that there is oppression of women, racial or ethinic groups. Thus, we can avoid going around in circles on whether the ICC does or doesn't deny such things.
2. Nor do we deny that such divisions can have an impact on the ruling classes themselves. Such divisions are taking on increasing power in the weaker capitalist states as capitalism increasingly rots. Thus in countries such a Somalia, Liberia etc tribal divisions are taking on an importance that they did not have previously.
3. the impact of these divisions and their ideological expressions within the working class does vary with the level of the class struggle etc.

Where the difference is between the ICC and Marxism understanding of such divisions and that of yourself and Blacknred Ned is that we see the working class as a revolutionary class, which is not defined by what this or that worker, or the class itself thinks of itself at this or that moment, but by its revolutionary nature and mission. The working class is the only class whose whole future is based on the destruction of all divisions of class, race, religion, ethinic origin.

This sound abstract, as you say, but it is very concrete. It means that the proletariat has had to wage an intransigent struggle to overcome the way in which the ruling class has tried to use divisions of sex, nation, etc in order to keep its enemy divided. This struggle certainly goes through ups and downs, but it is the task of revolutionaries to keep aloft the unity of the class against the increasingly weight of divisional ideologies. To given an inch to the ruling classes campaigns is the beginning of betraying ones class, because it means compromising with the class enemy. It is they want the working class to see itself as being defined by its sex, ethnic group etc.
This does not mean that communists accept oppression of any form, far from it, the workers' movement has always struggled against such oppression. The support of the early workers movement for the various revolutions in Europe from the 1830's, the support of exiles, the support of the North in the American Civil War by the 1st International and the texitle workers of Northern England, the struggle against colonialism, the struggle within the American Socialist Party, lead by Eugene Debs against the influence of racism, the struggle by the movement against oppression of women (Engels and Babel's books on the question of oppression of Women have not been beaten for their furocity of condemnation of oppression of women), the active armed defence of the Jewish population by Russian Social Democratic workers in the 1900's.
What revolutionaries cannot accept is the making of divisions the basis of separate organisations. As was said at the beginning of this thread such ideas are based on a politics of identity of interests between classes. What interest does a working class woman have in working with a bourgeois woman, making a common cause with them?
Jason you say:

Where has any such 'resistance' helped develop the struggle of the working class or even those involved?
I have gone for too long, but hopefully this has helped to clear away any false obstacles in the way of developing this discussion.

Ticking_fool has started a good thread here. It's important to get to the roots of our disagreements. I would say that TF hasn't clearly presented our position on 'partial struggles' as we call them so I hope you don't mind if the record is set straight. From point 12 of the ICC's Platform...

So, one of the premises for a successful revolution is for the working class to have a clear identity of itself as a class, to have a real sense of autonomy from other classes. There is also the concept of the class fighting on its own 'terrain' which is something that is not clearly understood, particularly on these forums, and I suppose we should make more of an effort to explain what we mean by such terms and give more illustrations.

Anyhow, this consciousness of being part of a class is best developed through class struggles - defensive strikes, protests by the unemployed etc. - which bring together workers from different countries, races, colours, creeds etc and pushes these differences into the background and brings to the fore their common interests as members of the same class. The strike a Heathrow last year was a classic example of this where BA staff (predominantly male) went on strike in support of the Gate Gormet workers, who were predominantly Asian women.

Of course there are many divisions within the class - and they do indeed have material bases. We do not deny this. But this material basis is capitalist society - and in the final analysis the economy. As the point quoted above says, defending partial struggles - and the organisational forms they take - serves to dilute the working class in to the mass of the 'people'. Why do you think governments are so keen to promote 'multiculturalism'? Precisely because it celebrates 'differences' rather than what unites!

What is the role of communists then? As Marx said in the Communist Manifesto,

Yes, reality is very complex, but that doesn't mean that the responses of communists have to be so. Sometimes it's quite the opposite!

B.

Your last Quote is from jason a totally different person.

The 'workers movement' also organised against jews, immingrants etc etc. So they are high and low points int he 'workers movement' so you suggest in the low periods those oppressed groups should shut up for the unity of the class?

Just like the other jason said it's all a plot then.:roll eyes: Whilst seperate organisation are clearly problematic the people who form them do so precisely because they feel they have no effective voice.But hey they should shut up because it's the mission of the working class to reslove all contraditions and create lalaland, maybe not in they lifetimes but so what.

Chiapas

BTW, just for clarity, this quote at top of page is actually Blacknred Ned's.

Sorry jason didn't bother to check. lovely name you have got.

Yeah and how did beltov post appear before mine replt to ernie esp after there was another four posts?

Thus logically there is no simple causal relationship b/t captalism and superficial divisions, ergot it will be instructive to examine superficial divisions in terms of their own dynamic and how they relate to capitalism.