I see the term a lot, but I don't fully understand its context. Impossible to google due to libs coopting the language in unintelligible articles.
Thank you for the help.
This is all true and you can't just paper over intersecting identity issues with class consciousness. But also true that "class reductionist" is sometimes used as a low-key accusation of racism/bigotry by those who are not particularly interested in a Marxist theory of class relations or class consciousness at all and you should be wary of the term
completely ignoring the fact that the working class is queer, black, indigenous, not just the domain of cis white dudes.
It doesn't ignore that. The idea is that their issues will also be solved if the material circumstances change and thus it is pointless to do anything about these kinds of issues. Which is basically wrong especially from a tactical perspective but it's not really because they ignore the fact that the working class is also black, queer etc.
It's generally used though as an insult in a really dumb sense though. Often by libs who just throw it around when they want to discard class analysis.
Another banger of a quote by Mark Fisher aka the most important contemporary thinker of the century
It can be used in 2 ways :
-
Used as a smear by liberals to deliberately steer discussion away from class to prevent formation of class conciousness. Eg. Libs criticizing Bernie for allegedly ignoring the plight of women, minorities because he mostly focuses on class.
-
Used by leftists to critique other leftists who try to steer the discussion away from genuine non-class issues. Eg. Idiots who claim BLM is destroying the left, idiots who don't understand the importance of solidarity etc are all class-reductionists
-
all you really need to know about the term "class reductionist" is that it was popularized by the Hillary camp in 2016 as a slur against Bernard Brothers and further etched into the collective consciousness by Warren stans
I have rarely, if ever, seen this term used seriously by anyone who wasn't rejecting Marxism whole cloth
This is a bad take. Class reductionism is a real problem among many leftists. Libs will co-opt anything sure, but a lot of white leftists will ignore the extra challenges faced by people of color in favor of only talking about class. This is something we must fight against as well and take an intersectional approach to struggle.
a lot of white leftists will ignore the extra challenges faced by people of color in favor of only talking about class.
look, I'm sure this happens, but when you ask for examples everyone points to Stupidpol. those people aren't leftists.
most people throwing around the term "class reductionist" understand class as just another identity, which it very much isn't, so when leftists talk about class ideas that go beyond identity it's interpreted as "this person won't acknowledge my struggle because of their less-oppressed identity".
it's very much adopting the language of the enemy to internally combat a tendency of questionable prevalence
Okay here's an example: I used to be class reductionist. I have since been educated. No I was not a stupidpol person, I just bought too much into the "rising tide lifts all boats" mindset.
sure, okay. but the term started out as a slur against anything left of socdem, not an internal marxist critique of people who don't understand why "class" is not an identity
therefore we should not take seriously the idea that there is some kind of faction of "class reductionists" within the left that we need to look out for. it's just baby leftists who don't understand Marx yet.
And this is why Matt is trash. He has not informed himself on the struggles of other people outside the idea of class nor does he seem to care to do so.
The fact the place still puts him on a thrown says a lot more about everyone else than him though.
“Class reductionism isn’t an issue” Is class reductionism itself.
how much of the 10-12 minutes did you listen to, because if that's your takeway it sounds like you quit after the first ten seconds
EDIT: this sounded more snide than I wanted— I really just want to make sure you got past the first opening bit because he really expands a lot on it
10-12 minutes. That’s longer than Matt has ever spent on the struggles of marginalized people outside the scope of class.
untrue on its face even for people who just listened to the pod during the last year, much less the vlogs
No I’m not talking about the substantial amount of time Amber spends shitting on Jewish people.
why, you've done nothing to indicate you're coming to this in good faith whatsoever
"link me a fiteen minute clip to prove it's worth it to listen to a ten minute clip". come on, man
Okay then don’t. Idgaf.
You’re saying they talk about intersectionality. I’m saying they don’t, so I’m asking when either the vlog or podcast talks about it.
so where are we now? CTH the podcast and the vlogs are together on trial to see if they have mentioned this enough in a way that makes it worthwhile for you to listen to the original ten minute clip before shitting on Matt as "trash" for an argument you haven't even bothered to hear?
I did listen to it. I didn’t listen to the whole episode bc it started off trash and I don’t waste my time listening people trying to claw their way out of trash arguments.
Just remember you’re on the side of “class reductionism is a term of abuse.”
“Started with the Hillary people.” Totally denying decades of liberation efforts by socialists in the U.S.
Ramblings about the PMC that he disagrees with.
“Twitter is about validation. At least that’s why i went on twitter.” Making this seem like it is only an online issue. While protesting this is a very real issue on the streets for marginalized people who feel constantly second guessed and not trusted by the cis white people beside them.
“You can’t argue yourself out of these positions.” Yeah because your take is bad.
“2 arguments. People disagree on a course of action. People upset that the route may not be correct, but the destination is the same. And the only argument online. The argument to be had. People arguing about what the hypothetical best way to get somewhere. Not actually going anywhere.” Another shit argument. Me and class reductionists are not trying to get to the same place and my arguments aren’t just “online” these happen in real life about how we get people to join the fight against capitalism and how we liberate all people instead of just liberating poor cis white men.
“Online demands bad faith” oh like his whole argument that started out with denying class reductionism as a real issue.
“These people don’t do politics in there real life. What they see online demands their emotional landscape.” Projection
Paraphrasing: arguing over the quickest way to get at the hospital vs shooting the shit about comic book characters. I’m guessing in this analogy which is also shit he’s arguing the capitalism vs communism is the quickest way to the hospital and class reductionism is comic book characters. Holy fuck that’s terrible.
There’s your 12 extra shitty fucking minutes. What a waste of my fucking time.
I actually like Matt but when it comes to issues of class and race (i.e. class reductionism), I'm really not inclined to listen to anyone involved in a leftist podcast that had very little to say about the most significant protests we've had in decades this summer (where race was front and center), other than to say hey actually cops are working class, too.
What I was saying is, when the BLM protests took place, Matt and the other Chapo hosts had very little to say. Virtually nothing. We pointed out on the old sub how odd it was pretty often. It was very disappointing. So it seems to me if someone is going to entirely check out from something like that, why should I care what that person has to say about other issues of class and race.
Yeah I totally agree. And if we don’t agree on issues of class and race. You’re about as good as a lib.
Even libs did a better job of pretending they cared.
“Class reductionism isn’t an issue” Is class reductionism itself.
When you definitely know what class reductionism is or is supposed to be.
Matt is fine. Some of his takes are straight garbage but lots of people have garbage takes on some issues and not others. So what if he's just a white Brooklynite talking about the white Brooklynite experience. Theres nothing wrong with that
old conservative and religious beliefs that stuck around because they were convenient to capital.
uhhh what do you think superstructure is?
sorry I see right after you say
Maybe that’s what he means by superstructure of alienation idk.
so I jumped the gun a bit in my comment. that is what he's getting at, this mutually reinforcing feedback loop that can only be changed a little at a time because these structures attempt to recreate each other
Other commenters have made great points. You're right to distrust liberal sources. Liberals will use terms like "class reduction" to discard class struggle. This is opportunism, intersectional actually means intersectional. The working class is disproportionately minority and non-male.
The ultimate liberation of the working class means addressing the oppression of all the constituent parts of the working class.
To put what other's have already answered in a slightly different way, I'd say it's comes from a crude understanding of Marxism and ideology. These people read somewhere that class-based action to change material conditions is the only way to fundamentally improve society so they imagine some "pure proletarian revolution" situation where the labour struggle is all that matters and we don't have to worry about issues that affect the masses more broadly (i.e. racism, heterosexism, transphobia, etc.) because they will "spontaneously" or "automatically" solve themselves at some later time, and doing so before-hand is impossible, a waste of time better put elsewhere, or some other nonsense.
It's a mechanistic, un-dialectical application of the base-superstructure relationship and how ideology and hegemony work in general that must be struggled against, and which Marxists have been struggling against for over a century. Lenin writes in What is to be Done? about the importance of not confining the struggle to a narrow, labour and class basis and that communist must be at the vanguard of every social issue that affects the masses.
When someone ingnores struggles that exist beyond the base struggle of class relations. Specifically struggles of BIPOC or struggles of sexual liberation.
Any revolutionary movement has to incorporate all the struggles of the working class and not just the struggles deemed to be worthy by the status quo. Ignoring the implications of racism/sexism on class is reactionary and bad.
Also, please feel free to explains on this, this is just my cliff notes understanding of the subject.
Impossible to google due to libs coopting the language in unintelligible articles.
The story of a fledgling leftist trying to research anything at all.
