Class isn't the only thing that matters, but it's the only tool powerful enough to build a movement from. The trick is helping people understand that whatever their identity may be, they are a worker too.
Class is powerful and has the potential to unite the many against the few. In my view working class politics naturally leads to intersectionality. Overcoming sexism, homophobia, racism etc. actively builds working class solidarity and contributes to the liberation of the proletariat.
Of course bourgeois arsewipes like Sinema benefit from bi liberation, women's liberation etc. but that doesn't mean the fight is not worth fighting. Ultimately all the bourgeoisie gains is the ability to elevate a bisexual female ghoul rather than a male straight one but on the other hand they lose an effective tool to divide and distract workers.
Historical revolutionaries have embraced the intersection between class and other forms of oppression, the bolsheviks predicted the vanguard of the American working class to naturally be the black working class who are more easily radicalized by their intersecting oppressions.
Lol marx didn’t wrote about the workers because they were more virtuous than the bourgeoisie, he saw their potential for grinding the capitalist machinery to a halt
Marx did write nowhere "Only workers are able to create working movements!". However you are right that if you are talking about the real existing movement, though drawing from that theoretical tidbit the claim that was made and uplifted against being intersectional and that is based into "tricking people into acknowledging their false class conscious to see themselves as workers" is a stretch.
It isn't materialistic cause it isn't based on historical materialism or Marxism. The claim that only class is able to create a working movement is false. Look at the peasants, look at the Nazis. Even the claim that only the working class is able to create a working movement within capitalism is false.
Why is it false? Cause capitalists, nationalists and racists are also able to create working movements and - unless you reduce your meaning of class - you ought to accept reality.
Does this mean that other movements are able to create a real existing movement which overthrow capitalism but the working class as its foundation? No, it doesn't.
It isn't materialistic cause it is a claim that is connected to little, it has a lot of weak points going for it and no historic underpinning. If you think it does, you ought to read more theory and be actually involved in practice as well (to get the theory you read).
I have no problem working together with people who have ideas like that of OP, but I have a problem working with people who have those ideas which aren't quite the orthodox Marxist view or might even be wrong revisionist readings of Marx, if they try to get hegemony by reducing the plurality of view points which actually increases the strength of the potential movement.
We have centuries in which we see that class reductionist movements have a lot of problems and are more often than not failing. Luckily who I asked whether they are sure of their thought isn't that kind of class reductionist.
No you took the most bad faith reading of my comment and are actually going to argue that I'm wrong because "there have been movements other than workers movements!!!"
Yeah no shit, that isn't what I was saying. Everyone else seemed to get that other than you. To even acknowledge intersectionality kinda inherently means acknowledging movements other than class movements.
Show me a classical Marxist text that only “class is able to generate a working movement”
What do you mean by a working movement? Do you mean a movement that works as in is successful in its aim of communism? Or do you mean a movement solely of working class people? Either way, it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism, as it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
What is a specific example where you can link to a Marxist classical text that diverges from what I write and tell how it diverges.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad. Your thoughts are very confused. Just read Marx.
Did you know that there were feminist movements? Did you know they were more successful if they included class, but less successful if they involved only class and no gender/gender/antisexist roles?
Class isn't the only thing that matters, but it's the only tool powerful enough to build a movement from. The trick is helping people understand that whatever their identity may be, they are a worker too.
Class is powerful and has the potential to unite the many against the few. In my view working class politics naturally leads to intersectionality. Overcoming sexism, homophobia, racism etc. actively builds working class solidarity and contributes to the liberation of the proletariat.
Of course bourgeois arsewipes like Sinema benefit from bi liberation, women's liberation etc. but that doesn't mean the fight is not worth fighting. Ultimately all the bourgeoisie gains is the ability to elevate a bisexual female ghoul rather than a male straight one but on the other hand they lose an effective tool to divide and distract workers.
Historical revolutionaries have embraced the intersection between class and other forms of oppression, the bolsheviks predicted the vanguard of the American working class to naturally be the black working class who are more easily radicalized by their intersecting oppressions.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
good soundbite. Class is not a tool, and liberation is a buzzword.
deleted by creator
ok liberal
deleted by creator
Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
What about a gun, but lots of them?
deleted by creator
Is that so?
Yes.
Seems to be a pretty idealistic, non materialist, take.
Edit: Stonewall was a riot, non PIV fucking around seemed to have been a threat to reactionary capitalism, makes you think
deleted by creator
Marx did write nowhere "Only workers are able to create working movements!". However you are right that if you are talking about the real existing movement, though drawing from that theoretical tidbit the claim that was made and uplifted against being intersectional and that is based into "tricking people into acknowledging their false class conscious to see themselves as workers" is a stretch.
How is that idealist? Are you gonna argue that a workers movement isn't gonna work? Should I break out a history book for you?
It isn't materialistic cause it isn't based on historical materialism or Marxism. The claim that only class is able to create a working movement is false. Look at the peasants, look at the Nazis. Even the claim that only the working class is able to create a working movement within capitalism is false.
Why is it false? Cause capitalists, nationalists and racists are also able to create working movements and - unless you reduce your meaning of class - you ought to accept reality.
Does this mean that other movements are able to create a real existing movement which overthrow capitalism but the working class as its foundation? No, it doesn't.
It isn't materialistic cause it is a claim that is connected to little, it has a lot of weak points going for it and no historic underpinning. If you think it does, you ought to read more theory and be actually involved in practice as well (to get the theory you read).
I have no problem working together with people who have ideas like that of OP, but I have a problem working with people who have those ideas which aren't quite the orthodox Marxist view or might even be wrong revisionist readings of Marx, if they try to get hegemony by reducing the plurality of view points which actually increases the strength of the potential movement.
We have centuries in which we see that class reductionist movements have a lot of problems and are more often than not failing. Luckily who I asked whether they are sure of their thought isn't that kind of class reductionist.
Wow that was a lot of writing that said basically nothing.
If you are not able to parse that, that is on you. If you think it says nothing you might want to read more.
No you took the most bad faith reading of my comment and are actually going to argue that I'm wrong because "there have been movements other than workers movements!!!"
Yeah no shit, that isn't what I was saying. Everyone else seemed to get that other than you. To even acknowledge intersectionality kinda inherently means acknowledging movements other than class movements.
Please read Marx. You have a very bad u nderstanding of communism, capitalism, what a working class movement is etc e tc.
What is your foundation of Marxism? Please be specific in two things:
What is a specific example where you can link to a Marxist classical text that diverges from what I write and tell how it diverges.
Show me a classical Marxist text that only "class is able to generate a working movement"
You cant.
What do you mean by a working movement? Do you mean a movement that works as in is successful in its aim of communism? Or do you mean a movement solely of working class people? Either way, it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism, as it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad. Your thoughts are very confused. Just read Marx.
wrong, as shown above
Nope dude, not shown.
Did you know that there were feminist movements? Did you know they were more successful if they included class, but less successful if they involved only class and no gender/gender/antisexist roles?