Socialism is for everybody?

[Housekeeping: I know the tweets didn’t embed properly from the last post, but I tried several times to fix it, and I have zero fucks to give if it isn’t pretty. The quote took Bernie out of context, but that is the point isn’t? This is what people hear when he’s speaking? Maybe that should be addressed at some point?]

 A friend emailed me last week about my recent post, and I’m still thinking through things in that. But he asked what I thought about this reading group I attended on Women and Socialism by Sharon Smith, and I have a lot of thoughts.

Some of this is straight up me. I’ve been the only feminist in the room, but usually that is when I’m with a lot of people who are unaware of social justice. I’m often the only or most socialist person in the room, but that is because more often than not I’m in a room full of feminists. The other big part of this being my issue is I didn’t like the book. It was bad feminist scholarship, but this is because it is Marxist scholarship. The consensus in the room seemed to be the book was arguing all women should be socialists. I’m not 100% sure on that. I don’t think it was saying socialism is for everyone. What I think is a strange way this book was pushing bell hooks’ argument feminism is for everybody.

You ever been in a room with people who are really proud of themselves for asking the important questions, but can’t get past their framework to understand the answers? That is what this book was. The book wanted to talk about the women movement/feminism and socialism, but instead of conducting a thorough research project on Marxist Feminist theory, we got a history of feminism with a Marxist interpretation.

Then there was the discussion, and I remembered why I had problems with Marxist scholarship. Immediately, someone started critiquing, arguing the text so much in the book was based on as a lesser Marx/Engel’s text. This is true, but there wasn’t much of a discussion as to why that is. Well, there aren’t a lot of Marx texts about women. This is where including Marxist Feminist scholarship would be useful. There are feminist scholars who have made the connections. By in large these theorists were missing from the text. [Aside: I’m ready to throw down over anyone who wants to talk about domestic labor without referencing Foucault. I did a little sleuthing, and I know the Jacobin had a piece a few years ago about Foucault and his contributions to the left. The argument was we can critique him. Well, feminist scholarship is a critique of all other scholarship. Sometimes it is too much critique and not enough discussion about the actual arguments.] But really, what the book was trying to do was impose Marxist thought on the women’s movement. I was struck during the conversation how some things never change; Marxist thought breaks while feminist thought bends. This is because in Marxism we have to travel back every time to the beginning and apply principles, which can be really hard with some topics. In feminist thought, we use theorists that apply, and when one theory doesn’t work, we acknowledge it and say, this, this thing is where more work needs to be done. Then someone else does that work, but they find something else, and the scholarship is constantly changing.

One of the discussion leaders started talking about the books distinction between patriarchy and the patriarchy. The idea being people who say patriarchy aren’t referring to the theory that says all men oppress all women. The book then continues to talk about how patriarchy is bad for men too; bell hooks says so. This was when the book lost me, but the idea this book is for feminists to realize our relationship to socialism is also lost. This was when the discussion went off the rails for me too. When I say patriarchy I mean all men oppress all women and those who reside outside of the gender binary. This is the social structure we have. Not only that but for me the patriarchy is more than just gender (by the way completely a gender binary in this book save two references); it is race, class, sexual orientation, etc. (bell hooks said this too). White people are complicit in the oppression of black people because society is racist. When a group of people is determined by the way, they compare to those in power than any of those power traits you, have oppress others. It doesn’t matter if you mean for them to or not. For me, that line in the book is where I figured out this book wasn’t meant for me. It was meant for the men in that room talking about it. See, feminism isn’t scary. They even share some socialist roots with us. Nothing about the exclusion of traditionally feminine (and often black) labor from labor unions, though.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the reading group. I’ll go again. I’m just not sure how much they want to hear from people who disagree. Women’s Studies, we’d shout into the void—a room full of people who agreed with us, but I don’t know if the members of this group ever got that or if that is one of the functions in of the group. I'm struggling a lot recently with the way socialism interacts with other fields. I’m specifically thinking about how the Bernie campaign can’t go two feet without offending someone. I don’t understand, but then again, maybe it is just this bending vs. breaking idea. A world without capitalism would be great, but it wouldn’t be a world without oppression. Economic inequity isn’t the root of all oppression. Additionally, it diminishes the lived experiences of a lot of people to say economic equity will fix it. There is a wait your turn notion here that Bernie’s camp invokes in everyone they talk to apparently. That is what rubs people the wrong way.  

Opting out of the process and into the Revolution isn't cut and dry

So I don’t know much about Russell Brand. I mean I know he was married once, had a substance problem, and is on cable a lot, but I don’t know what he does for a living. Honestly, I’m not to invested in finding out. I also know he’s pretty progressive. I do know that opting out of the current political process and into the revolution isn't easy, and it is much more complex than how Brand presents it.

However, Brand was interviewed about his part writing for a political magazine, New Statesman. The interview was conducted by BBC’s Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman. Paxman was a jerk. He was combative the whole time and opposed to anything Brand says.

Let’s go over the good, and there is quite a bit. Brand states he is calling for a socialist egalitarian revolution that is based on the redistribution of wealth, which includes immediately addressing the economic inequity and turns the word profit into a dirty word. Brand is direct in saying the current system of Democracy doesn’t work. It works to keep some of the same people in power and leave others according to Brand specifically the poor due to it being a hierarchical system. Brand says those involved in the current system aren’t trying to address any of the current problems of inequity, environmental issues, etc. instead they focus on placating the people.

Some of the other highlights? Brand discusses his substance abuse issues as they relate to the context of poverty. He says social conditions that promote corporations at the expense of the poor and ignores the underserved, which can result in substance abuse and a lot of other problems. Paxman couldn’t follow this thought at all. He immediately started accusing Brand of blaming his substance abuse on other people including the state, which isn’t what Brand was doing. Brand was acknowledging things don’t exist in a vacuum. Brand also states he has every intention of calling out the elites, which is kind of bad ass.  He also spoke a little to his background in poverty, which contributes to his anger and passion on this issue. Brand also says that the change enabled in the current system isn’t dramatic enough because it isn’t genuine change. He promotes genuine alternatives.

Paxman does this interesting thing where he demands Brand explain his ideal world order, which of course Brand can’t do. Brand mentions that he can’t simply construct a utopia, but a little latter Paxman defends those who currently are in power as maybe being too overwhelmed by the current problems of the world to do anything about it. I think this speaks to the issue. The media rushes to defend the politicians from the very question they demand dissenters answer.

So the bad. Brand doesn’t vote. Those of you who read this blog, you know my feelings about people who don’t vote. They may very well have some good points, but often they are completely unable to recognize how privilege comes into this discussion. Brand doesn’t vote because he’s at the point of exhaustion from dealing with the political class, which led to the development of an underclass. He refuses to participate in a broken system, where voting has been proven ineffective. He says voting makes no difference. I’ll be very brief. I argue voting makes hella difference when you have limited rights and those with power are targeting you. Brand’s argument comes from a place of safety and privilege, and unfortunately, we all can’t share that position in society, which leaves some of us at the mercy of the current political system. . So let me apply a few lens to this: sexual orientation, race, gender, and class

Just to begin this is obviously an international discussion. LGTBQ people have limited rights, and I’m not just talking about marriage. Personally, I think the right to marry coalition of the LGBTQ community high jacked the movement in hopes of generating support for the movement while not being threatening to the hetro community. They are being killed in Russia. They are being forced to serve prison sentences in prison with an assigned gender (correlating to sex at birth) instead of gender identity. They are being fired from and denied jobs and education. Just saying. Can these individuals opt out of a broken system? Sure, but I’m pretty sure things will get a lot worse for the LGBTQ community.

I think people of color may have some questions about opting out of voting after all several states are trying to prevent them from voting already. Guess, when people in power make that decision for you it is even better? A good rule of thumb is when the people with the power want to prevent you from doing something, it might be worth doing. That said, forget voting, sure it is waste by Brand’s (and many others) logic. However, we have some other issues: “stand your ground,” “stop and frisk,” mass imprisonment of black men, and “the school to prison pipeline.” That is just for Black people, think for a minute about Native Americans and rape for example. I think you have to engage in the system to stop these things. Racism is institutionalized, and thus you have to take on the institutions. Again, if people of color opt out, things will probably get worse for them. After all representatives are admitting to trying to keep people of color out of the political process, so I’m not sure we should make it easier for them.

And on to the women. Always the women. 300 anti-choice laws passed in the US in the last year. Blaming sexual assault survivors and actual attempts to overturn Title IX, Title fucking IX. Come at me bro. Women using stand your ground to defend themselves from violent partners are serving time for it. Obviously, some of these issues are going to overlap with previously mentioned issues. We are seeing an abundance of legislation that is targeting women. Opting out isn’t going to protect us from zealots. We have to participate, we have to choose the lesser of the evils because if we don’t we’ll have more women serving prison sentences for trying to commit suicide, which happened to kill a fetus at the same time or for refusing some medical treatment in her first/second trimester because THINK OF THE FETUS. Pretty sure, if women opt out it will just get worse, no I’m sure. Representatives actively talk about women’s place, and how to prevent women from having control over their medical decisions. This is a thing that is happening, and it is the intention, including the intention behind trying to push back the birth control mandate in Obamacare.

Now, onto class. Brand spoke to class a bit, and he makes good point. However, I’m not sure people who are destitute and completely dependent on the welfare system can afford to opt out with conservative attempts to destroy already gutted programs. And so on and so on.

What this really comes down to, is privilege. Brand has privilege, so he can afford to be idealistic and throw off the oppressive chains of the current political systems because he isn’t the kind of person they are targeting. Everyone else, we can’t afford to. I’m going to vote in the next presidential election, and I’m probably going to vote Dem (H-Rod or Biden), and I know I will vote Dem if I’m back living in Ohio. In Maryland, I might be able to get away with voting third party. These are the hands we’re dealt. It sucks, but it is a discussion about survival not what is right, and maybe that is wrong, but I’m more concerned about making sure my friends’ daughters won’t be blamed for sexual assault and will have access to birth control and comprehensive reproductive choice.  That their sons won’t be shot for wearing a hoodie.

Also, all this brings me to an interesting place if men like Brand, (white men who have sex with women and who possess affluence/influence, from the media or education) are the one’s calling for the revolution and a utopia. If the privileged are the ones who have the opportunity to participate; will the revolution result in anything different from what we already have? Don’t get me wrong, I think we should take to the streets, but I think we should continue participating in the political process while we’re at it. Fight on all fronts. But I’m concerned if the leaders look like the leaders we’ve always had maybe the revolution isn’t a revolution simply a changing of the guard. I’m shutting it down here, though I could write and write on the topic. Maybe I will, maybe this weekend I’ll write something on the theory behind successful revolutions.

Below is the clip of Brand and Paxman.

Obama Declares Class Warfare

President Obama has decided to pay for his health care plan by taxing the rich. This is a shocking concept to those who has increased their wealth in past few (eight) years. With the stratification of the classes, this tax increase will force those making $250,000 or more a year would feel it. Obviously this is Obama's socialize the Republicans warned us about during the campaign. The New York Times even calls it, "a pronounced move to redistribute wealth by reimposing a larger share of the tax burden on corporations and the most affluent taxpayers." I hope all of you reading this are ready to pay up; wait no one reading this would make that much. Never mind.

Think about it this man is talking about raising taxes on the wealth and providing health care to a greater number of people...possibly universal health care. Viva La Revolution!

McCain and Minimum Wage

Of course, someone asked because we didn't all know the answer...McCain will not be raising the minimum wage if elected.  Because of his friends the small business owners who would have to lay off people if they raised the minimum wage to a living wage.  It's almost communism (defined by Webster as the final stage of Marxist theory in which the state as withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably; state owned society with the aim of stateless society*)...spreading the poverty around.  It is the Wal-Mart/sweat shop argument about well at least they have a job.   So what if they can't live on what they are paid.  

*This is not to be confused with socialism: the stage of Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work being done; the condition of society is controlled by the state.