I am reading The Case for Socialism, by Alan Maass. In it, the author makes the case for making identity politics part of socialism because of racism (against blacks and immigrants) and sexism. At 180 pages, this book is closer to a manifesto than a political treatise, so I would not expect a carefully written argument here. As I mentioned before, I am no fan of identity politics, and Maass hasn't changed my mind.
Let me preface these remarks with a big complaint I have about Marxism. I think the reduction of all cultural and other issues to economics is one of the least plausible things about it. I hate reductionism and find it particularly worthless in the social sciences. As someone with Marxist and socialist sympathies, I certainly agree that economics underlies social issues to a much greater extent than normally recognized, but I don't buy that all political and social issues are really just economics in disguise.
Anyway, on to Ms. Maass's argument for identity politics.
First, he argues that racism is at heart an economic issue. He makes a good attempt, but I remain unconvinced that the current levels of poverty and crime among African Americans is due to racism via the economics of slavery. He cites statistics about income and incarceration rates, but does not thereby establish that current racism, much less economics, is the sole or even overriding reason for the plight of blacks in the U.S. That's sloppy reasoning.
This is not to say that racism does not play a major role in the problems among black communities in the U.S., but the author just assumes that this is the case, and further goes out on a Marxist limb by saying that it is economics that is the primary driver of this racism.
With regard to immigrants, I mostly agree with him. Capitalists need a cheap labor force, so they have a vested interest in keeping the borders open but keeping illegals illegal. Of course things got out of hand eventually, with anti-immigration rightwing politicians cracking down on immigration because of political pressure. That shows that economics is not the only driver of cultural activity, which the author admits grudgingly but does not seem to realize the full implications of: "This isn’t to say that economic interests alone shape the different systems of oppressions that operate under capitalism. On the contrary, forms of oppression take on a life of their own, which can sometimes obscure the underlying economic connection" (p. 49).
With regard to women, he has some good points regarding unpaid labor in the home by women. My complaint here is that he is speaking to the rhetoric of the socially conservative wing of the right, not things as they are for the vast majority of people today:
Women are primarily responsible for the raising of children and labor inside the family, placing a double burden on them of paid labor at work and unpaid labor at home. Woman and men alike are taught from an early age that this is natural—that women are drawn to the family, instinctively nurturing, deferential, and all the other traits summed up by the cliché “a woman’s place is in the home.” At the same time, women are taught something else entirely—that their worth depends on the “beauty,” their physical appearance, their sexual attractiveness to men (not to other women, of course!). (p. 50)Does this paragraph strike anyone else as overstated? Perhaps it is because I live in liberal, secularized New England, but I don't think the plight of most women is anywhere near this bad. Yes, women are underpaid (though the gap is objectively speaking not nearly as bad as the raw numbers suggest) and still do more than their fair share of unpaid "homemaking" compared to their mates, but progress is being made -- an important point, as we shall see.
The author concludes:
This is to widen the definition of socialism to include not just economic but all causes against oppression.The point of this is to show, first, that the prevailing ideas about women or Blacks or any other oppressed group are designed to bolster a system of oppression—and second, that various forms of oppression can be traced in critical ways to the underlying priorities of an economic system run in the interests of profit and power. If this is true, then the socialist project of creating a new world has to involve all the struggles against oppression in society, and those struggles have to be championed by everyone fighting for socialism. (p. 53)
On the one hand, I agree that racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice should be fought, whether or not their causes are economic. On the other hand, insofar as their causes are economic, shouldn't we root out the cause rather than the results? The author's logic makes no sense here. For example, if capitalism is the overriding cause of racism, then why not primarily fight capitalism? Why treat the symptom rather than the disease? Identity politics is just a bandaid.
Capitalism is, to a degree, to blame for all the working poor, not just poor African Americans. We should fight poverty regardless of race, and fight racism regardless of economic status. To tightly link the two, as the author would have us do, is to obscure the problem. If we could bring more African Americans out of poverty, we could eliminate that much racism, though by no means all. In other words, don't mix economic and racial policy, even if you are decide to fight on both fronts!
Yes, racism against latinos is directly connected with worries about "the brown horde," as a Mexican-born blogger I used to read put it, and that feeds into insane immigration policy. But the racism will persist however hard we work until we have solved the underlying economic and policy issues. Yes, fight the prejudice, but work harder on fixing immigration law!
And while I will not pretend that things are perfect for women, even here in the enlightened northeast U.S., the author's rhetoric seems completely over-the-top to me. Furthermore, things are getting continually better for women, whereas things are getting continually worse for the working class.
Let me repeat that: The key to helping the the oppressed is to take the class war seriously. Class trumps race, sex, and nation in traditional socialism. Identity politics is a horrible distraction. This is not to say that we should not fight racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, but I strongly disagree that we should elevate these issues to the same level as class struggle.
A few months ago, the Center for American Progress posted an article about the dangers of menthol cigarettes, then immediately made it into an issue of identity politics because LGBTs are more likely to smoke menthols than regular cigarettes. Now let me ask you this: should we regulate or ban menthol cigarettes because they're worse than regular cigarettes and thus harm people, regardless or race, sex, or sexual orientation? Maybe? Fine. Should we be concerned because the poor smoke more menthols than regular smokes, since they are the ones who can least afford to be harmed by them? Maybe? Then I'm on your side. Should we be more inclined to regulate or ban menthols because the LGBT community smokes them more than regulars? If you think so, then you've lost me. There's no rationale behind that that isn't already covered in concerns about health and the poor.
Look, I am not indifferent to matters of race, culture, sex, etc. I have spent so much time among Chinese that I have absorbed big chunks of their culture. (A couple years ago someone called me "Chimerican.") I have seen racism against Asians and been the subject of racism from Chinese people as well. The oppression of people because of their race, gender, sexuality, or any other reason should be stamped out. What I disagree with is this indiscriminate, haphazard mixing of issues of prejudice with issues of economics, especially when you claim, as a socialist, that class comes first. If capitalism is the root cause of racism and sexism, then shouldn't you spend more energy on fighting the root cause?
No comments:
Post a Comment