From: "Richard Singer" <ricinger-AT-inch.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Abuse by employers, etc. (was Fwd: Re: Race Traitor...)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:49:35 -0400


[This is a resend due to technical problems.  Please excuse if there are
duplicates.]


This is all true (below) for the most part...  But class is the defining
social relationship in the workplace; when we work for people, they have
power over us (which is why they can abuse us).  If we're talking about
employer-employee relationships, then issues about gender and race are
simply not as directly connected to the situation.  If all these other
factors were somehow equal, we'd still be controlled by more powerful people
in the workplace, because that is the most basic rule of the game.

...Which leads me to this point:  One way class can be different from
other "identities" of race, gender, and sexuality is when it is defined
specifically by the social relationship that directly and
obviously benefits one individual over others:  boss over workers, rich over
poor.  You need not read anything into the individuals in a class
relationship to know that the boss has power over the worker or the rich
person has more access to material goods (among a whole lot of other things)
than the poor person.  With race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual preference,
you can only make assumptions about the privileges of one individual versus
another; the identity is not defined by the existing and evident social
relationship, and thus you can only look into ways that the
identity might influence social relationships.  And the possible solutions
are a little different too.

I think the socialist feminist Sheila Rowbotham illustrates this logical
difference between class and gender (by which I mean simply male or female),
between capitalism and "patriarchy," and the related approaches we might
take, in her essay, "The Trouble with 'Patriarchy'" when she says:  "The
capitalist is defined by his or her ownership of capital.  This is not the
same thing as a biological male.  Despite the protestations of employers,
their activities could be organized quite differently and, in this sense,
the working class carries the possibility of doing without the capitalist
and thus of abolishing hierarchies of class.  But a biological male person
is a more delicate matter altogether and is not to be abolished...."

Richard

P.S.  Regarding issues about power in general...  I don't think looking at
all the identity-based social movements together is enough. There are many,
many ways that people have and assert advantage (and therefore power) over
others; it's just not limited to race, sex, and sexual preference.  And
there are so many ways, in any situation, that people can or cannot be
assumed to fit in.  I think that in general, as anti-authoritarians, we need
to look more at the ways people interrelate -- the social relationships
right in front of us -- to see how this results in the assumption of power
and the formation of hierarchies.  Radical or anarchist groups can go nuts
identifying racism, sexism, and all related tendencies within their own
ranks (or just accusing people of those tendencies or just endlessly looking
for them).  I have rarely seen such groups be so attentive or concerned when
individuals or cliques actually assume power over others in any number of
different ways.


----- Original Message -----
From: J.M. Adams <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <postanarchism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Abuse by employers, etc. (was Fwd: Re: Race
Traitor...)


> Yes but you did disparage new social movements (i.e.,
> "identity politics") as though they simply MUST be
> liberal with no possibility of being revolutionary
> whereas the old working class movements are painted as
> being SOMETIMES liberal but having more possibility of
> being revolutionary if organized in an autonomous
> fashion since they might abolish capitalism, which for
> you, seems to be the primary locus of power.
>
> As you said:
>
> "The liberal answer to this problem is to look for and
> define specific areas of exploitation and prejudice --
> sexism, racism, etc. -- and establish related rules ro
> protect employess from these abuses.  But one
> problemis, as we know, that these rules don't always
> work even for the "protected"groups.  A bigger problem
> is that employers are free to abuse, harass,
> firewithout just cause, and be big incredible assholes
> to employees as long as they can't be proven to have
> violated the laws protecting these specific"protected"
> groups."
>
> But the way I see it, capitalism is a mere aspect of a
> much larger and more complex web of power and thus
> there are no "bigger problems" or "smaller problems" -
> some would point out other dimensions of this web such
> as civilization, others would point out patriarchy,
> others heteronormativity, others imperialism, etc.
> What I am saying is that in my opinion there is no
> longer any separating the old and the new social
> movements - today they can all either be liberal and
> coopted or they can be autonomous and revolutionary;
> for instance in San Francisco the "Gay Pride" parade
> and is clearly not revolutionary and is basically
> bought and paid for by big corporations. But on the
> other hand the so-called "identity" group "Gay Shame"
> represents an autonomous movement that could more or
> less be seen as the new social movement equivalent of
> council communists' relationship to the AFL-CIA; in
> other words, you could see Harry Hay as the equivalent
> of Anton Pannekoek in this situation - do you see what
> I am saying? In other words when you say  "employees
> will not be protected by laws based on liberal
> identity politics" I say yeah, this is true but they
> also will not be protected by laws based on liberal
> class politics (which is really just another
> identity); so its not identity politics or working
> class politics that is the problem its liberalism
> itself that is the problem, thus it is not true that
> "the only way to protect people from becoming abused
> employees is to end the employer-employee relationship
> by putting an end to the wage system" - instead this
> merely ONE way, not the only way to protect people
> from abuse.
>
> Jason
>