The Poverty of Identity Politics

568 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Aug 22 2018 19:17
LeninistGirl wrote:
Quote:
It sure matters a great deal to bourgeois reformists, who only care that people aren't fired for the wrong reasons

Since I am scared about losing my job after coming out as trans I am a *check notes* bourgeois reformist.

I *think* you are misreading the current anti's. An attempt at rephrasing your comment, hope you think this is ok.

Quote:
Since I am scared about losing my job after coming out as trans I am a worker who should receive support and solidarity in the clarse struggle.

Personally I'm inclined to think the word game above doesn't matter much. I do however feel that identity as it appear in our culture is a prison for all and largely a result or capitalism. I'm not against trans people, contrarily I think there should be a lot more transitioning going on in all sorts of ways.

A lot of mainstream people believe, mostly due to fabricated moral panics, but also because of the language and publications of the 'left' that 'we' have abandoned class and seek to cement and build a world based on separated capitalist identities. This is unfortunate because it's (mostly) not true.

LeninistGirl's picture
LeninistGirl
Offline
Joined: 27-04-18
Aug 23 2018 00:39

I honestly think that the thinking of the person I quoted comes from 1) not understanding the experiences and struggles of other people and 2) a fundamental millenarianism. Not every action communists have taken historically have been aimed at the instant destruction of capitalism, on the contrary a big focus of Marx and Engels was on the rights of workers, both in terms of work-safety and in democratic rights. While the minimum-program no longer makes sense for a vehicle organisation there is still value in leading struggles to ensure that people of oppressed groups have more protection in their political and economic life. There is a reason that a lot of communist groups end up being just white cis men...

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Aug 23 2018 07:16

Haha I bet if cis people got called it at work and got asked about their genitalia it would be a working class issue.
And it isnt just a class isdue it is a trans issue as such does not happen to cis people. And again in this thread trans folk dont get listened to.
If you have a problem with our identities and think division in the left is our fault you are a bigot as are any working class people who refuse to treat us with respect

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Aug 23 2018 07:25

Also how about paying trans folk for the work and emotional labour involved in having to argue why we deserve basic respect and arent enemies of class power and revolution. Oh wait opressed folk never/rarely get paid for such as like our lives, our labour and what we say is devalued and ignored.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Aug 23 2018 11:39
AnythingForProximity wrote:
The struggles of the Deliveroo riders are not worthy of support because they happen to work for Deliveroo; they would be no less worthy of it if they worked for Uber Eats, or indeed any other employer.

This again seems like completely pointless flattening of struggles. The majority of communists don't support strikes by police or ICE officers for higher wages and this extends to some left liberals. Right now the Labour Party keeps running ads saying that police, firefighters and nurses all need a pay rise etc. trying to tie the wages of those groups together as 'public sector workers'. A year or two ago the Tories broke the public sector pay freeze but just for the police. If you actually do differentiate solidarity based on which employers people work for and the function of their jobs, then why pretend you don't to make a bad rhetorical point?

Martin Glaberman even pointed out there are huge differences in industrial strength between a factory in the middle of a tight supply chain in the car industry, and one of fifteen factories making interchangeable things - the first can bring the entire supply chain to a halt in multiple cities, the second can be on strike for six months without making a dent. This doesn't mean putting people in the tight supply chains on a pedestal but recognising how their position in the supply chain affects things. Transport and logistics strikes are similar compared to say coffee shop workers. Recognising structural position in the economy doesn't necessarily lead to focusing efforts on any particular kind of workers, although clearly lots of people also have done that over the decades.

Or this person who nearly got sacked after a street attack by a racist resulted in a run-in with the police and in turn reported to their employer. In this case they weren't suspended because the council they worked for was racist necessarily, but they were a victim of racist street violence and hostile policing, which in turn affected their employment. If you don't give a shit about why people get sacked, but only the condition of wage labour which forces people to work for a living in the first place, then what does this mean. Do you ignore defensive struggles like getting a workmate reinstated because after all the employer might hire someone less efficient next time? Or conversely would you offer the same solidarity with racist street attackers if they get sacked because they're proletarians after all.

Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Aug 23 2018 18:24

Sawa I'm not sure if you are responding to my comments but here goes.

sawa wrote:
Haha I bet if cis people got called it at work and got asked about their genitalia it would be a working class issue.

I was trying to show how any employed persons issues at work and in relation to landlords, police etc are working class issues. So both your issues and cis man's issues. You clearly don't want your issues subsumed into the class struggle term even when they are in relation to work/state. I don't think it makes any sense to call working class racism and bigotry class struggle issues but that's something else and I think that distinction is important. Are we facing inwards or outward towards the enemy, sometimes this isn't clear but both are required in their different ways.

sawa wrote:
And it isnt just a class isdue it is a trans issue as such does not happen to cis people.

I'm completely against the idea that the working class necessarily has anything in common except wage labour. The idea that it does is terribly poisonous and has produced some convoluted theorizing. The idea probably only exists because of the propaganda needs of statists. I think the notion of class that knows we have only one thing in common is powerful and obviously the basis of communist though.

sawa wrote:
If you have a problem with our identities and think division in the left is our fault you are a bigot as are any working class people who refuse to treat us with respect

I don't have a any specific problem with your identities. I have a problem with mine, the coming indentity prisons of my children and those of people around me.

Edit:
If anyone on libcom, lurker or otherwise, thinks that fighting for people suffering at work or in relation to the state because of race, gender or sexuality isn't class struggle I'd like to know. To me that doesnt make any sense for someone calling themself libertarian communist (those refusing the libertarian are even included)

Konsequent's picture
Konsequent
Offline
Joined: 1-11-11
Aug 24 2018 10:45
Cooked wrote:
Noah I think post 525 and the second half of Konsequents first paragraph is where much of the questions lie.

The posts are renumbered I think. I'm guessing you're referring to this:

Konsequent wrote:
Of course individually it's nice to be nice but I think a movement that's working towards changing how society is organised should focus on class issues and not just everything that's bad. I don't call every nice thing I do in a day political activity, neither would I distract my comrades by putting suggestions for all the nice things we could do on an agenda at, say, an anarchist meeting.

Not that I meant to underestimate the importance of being nice to people you want to form alliances with (I would say "potential allies" as short for "people you want to form alliances with", but of course the word "allies" has been irreparably ruined).

Konsequent's picture
Konsequent
Offline
Joined: 1-11-11
Aug 24 2018 10:47
AnythingForProximity wrote:
Getting sacked for being trans by definition has everything to do with being trans

...however...

AnythingForProximity wrote:
Working-class issues do not magically become 'trans issues' when it's trans people who raise them.

So getting sacked for being trans has everything to do with being trans, but it's not a "trans issue"? I'd like to refer you back to Uncreative's question about what you think a trans issue is tbh, because it's not clear at all.

AnythingForProximity wrote:
The struggles of the Deliveroo riders are not worthy of support because they happen to work for Deliveroo; they would be no less worthy of it if they worked for Uber Eats, or indeed any other employer.

Obviously. That's why I made the comparison between trans people and Deliveroo riders in the first place.

As R Totale pointed out, there are reasons why Deliveroo riders (and Uber Eats riders) are of interest to us currently, in comparison to other employers. Not in the sense that we only care about them organising, and wouldn't support anyone else, but because it's useful to look at how industries are developing and what it means for organising.

Looking at what it means to be a woman, particularly in an economic sense, the way that men are the bosses of women in the domestic sphere and so on, is important for understanding how working class women can organise in their collective interests. Trans people disrupt this and I'm not surprised that currently a lot of energy is being expended on trying to understand it.

Feminism is not only concerning itself with the rather abstract question of whether trans women are women, but with that with the more concrete question of whether trans women should be included in feminist organising, what kind of solidarity the feminist movement is obliged to extend, etc. I don't think a lot of this concerns us as communists considering that the line for us regarding solidarity is the class line, but we shouldn't be surprised when some of these arguments spill over and should have a little more to say about it than just "This isn't important", because surely we do support working class people organising collectively with other working class people on issues that affect them.

Konsequent's picture
Konsequent
Offline
Joined: 1-11-11
Aug 24 2018 10:51
AnythingForProximity wrote:
Again, the difference is that "cleaners" are not a cross-class grouping, and "justice for cleaners" is not a rallying cry for class collaboration. Although maybe Mike Harman will show me I'm wrong because some CEOs occasionally dust their desks or something.

What is the difference though considering we only care about working class trans people, which *as communists* we obviously do. None of us here care about ruling class trans people, so what is your point? If you want to convince liberals that class issues are what's important, then what are you doing on libcom?
As communists we don't care about bosses who rent, CEOs who dust their desks, or ruling class trans people.

A more important question is how do we relate to and approach groups and individuals that don't have any sort of class analysis. A trans person approached our union when they lost their job for using the "wrong" toilet, because they had a good understanding of their class interests, saw it as a class issue, and understood why to go to their union for support. But if I'm talking to a trans person who has lost their job in similar circumstances but doesn't see it as a class issue, how do I bring them round? Surely not by trying to convince them that it isn't a trans issue. Surely just by offering solidarity and clarifying why I'm doing so. And I would definitely encourage communists in any oppressed demographics to engage with groups that focus on their oppression, because that's where they can make the case for a class perspective on the issues discussed. What is obviously not helpful is for cis people to just keep insisting "No trans issues! Only class issues!" because you know what that sounds like. It sounds like "I think of the working class as being made up only of cis straight white men, and those are the only people I care about". No matter how wrong that interpretation might be it's not unsurprising that that's what people hear, and so you need another tactic.

Konsequent's picture
Konsequent
Offline
Joined: 1-11-11
Aug 24 2018 11:10
sawa wrote:
Also how about paying trans folk for the work and emotional labour involved in having to argue why we deserve basic respect and arent enemies of class power and revolution. Oh wait opressed folk never/rarely get paid for such as like our lives, our labour and what we say is devalued and ignored.

Is this a serious proposition? Are you suggesting that people who disagree with you pay you to argue with them?

AnythingForProximity's picture
AnythingForProximity
Offline
Joined: 27-12-17
Aug 24 2018 19:48
Mike Harman wrote:
Me: capitalists very often pay rent, both for residential and commercial premises, there have been entire books written arguing for cross-class movements of the working class and industrialists against landlords.

AnythingForProximity: this is the same as saying cleaners' strikes are cross-class collaboration because capitalists sometimes clean their own desks.

Could you maybe respond to the argument that was actually made or are we just making stuff up at this point?

I was referencing the more flippant second part of your original post ("look, layoffs happen to CEOs too!"), but you're right that I shouldn't have left the substance of your argument without response: as an honest attempt to expose a flaw in the underlying logic, it's the best argument your (i.e., pro-idpol) side of the debate has come up with so far.

Which isn't saying much, because the analogy sucks. There is no existing movement that has taken up some amorphous "renters' rights" as its slogan and now enjoys the support of a significant portion of the ruling class while also finding sympathies among large swaths of radicals who understand themselves to defend the interests of the workers. Georgism is dead, and unlike idpol, it never managed to fool actual revolutionaries into supporting it. If it had, then yes – the movement would have to be rejected as an inter-class one and the slogan as a deceitful attempt to lure the proletariat into class collaboration, precisely on the grounds that there are renters both within the working class and the bourgeoisie. The role of communists would consist in exposing the lie behind the slogan (namely, that preventing an even greater portion of the total social product from passing into the hands of capitalists in the form of rent is in any way the same issue as the mere redistribution of this portion within the capitalist class between industrialists and landowners), appealing to the workers' class autonomy, and pushing them to struggle – to use the ICC's favorite cliché – on their own class terrain by means of actions like rent strikes and eviction resistance.

Chilli Sauce wrote:
Certainly when the folks on libcom talk about trans-issues, it should be taken for fucking granted that they're not here to defend the business interests of Caitlyn Jenner or whatever. To suggest otherwise smacks of bad faith

Cry me a river. It's a bit rich for your ilk to lecture others on what should be taken for granted when anything less than unconditional acceptance of identity politics is met with baseless accusations of bigotry around here.

Mike Harman wrote:
Walter Benn Michaels is not a communist, at best he's a social democrat of some description.

For sure. That alone, though, is not a sufficient reason to reject his analysis of identitarianism. It could be rejected if you could show, for example, that replacing his liberal misunderstanding of class as essentially an income bracket with the Marxist definition based on the relationship to the means of production invalidates his further conclusions, but that's not the case. Even people with shitty politics can occasionally make astute insights; examples abound: Chomsky, I. I. Rubin, Bordiga... Human beings are contradictory like that.

DevastateTheAvenues wrote:
I'm willing to give weight to the idea that liberal idpol is just an egalitarian-sounding gloss on the economic interests, submerged or direct, of a section of the capitalist class.

This distinction between the 'bad' liberal idpol and the 'good' class-struggle one has always struck me as a dishonest cop-out. First, I have yet to see an example of the latter; something that's fundamentally different from the liberal version both in theory and in practice. Time after time, what we get instead is just some half-hearted attempt to give the whole thing a Marxist gloss by smuggling in a few mentions of the working class. The laziest way to do this is to juxtapose some well-established branch of liberal idpol with the rest and proclaim it to be the real deal. We've seen it before on this very thread with the attempts to oppose identity politics to intersectionality – a "theory" lifted wholesale from US academia (Combahee River, Crenshaw), that famous vanguard of the revolution. Just slightly less tragicomic are the efforts to uncover the nonexistent "radical roots" of idpol by going back to its origins, which usually means ending up at Ignatiev and the assorted Maoists, or at best at Du Bois.

Second, the people who make the distinction usually immediately follow it with exasperated grunts of "but obviously here on Libcom we all subscribe to the real thing, not to the liberal nonsense, why would you even bring that up, that's just bad faith". I'm not so sure; in fact, I'd say that the nearly universal acceptance of idpol rhetorics on this site masks some very real differences in the underlying politics. One example of these differences resurfacing were the debates about cultural appropriation, a totally idiotic concept inherently rooted in the inviolability of private property that should presumably constitute a fairly uncontroversial example of what the 'bad' liberal identity politics looks like. And yet, while Devrim treated the notion with the mockery it deserved, Fleur defended it ("private property is nice when it's indigenous people who have it!").

Third, while the 'bad', liberal idpol is sometimes dismissed as "daft" or "nonsense", very little is said about what makes it nonsensical, and there is a curious general unwillingness to cite examples of it or explicitly contrast it with its 'good' communist-friendly counterpart. (I guess I should thank Chilli Sauce for providing a rare exception by affirming that "defend[ing] the business interests of Caitlyn Jenner" would indeed be something that only liberals would do, but as a frivolous exaggeration, that doesn't get us very far.) This is closely linked to another problem, namely that even the criticism of the more ridiculous manifestations of idpol coming from liberals and campus politics is interpreted simply as a dog-whistle for bigotry by the very people who supposedly also reject them in favor of a more sophisticated version grounded in class politics. Any attack on the liberal nonsense is perceived as an attack on the real thing as well. Unsurprisingly, this leads people to conclude that there is no actual difference – that there is no 'real thing' hidden beneath the liberal nonsense.

DevastateTheAvenues wrote:
("this identity stuff is all there just to distract us so we should just plug our ears to the political struggles happening around us while we wait for the Real Working Class struggle that is free of this identity taint").

That's one danger. The other and opposite danger is the pure opportunism of assuming that we must be where the action is and piggyback on anything that's making waves at the moment (tout ce qui bouge est rouge !), even if it means throwing all of our principles out the window – be it rebranded warmed-over reformism (DSA, Momentum), 'progressive' nationalism (Rojava, Catalonia – a new one pops up every few years), or idpol. Both dangers are equally real, but that doesn't mean they are equally important.

LeninistGirl wrote:
Since I am scared about losing my job after coming out as trans I am a *check notes* bourgeois reformist.

Nope. It would, however, be an apt description of the woke, progressive ally of a boss who would never fire you for being trans – the idea wouldn't even cross their mind – but would do so without the slightest hesitation for reasons of redundancy, to punish you for attempting to unionize your workplace, etc.

LeninistGirl wrote:
Not every action communists have taken historically have been aimed at the instant destruction of capitalism, on the contrary a big focus of Marx and Engels was on the rights of workers, both in terms of work-safety and in democratic rights.

And what has that gotten us? Safer wage labor and a more democratic capitalism. Better than the alternative? Sure. What we wanted? No. I'm not a millenarian or a romantic who believes that the only struggle worth participating in is some sort of spontaneous worldwide riot that will one day end it all (which is my impression of what some communization theory people actually believe); I'm just pointing out that the argument is more double-edged than you might realize.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Aug 24 2018 16:02
AnythingForProximity wrote:
Which isn't saying much, because the analogy sucks. There is no existing movement that has taken up some amorphous "renters' rights" as its slogan and now enjoys the support of a significant portion of the ruling class while also finding sympathies among large swaths of radicals who understand themselves to defend the interests of the workers.

Come on, can't you think of anything?

Mr. Churchill's Declaration of Policy to the Electors, 1945 wrote:
So long as there is a serious shortage of houses, rent control must continue on houses controlled at present. The establishment of Tribunals throughout the country to fix fair rents as between landlord and tenant (as recommended by the Ridley Committee) seems to provide the best solution of a long-standing problem.

(http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/con45.htm)

London Renters Union wrote:
Rent controls
Rents that take account of local incomes, decided by democratic bodies

https://londonrentersunion.org/2018/deciding-our-demands/

Ash Sarkar wrote:
The demand for adequate social housing provision is something that transcends race, religion and settled status. The London Renters’ Union aims to bring together tenants from all walks of life to collectively agitate against extortionate rents and rogue landlords.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/21/anti-fascist-movement-far-right

ITV wrote:
High street rents 'killing more and more retailers' says Debenhams chairman
..
In an interview with ITV News, Sir Ian Cheshire urged landlords to wake-up to the changes in shopping habits and, where appropriate, renegotiate leases which he compared to a “straight jacket...killing more and more retailers”.

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-09/high-street-rents-killing-more-and-more-retailers-says-debenhams-chairman/

The Rent is Too Damn High

Ny Daily News wrote:
Rent Is Too Damn High Party founder Jimmy McMillan endorses Donald Trump for president

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rent-damn-high-founder-endorses-trump-president-article-1.2514218

LA Tenants Union wrote:
We demand safe, affordable housing and universal rent control. We organize against landlord harassment, mass evictions, and displacement. We mobilize for the repeal of the Ellis Act and Costa-Hawkins Act.

https://latenantsunion.org/en/

Bernie Sanders wrote:

“I don’t think that it’s too much to ask that in the richest country in the history of the world, all of our children, all of our people, have safe and affordable housing in which to live. I don’t think that is a radical demand,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders .

The 2016 presidential candidate recalled his own childhood growing up in a rent-controlled apartment in New York City, which “meant that my family, which did not have a lot of money, did not have to spend 50 or 60 percent of its limited income on housing.”

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/12/08/we-have-housing-emergency-heres-how-we-face-it

Konsequent's picture
Konsequent
Offline
Joined: 1-11-11
Aug 24 2018 20:23
Mike Harman wrote:
Yet more facts. Arguments backed up by sources.
AnythingForProximity, link, and meerov21 wrote:
Sweeping unsupported claims. Not even a single anecdotal example of what they're complaining about
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Aug 28 2018 16:07

Anything For Proximity, I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding what your substantial point is. So to try to understand it, here are a couple of questions for you:

1. What is your definition of "identity politics"?
2. Should communists oppose racism?
3. Do you support civil rights struggles like against segregation in the US, or against apartheid in South Africa?
4. Do you support struggles like the CPE fight in France, defending workers' rights laws?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 31 2018 00:22

Good luck getting straight questions answered Steven, I’ve asked mine twice and have heard not a peep.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Aug 31 2018 00:40

I'm still waiting for an answer to this one too:

Mike Harman wrote:
AnythingForProximity wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
but those issues wouldn't have occurred if they where not trans

No non-trans people ever got sacked? No non-trans people were ever unable to find work? No non-trans people ever became homeless? No non-trans people were ever turned away from shelters? No non-trans people were ever locked up? No non-trans people were ever denied medical care while in prison?

In the 1960s British trade unions were still organising to keep Black and Asian workers out of certain jobs via colour bars. Please explain how a colour bar is a 'cross class issue'.

ZJW
Offline
Joined: 24-08-16
Sep 10 2018 11:18

Letter signed by 'libcom' to the Mattick Jr edited Field Notes section of the September issue of Brooklyn Rail, followed by reply by Pavlos Roufus:
https://brooklynrail.org/2018/09/field-notes/Quotation-Paraphrase-and-Plagiarism-An-Exchange .

'libcom' refers to ... a single administrator? The entire administratariat? If not the latter, it ought to have been signed with greater precision.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 10 2018 11:56

We collectively agreed to write it (to Paul Mattick jr, not specifically for publication), before R Totale (who is not a libcom admin) posted his blog here: https://libcom.org/blog/who-s-got-bad-faith-reply-pavlos-roufos-moral-panics-power-relationships-sodding-book-02082

Paul Mattick jr. then asked if he could publish it with a response from Roufos and we said yes.

I'd personally like to see Roufos respond to R Totale's blog, which is not in any way addressed by his response to our quick e-mail: https://libcom.org/blog/who-s-got-bad-faith-reply-pavlos-roufos-moral-panics-power-relationships-sodding-book-02082

R Totale's picture
R Totale
Offline
Joined: 15-02-18
Sep 10 2018 18:04

I'm amazed by how much energy he puts into fighting that plagiarism point, which is pretty much one step removed from just saying "how come when Guy Debord wrote a book, libcom said it was good, but then Angela Nagle wrote a book and libcom said it was bad, eh?"

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 13 2018 13:56

https://youtu.be/WkHppiuT1-M

ZJW
Offline
Joined: 24-08-16
Nov 5 2018 09:16

The CWO reviews Haider: 'Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump':

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2018-10-26/mistaken-identity-review

(The impatient might begin from the paragraph starting 'Despite seemingly setting out to criticise identity politics [...]' )

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 6 2018 16:18

ZJW, Yes also on this site here;
https://libcom.org/blog/mistaken-identity-review so open for discussion in it's own right.

birdtiem
Offline
Joined: 29-11-15
Nov 7 2018 07:47

Wow! The CWO's politics sure have changed?? lol what a sorry spectacle all of this is, Jesus. "Now that we are talkin' their language, perhaps the youngins will listen!"

birdtiem
Offline
Joined: 29-11-15
Nov 7 2018 07:49

I'd say it's useful, when your position changes on something, to say so. Rather than pretending you've always had a particularly nuanced analysis or whatever.

R Totale's picture
R Totale
Offline
Joined: 15-02-18
Nov 7 2018 08:17
birdtiem wrote:
Wow! The CWO's politics sure have changed?? lol what a sorry spectacle all of this is, Jesus. "Now that we are talkin' their language, perhaps the youngins will listen!"

Eh?

CWO wrote:
In other words, the position of the communist left is that of opposition to every form of oppression, but also inherently against separatism whether based on gender, race or nationality, and against cross-class alliances. This position has not changed with the advent of identity politics. As one of our documents put it,

“Action without compromise against all racist shenanigans, discrimination, exceptional laws and administrative practices is an essential basic condition for the production of class unity.”8...

Especially at a time when the ruling class lacks an economic solution to the capitalist crisis, it instead looks for political manoeuvrers to artificially extend the life of the system. Identity politics, socialism, nationalism – all of these ideologies of the left and the right can (and will be) used to rally the working class around the state, no matter their origin...

In the end, identity politics (both its pro and anti wings) is just the latest trend in bourgeois discourse. Dodgy ideologies are being smuggled under both wings

What do you see as being the massive changes in the CWO's approach?

birdtiem
Offline
Joined: 29-11-15
Nov 7 2018 08:35

CBA, at all. Sry.

R Totale's picture
R Totale
Offline
Joined: 15-02-18
Nov 13 2018 13:27

Interesting critique of socialism-as-socially-conservative-electoral-strategy from a pro-working-class direct action standpoint here: http://www.redwedgemagazine.com/online-issue/normie-socialism-or-communist-transgression-red-wedge-interviews-kate-doyle-griffiths