7/05/97, Karl Carlile wrote:
>The point I am
>making is that much of feminism is sexist both in its language and
>corresponding politics. ... By reinforcing divisions along gender
>lines their anti-male sexism reinforces division among the working
>masses along these same lines and consequently weakens the working
>class on the political plane.
No disagreement with the above.
In terms of elite/media-encouraged divide-and-conquer, feminism apparently
succumbs on several fronts:
Abortion * divides feminists from other women and from "Christians".
Men-blaming * divides feminists from men.
Bitterness * separates feminists from full collective empowerment.
(This is perhaps stereotyping - my apologies to enlightened feminists who
may see this discussion as a bunch of typical men blabbing about what they
don't understand.)
---What I've been trying to express in several previous messages is that remedying divisiveness is not best approached by focusing on the points of division. Such an approach is "giving the initiative to the enemy (the elite)" and "fighting on the enemy's chosen ground" and "reactive problem solving". The fundamental flaw in reactive problem-solving is that it loses impetus in the face of success, and gains impetus in the face of failure - the energy feedback loop rules out ultimate success but burns up lots of energy in the attempt.
We cannot expect a dramatic conceptual breakthrough with abortion or with man-woman relations that will heal the feminist rifts - the more these issues are discussed, the more elaborated become the differences (kind of like my debates with Andrew, which never seem to converge - and we're more open to dialog than are radical feminists or fundamentalist Christians). It's the _debate_ about abortion that keeps the differences alive.
And contrary to the apparent hopes of Andrew et al, we cannot expect academic findings about race and ethnicity to sway the National Front, the skinhead, nor the redneck - they aren't listening.
---If our goal is to encourage class solidarity we must focus on building coalition IN SPITE of differences - we must educate the proletariat (so to speak) about who the major enemy really is, what the real stakes are, and focus our message on the shared concerns and interests of the proletariat as a class. We must focus on our positive vision.
Transformations come about because of the positive dynamics of a new regime, not because the contradictions of the old regime have been neutralized - they never will be in their own context: their tension is what maintains the old regime. Building solidarity is about building solidarity, not about eliminating differences.
Fear is the simplest way to bring people together, and during _threatening_ wars (not Vietnam) enthusiastic national solidarity arises spontaneously (with social conflicts _still unaddressed_). Racist populists use fear to unify one "race" against another (_despite_ ongoing internal conflicts). To some extent fear of corporate globalism is an appropriate proletarian unifier, but it is not enough.
The first task may be for people to understand that they _are_ proletarian. One of Malcom X's points was that middle-class Americans are brainwashed into thinking of _themselves_ as capitalists, tricking them into identifying with capitalist interests instead of their own. No wonder they shot him, that's a potent message.
But ultimately, success in building solidarity lies in our ability to project a vision of citizen empowerment, of socialist prosperity, of practical sustainable economics, and of democratic social harmony.
Forget the 'isms and find our collective strength...
in solidarity, rkm