[Content note: mentions of transphobia, sexual violence and violence against people of colour]
This was a line of thought which fell out of yesterday’s post, but that was getting quite long enough.
The article I quoted from, with its laundry list of stupid, trivial, oversensitive, left-destroying complaints, went on to lament that we’re not building a “mass movement” on the left. It’s a common question: post the glory days of compulsory unionism, how do we get thousands of people to march on Parliament and demand social change?
I have a question in response, though. How on earth do you folks expect to build a mass movement when you insist on ignoring – or not just ignoring, deliberately rejecting – issues faced by the majority of people in society?
“But we’re not!” they protest. “We just want to focus on things that really matter, material issues!”
As I’ve blogged about a lot previously, there are two problems with this “analysis”.
In no particular order, the first is that many of these “symbolic or linguistic” issues do really matter. It does really matter to trans people that they can be outed by airport security scanners, and that their bodies are publicly described as “anomalies” when it happens. The choice is: Travel, and be outed. Travel at the expense of being physically assaulted by strangers. Or refuse to travel, and lose your job or never see your family or go to Disneyland or do a hundred other things which cis people would consider “living a normal life”.
It does really matter to people of colour that ingrained, unconscious attitudes affect whether or not they get shot walking through their own neighbourhoods or arrested entering their own house.
It does really matter to women that society reduces us to sexual objects and promotes attitudes which allow our rapists or abusers to walk free – and to have those attitudes reinforced in a hundred different ways every day.
The second problem is that identity is a material issue. The labour of women and people of colour is undervalued – deliberately. Queer and trans people are marginalized in order to reinforce capitalist norms about heterosexuality and child-rearing.
Karl Marx and Friedrich bloody Engels had this stuff figured out.
And to get personal for an instant? When high-profile leftwing men call me crazy or irrational, or stroke their chins musing whether I’m a liability to the organisation I work for, damn straight sexism is a material issue for me.
Class is an identity. Identity is inextricable from class. The working class in New Zealand isn’t just a row of white dudes in cloth caps any more. It’s Pasifika women cleaning office buildings on the graveyard shift and Maori men and women in the meatworks and young people on zero-hour contracts at fast-food restaurants.
We have to treat them – and everyone else – as people. People with lives and families and interests and needs. Not just “workers” whose existence begins and ends at the shop door.
It’s not easy. But what should be easy, for people who are committed to fairness and justice and who can see that the imbalances of power in our society have to be overturned, is to be aware of the fact that life isn’t simple. Capitalism isn’t a one-dimensional foe. And if we’re open-minded to change and willing to acknowledge we’re not perfect and have plenty to learn, maybe people will start to see the left as a relevant political project again.
If that isn’t step one in building a mass movement, I don’t know what is.
4 Replies to “Building a mass movement”
When we get our collective heads around the fact that Russia under the Bolsheviks was no more ‘left’ than fly (about as communist as was fascism in Italy) and remove it from our political perception of what might be good or an avenue to good and view our current political parameters as they actually are – statist and corporatist rather than ‘left’ and ‘right’ – then we might be able to perceive our need to develop something democratic.
Now, given that a reasonable tenet of democracy would be that no person has a right to unilaterally plant a tree outside another’s window (neither figuratively nor literally), any attempt to develop a democratic movement would naturally view any attempt to relegate “this’ or “that” until after the revolution as mightily suspicious (in terms of motive), obviously and fundamentally undemocratic, and therefor utterly unacceptable.