Solidarity and Responsibility: Fighting to win against capitalism and
oppression.
By Gary Kinsman
Many activists involved in fighting racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other
forms of oppression have been told by other leftists (often but not always
white, heterosexual men) that these are not as important as the "central"
class struggles they support. They may even view our struggles as
diversionary or divisive. I remember being told this many times in the
1970s and 1980s as a gay liberation and socialist activist.
By "class struggle" they seem to mean only the unions and the point of
production -- offices and factories. While this is a very important front
of struggle, it is only one arena of working class life and even here race,
gender and sexuality are central aspects of the organization of workplaces
and of exploitation. For some who argue this narrow view of class it is as
if there is a working class that does not have a home, community and sexual
life – as if working class experience does not centrally include the
relations of domestic labour, the reproduction of our capacities to labour,
poverty, unemployment, immigration, race and racism, sexuality and
pleasure. As many have pointed out, you cannot possibly think and act
politically about class relations in Canada without seeing their racialized
and gendered character. The narrow notion of "class politics" still common
in some parts of the left is not an adequate "class politics" at all.
This view abstracts the working class away from the racism and the gender
and sexual oppressions that are actually key to defining what class
relations and struggles are all about. This empty abstraction is then used
to construct a "false universal" image of the working class as white and
mostly male and heterosexual. This false image of the working class can
foster divisions in working class struggles when racism, sexism and
heterosexism are not centrally addressed. The experience of class is never
an abstraction – it is a social relation between people. It is always lived
in relation to gender, race, sexuality, age, ability, language, nation and
other relations.
Successful struggles to undo these forms of oppression and exploitation
must recognize their intertwined character. This is why an anti-racist,
feminist, class politics that addresses all forms of oppression is needed
in today's organizing.
I examine these questions in the context of the Fighting to Win perspective
developed by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) which is about
moving beyond token or symbolic forms of protest to developing our own
forms of power and wining victories through our own struggles.
Autonomy and Interdependence
When it comes to oppression and capitalism we need to recognize the
specificity of each form of oppression which creates the basis for
autonomous struggles against racism, sexism, heterosexism and other forms
of oppression. Oppressed people need to build their own power against the
forms of oppression they face. At the same time autonomy on its own is not
enough.
This is because all of these forms of oppression are constructed in and
through each other and in and through the relations of capitalism. This is
why we need to bring our various struggles together to build a broader
counter-power to that of the capitalists and their state relations.
Capitalism in a concrete historical sense is racist and sexist. Fighting
racism can be fighting capitalism and fighting sexism can be fighting
capitalism. The fight against capitalism is thereby enriched by seeing how
central fighting gender and racial oppression, for instance, is to
developing a radical anti-capitalist politics. So we need to recognize the
need both for autonomous and united struggles and for building a solidarity
that learns from and builds upon the autonomy of the various struggles of
the oppressed and exploited.
Solidarity yes, but solidarity on whose terms?
In recent years, given the growth of our movements against oppression, some
of the arguments against taking up the struggles of the oppressed are made
in a more subtle fashion. One variant is that in the name of solidarity
against a common enemy – whether it be the Harris government in Ontario or
the struggle against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) – we should
not raise our specific concerns and demands around racism, sexism,
sexuality and other struggles. We should instead, it is argued, unite
against our common enemy with the hope that after this enemy is defeated
that somehow our needs will get addressed. This boils down to an
unacceptable argument for the postponement of our struggles against
oppression, as well as not seeing how central oppressed people's needs are
to battles against the Harris government and capitalist globalization. This
raises important questions about solidarity in our struggles.
Solidarity is central to Fighting to Win as OCAP has stressed. But we
always need to ask whose solidarity, and solidarity on whose terms? Does
this solidarity take all of our diverse needs into account. Solidarity when
Fighting to Win only makes sense when it is defined by the needs of all the
exploited and oppressed. Solidarity cannot simply be on the terms defined
by the leaderships of union or non-governmental organizations but must be
centrally defined by those who adopt radical positions and forms of
struggle and who try to get to the social roots of the problems people face.
Solidarity must be based not only on unity in struggle but also on learning
from other people about the forms of oppression and exploitation that they
face. A solidarity that is defined only by the needs of the more socially
powerful and privileged is actually a source of division in our struggles.
Many times, for instance, we have seen the union movement receive the
support of other oppressed groups only not to have that solidarity returned
when it is urgently needed. While OCAP has been a strong supporter of many
union struggles, for some sections of the union leadership solidarity with
OCAP has been undermined since the June, 2001 eviction of James Flaherty,
Minister of Finance, from his constituency office.
Solidarity And Responsibility: Developing Anti-Oppression Politics
Fighting To Win needs to be about deepening our various struggles, linking
them together and learning from other oppressed and exploited people as we
transform ourselves and our struggles. We need to move into action whether
it is in support for First Nations' struggles, for a refugee resisting
deportation, for anti-poverty actions, a struggle for women's rights, a
struggle for the needs of the disabled, or a strike. Fighting to Win
requires an approach to solidarity that views it as taking up and learning
from all our struggles.
These ideas point to the problems with rather simplistic slogans like
"Black and White Unite, Same Struggle, Same Fight." While this might work
as a slogan for some occasions (and the commitment to unity is admirable),
it also carries with it a rather mistaken political perspective. By leaping
over the very real social divides of white social privilege and racism,
this slogan prevents us from seeing that racism impacts people of colour
and First Nations communities in very different ways than it does on white
people.
In the end, blacks and whites don't have exactly the same struggle even if
from our different locations within the social relations of a racist
capitalist society we can both fight racism and white privilege. White
people have a special political responsibility to fight against the social
practices of white privilege and to challenge racism from within our own
participation and implication within these practices. The other side of our
participation in the social practices of white privilege is the
organization of racism in the lives of people of colour. We are involved in
a common social relation that spans the social sites of racism and white
privilege. But we are positioned within it very differently and therefore
our struggles will have a different social character.
Weakening our struggles - fighting to lose
The approaches that push narrow notions of "class," that call for
solidarity on the terms of those who have social power and privilege, and
that do not challenge forms of social privilege, profoundly weaken our
struggles. They reproduce forms of marginalization and exclusion and
produce disunity in our movements. They are not part of how we need to
develop a Fighting to Win perspective which must be based on taking up the
needs of the most oppressed and marginalized and developing forms of
militant action that build working class and oppressed people's power.
These limited approaches not only mean that groups whose forms of
oppression are not addressed will not significantly participate in these
struggles but also that the movement or struggle will not be able to learn
about and challenge the forms of oppression that shape people's lives. The
best forms of solidarity are those where people are transformed through
addressing and dealing with various forms of oppression and exploitation as
part of the organizing experiences. An occupation of an immigration office
to defend the rights of people about to be deported, for instance, can
allow white trade unionists to learn about some of the aspects of the
racism that many people of colour face on a daily basis.
From the perspective of socialism from below, solidarity that deals with
class, race, gender, sexuality and others forms of oppression is the best
form of solidarity because it helps to prepare us for the building of a new
society in which exploitation and all forms of oppression are addressed.
This requires that the anti-racist, feminist and queer liberation struggles
(amongst others) need to be very much alive in the forms of solidarity and
coalitions that we build. They are not something separate and apart from
building solidarity. If we don't do this, whatever the success of the
struggle it will not have transformed the participants - it will not have
moved forward the struggle for profound social transformation. This is why
a politics of solidarity is not simply a politics of defence against
attack; it also needs to be developed more offensively as a politics of
social transformation.
From a Politics of Representation to a Politics of Responsibility
One of the main ways that movements of the oppressed have been responded to
both officially by state and social agencies and by parts of the left is to
interpret these as struggles for representation rather than as struggles
for social transformation. The politics of representation can take the form
of a "multiculturalism" which deals with oppression as a question of
representation and of culture and does not focus on the social and economic
roots of oppression. It is crucial that diversity and the lack of
representativeness of various organizations and struggles be noted and
challenged. It is crucial not to exclude people who want to be involved. It
is also crucial that white-dominated, or male-dominated, organizations
recognize this and try to take steps to transform their social character
and composition. The politics of representation, however, can lead
organizations to focus on their lack of representativeness as the problem
rather than actively fighting racism and sexism. This can actually
demobilize struggles and lead to a politics of liberal pluralism that
focuses on everyone being represented rather than on actively fighting
oppression. Representation alone does not get rid of problems of oppression
and marginalization.
This approach also does not recognize that various oppressed groups may
have very valid reasons (say for instance past experiences of people of
colour with white leftists) to not join a white-dominated group or
coalition. They may be concentrating instead on developing their own
autonomy and developing their own power. As mentioned before we have to
recognize that different forms of oppression create the basis for
autonomous struggle and organization. This autonomy includes the need for
caucuses and autonomy for the oppressed within coalitions and
organizations. It is only on the basis of this autonomy and the active
addressing of forms of oppression that a more profound solidarity and
equality can be built.
For groups of activists positioned within relations of social privilege,
the politics of responsibility instead leads to recognizing that there are
actions that can be taken from their social location to challenge racism
and the social construction of whiteness, or to challenge sexism and the
ways masculinity is practiced in our society. This is a politics that leads
to intervening in and transforming social relations. For example, if I am a
member of a largely white group, engaging in a politics of responsibility
would lead to actively learning from black activists and respecting their
leadership, but at the same time actively challenging racism and our own
participation in sustaining the social practices of white privilege. By
challenging the practices of white privilege and racism this could in turn
create a better basis for cooperation with black activists and other
anti-racist activists in the future. The politics of responsibility thereby
facilitates the building of solidarity and addressing forms of oppression.
For Social Transformation
The struggle against oppression is not simply a fight for representation.
It also needs to get at the social roots of the forms of oppression we face
and the transformation of social relations organizing oppression. This is
what an anti-racist, feminist, class politics needs to be all about. This
approach is about developing a broader sense of class struggle and
anti-capitalism that is centrally defined by struggles against oppression.
This is what fighting to win is all about. --- Gary Kinsman is a queer and
global justice activist in Sudbury. He is a member of the New Socialist
Group, the author of _The Regulation of Desire_ and co-author of the
forthcoming _Canadian War of 'Queers': National Security as Sexual
Regulation_.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/01/15/1045762
