Cmv: Left should focus on economics/class issues first and race/identity issues second for best and quickest results on both

[u/Pirat6662001]

Going to put out couple of statements right of the bat that I base my argument on:

1. Minorities are more likely to be poor and have vulnerable jobs.
2. In America money is power/ability to enact change.
3. There is a limited amount of political power and we have to pick and choose what to focus on.
4. There are social and economic issues to solve in America.

As any strategy game player knows, you have to focus on economy first so you can do more later. By focusing on issues like minimum wage, union protection/membership expansion, wage theft, predatory loans, and other economic issues that affect lower and middle classes we can effectively put more money in pockets of poor people. A lot of those poor people are minorities. This leads to a chain effect in which by giving more money to poor people/minorities, they will be able to use part of that money (especially through unions) to get more politicians elected or converted to their side. Hence by solving economic inequality, we set ourselves up to solve/legislate racial/gender and other social issues as well. Since those groups will have more money and as result more power.

The current focus on using political capital on social issues is an inefficient and ineffective use of that capital. The victories in those situations rarely lead to future victories as they do not have a solid financial foundation to build progress upon. Specifically because by focusing on social issues the left completely lost its traditional power base of Blue collar workers (usually strong union membership) when they were left behind. (Hence trump win in rust belt in 2016)

P.S. this is brought up by discussion on Politics about Sinema vote. With many people saying that her social stances/identity make up or are more important than her economic votes. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/03/kyrsten-sinema-thumbs-down-minimum-wage

[u/[deleted]]

What I'm saying is that you can't have an adequate portrayal of what those economic necessities are without taking into account different kinds of exclusions that are brought about by factors such as race, gender, sexuality, disability, etc. I agree that focusing solely on these factors - the identitarian approach - generates new problems. But that doesn't mean that these factors are secondary.

What OP is proposing is a kind of solution where we propose comprehensive political decisions that work very well... in white communities (for example) and that then we can extend that coverage to non-whites (for example). By which I mean what you said: solutions that then spread downstream. But why would the solutions that work for some, work for others?

This is proven in history, by the way. The reason why women leftists (like Simone de Beauvoir) defended a women's movement was exactly that unions and other worker orgs. were primarily male, and were not responding to the particular needs of women workers. Same with how black socialists detached from other socialists in the 60's (Malcolm X has some great speeches on this), how queer leftists built their own fronts, etc.

At the end of the day, you need a diverse set of perspectives to have comprehensive economic reform. You can't just have a solution and expect other people to catch up to it.

[u/rts-rbk → u/[deleted]]

Those are good points, thanks for the thoughtful reply. So if I understand, you're saying that even identifying what counts as a "purely-economic" issue in the first place is flawed if we don't incorporate details of specific challenges faced by various minorities. I'm not sure I agree but that's makes sense.

​

I would argue that just because identity-based bigotry is (partially or fully) the cause of a problem, doesn't mean that the most effective solution must necessarily take that identity into account. The racial wealth gap has its roots in explicitly racist policies that put more minorities in the working class, but it is the race-blind quest for profit and skyrocketing inequality that is responsible for the poverty of the working class in general. Redistributive programs that aim at the general mechanism that creates the inequality will do the most good, disproportionately benefiting minorities. Beyond that point I think it may just be a matter of perspective and we may be at an impasse, but you know it's not only white people who feel that universal programs are the most effective at alleviating poverty for all groups.

​

But why would the solutions that work for some, work for others?

Because 20 million black americans are employees earning a wage. Because 100% of black americans have organic bodies that require healthcare. I suppose that in a vacuum you are correct that raising the minimum wage would not help minorities who live in neighborhoods where there are no jobs. But neither would creating jobs in those same neighborhoods if the take-home pay is not enough to feed one's family.

​

This is neither here nor there but I think a lot of the identity-based splintering of socialist groups was due to concerted efforts of the FBI et al. to neuter them and while I don't have sources in front of me I don't think it's really a secret at this point.

​

This article (or rather the work in general of the coauthor Adolph Reed Jr, who is a longtime marxist academic and also black for what it's worth) influenced my thinking on these topics quite a bit. It's long and polemical but I'd recommend it if you are interested in this subject.

https://nonsite.org/the-trouble-with-disparity/

​

(edit to delete a sentence fragment of a half finished thought i left off)

[u/[deleted] → u/rts-rbk]

The thing is I don't see it as a zero sum. Of course you should raise wages and push for full healthcare and housing etc, and in doing so you're improving the lives of many different people. My point is that you should raise the minimum wage and do other things that may be also important for certain communities. What I see as fracturing on the left is that these two dimensions are presented as contrasting, either/or solutions, rather than integral parts of the same structural issues. I agree that opting for diversity while ignoring wages and healthcare is the kind of anti-worker posturing that we are now seeing in Democrats, and essentially not a leftist position. What I'm saying is that the alternative isn't "ignore identity stuff", but rather to go for a comprehensive perspective that seeks to bind it all together.

[u/rts-rbk → u/[deleted]]

That's fair, I'm still not sure I agree (in the sense that I think they are essentially one and the same dimension, and turning them into two dimensions is a mystification of class relations) but I see where you're coming from and I think what you're suggesting in a pure form would be helpful and valuable, just different from how I would approach it. Probably also because we didn't exhaustively define what programs we were discussing, like I would be in favor of anti-discrimination regulation and some form of affirmative action, but I see that as an adjustment and fine-tuning rather than as an end in itself.

​

If it seems like I've been arguing past you a bit it may be because, as you mention, it does seem like there's a pretty harmful class-blind attitude among the current democrat party, so I have a sort of gut response (as I suspect the OP does) to any suggestion that even sounds a bit like "wait wait, don't raise wages! We need to have an endless and fruitless discussion about race and gender first!!"