I also was on this track for a while, but the more you actually take part in the movements, the more you see realistic opportunities, the more you understand how damn interwoven all these issues are.
Its not about “this first” or “that first” its about working towards a better world TOGETHER AND IN SOLIDARITY.
Its not even that you should overcome one or the other first, its that its onlz possible to address one issue by also addressing the other. We can’t have a (real and good) socialist society without overcoming racism, sexism etc, and we can’t (really) overcome racism sexism etc without overcoming capitalism.
Realising this means fighting together on solidarity, not downplaying the discrimination others must live through.
I do agree on your emphasis on solidarity, but in a different way.
I think we see this interweaving especially in movements and realistic actions. Because people have values that connect the two together, as well as connecting us. Solidarity is such a value, as well as equality.
But, technically i think the world isn’t very restrictive on what ideas can work together. Technically we can have socialism with racism or sexism, it’s just a less common point of view in our cultures. And same for a capitalism that’s not discriminatory, that’s might be harder to achieve but it’s a real stance, based on other values…
I think the main problem for leftist in general is that we must also learn to accept some differences in our point of views. Even being able to fight with people that doesn’t share said values.
That’s the solidarity we lack the most, with differences regarding our opinions.
I think that’s what get rid of this what’s “first” idea, as well as having multiple fights, all more powerful and with less hollow debates.
Rarer and rarer are the movement that do that correctly in my opinion. We form communities based on our strong values which is great.
But capitalists or politicians thrive on this drawback of having strong values. They use it to pit us against each other. Inside the left, and also by radicalization of both left and right ideologies. Though media like internet especially.
Okay, I think we have different definitions of socialism. In my book that’s a fair society where everyone gets the stuff he needs and gives the stuff he can. Can’t really make this work fairly with racism and sexism can you?
Sure you can change the political system (from unbound parliament to bound council) but that not a society changed from capitalism to socialism.
But I think this is a question of definition, more important is the question of “can you have capitalism without discrimination” and I really don’t think so. You need the army of unemployed so your system doesn’t collapse and you can’t have an army of unemployed if you don’t have some reason why they should suffer.
Also capitalism literally works in the way, that you get played as low as possible, so discriminating people to pay them less is so encouraged by the system, that it is practically build into the system .
I mostly think one facilitates the other. Helping the poor helps in the sens they can then fight discrimination more effectively.
And that’s why we could think we should start by solving the more recent problem of classes first.
To be honest the lines between the two fights probably blurs to thoses who wants both because they value equality first right?
But it’s also true that it doesn’t apply that well to everything completely. Abortion is indeed a very good example.
I also was on this track for a while, but the more you actually take part in the movements, the more you see realistic opportunities, the more you understand how damn interwoven all these issues are.
Its not about “this first” or “that first” its about working towards a better world TOGETHER AND IN SOLIDARITY.
Its not even that you should overcome one or the other first, its that its onlz possible to address one issue by also addressing the other. We can’t have a (real and good) socialist society without overcoming racism, sexism etc, and we can’t (really) overcome racism sexism etc without overcoming capitalism.
Realising this means fighting together on solidarity, not downplaying the discrimination others must live through.
I do agree on your emphasis on solidarity, but in a different way.
I think we see this interweaving especially in movements and realistic actions. Because people have values that connect the two together, as well as connecting us. Solidarity is such a value, as well as equality.
But, technically i think the world isn’t very restrictive on what ideas can work together. Technically we can have socialism with racism or sexism, it’s just a less common point of view in our cultures. And same for a capitalism that’s not discriminatory, that’s might be harder to achieve but it’s a real stance, based on other values…
I think the main problem for leftist in general is that we must also learn to accept some differences in our point of views. Even being able to fight with people that doesn’t share said values.
That’s the solidarity we lack the most, with differences regarding our opinions.
I think that’s what get rid of this what’s “first” idea, as well as having multiple fights, all more powerful and with less hollow debates.
Rarer and rarer are the movement that do that correctly in my opinion. We form communities based on our strong values which is great.
But capitalists or politicians thrive on this drawback of having strong values. They use it to pit us against each other. Inside the left, and also by radicalization of both left and right ideologies. Though media like internet especially.
Okay, I think we have different definitions of socialism. In my book that’s a fair society where everyone gets the stuff he needs and gives the stuff he can. Can’t really make this work fairly with racism and sexism can you?
Sure you can change the political system (from unbound parliament to bound council) but that not a society changed from capitalism to socialism.
But I think this is a question of definition, more important is the question of “can you have capitalism without discrimination” and I really don’t think so. You need the army of unemployed so your system doesn’t collapse and you can’t have an army of unemployed if you don’t have some reason why they should suffer.
Also capitalism literally works in the way, that you get played as low as possible, so discriminating people to pay them less is so encouraged by the system, that it is practically build into the system .
On everything you said after that: “amen”!