Despite the noble soil from which its roots burst forth, feminism is malleable and therefore able to be pulled from it’s revolutionary contexts and played by a reactionary hand. Much like the identity politics’ racialist elements, feminisms conceptual form is deeply entwined with idealistic categorizations that lack material grounding, unlike a more (I’m hesitant to say) orthodox Marxist class analysis. A political theory based on non-economic factors like race or sex/uality allows for broad coalitions to be formed irrespective of class situation, creating a, say, “feminism” that is able to not only coexist and operate fluently within capitalism, but in fact, actively battles against dialectics by imposing a false notion of the oppressor/oppressed binary. A solidarity of identity with zero class analysis renders an individual like Beyoncé as “exploited” while labeling a white male living in poverty (be it in Ukraine or the Appalachians) as an exploiter.
This is not to deny the obvious truth that women and people of color face a disproportionate amount of oppression in the world of capitalist relations. However, capitalism proves such a formidable foe because of it’s ability to absorb and utilize a majority of the weaponry used against it (an example of this would be the surging popularity of “green”products: instead of combating the forces leading to ecological destruction, one can instead support that same system but receive the social/mental feeling of “helping”). A lower-class-based solidarity is a much more difficult strategy for a system of class superiority to tackle.
(An aside must be mentioned here: my usage of “lower class” comes with much hesitation and is used, in this particular case, mostly out of lack of linguistic creativity on my part. The larger debate to be had is what exactly defines “lower class” and this, I feel, is an issue in which the subjective interpretation is heavily influenced by the individuals own “flavor” or “moment” of dialectics; those concerned with the “nationalist question” could posit the, in this spatial case, American working class, invisible classes, etc. as the lower class. A more Maoist-based perspective, such as MIM’s, would place the populations of the Third World in this category, relegating the former response to the role of the oppressive “labor aristocracy." To some this may seem an irreconcilable chasm to cross; to the optimist, it is but a mere footstep when compared to the continent-wide split between reaction and revolution.)
A quick glance at the dominant narrative of the mainstream feminist movement (and greater PC culture in general) shows a dreadfully uneconomic mask. Instead of rhetoric aimed at a socio-economic system in which oppression along identity lines comes naturally, the mark is lowered and pseudo-insurrectionary shots are fired at the identity lines themselves. “Capitalism” is no longer the enemy; the much harder to pinpoint and define “patriarchy” instead becomes the locus of oppression. “PC culture,” at it’s heart, is reactionary in this sense that it seeks to erase class and eradicate the division between the one who is exploited and those who do the exploiting for profit; a polemic against the mass wealth and reactionary politics of, say, Caitlyn Jenner or Jay-Z will be tossed out as symptomatic of transphobia or racism, as the aforementioned individuals identity is viewed as their essential signifier, rather than their placement, and participation, on/in the class hierarchy. This is why one will see mainstream feminists and open expressions of such ideals: it has been neutered of all threatening qualities. H&M will produce a shirt parading the definition of feminism, MSNBC will feature culture pieces on “the feminist hashtag as a powerful weapon and laughable Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina will offer her version of feminism, minus the “progressive” elements she identifies as holding the movement back. As many examples can be made manifest for ethnic or racial divisions. The same cannot be said for class. H&M will not produce a shirt celebrating the definition of proletarian struggle against the wealthy. MSNBC will not author a segment about the working class struggle to collectivize the work place. No candidate (let alone person) pushing for the socialist nationalization of major industries will be given a sober and fair chance to argue their views on national television (even a social democrat like Bernie Sanders is shunned from the mainstream spotlight and his ideas aren’t remotely radical when placed in comparison to the past few decades of most conventional European national dialectics). These things will not be produced or paid mind to because they are not able to pacified or exorcised of their threat towards global capital relations. Promotion of class-based solidarity is, by it’s very nature, anti-capitalist and therefore will be rhetorically ignored and then attacked (and violently suppressed when that proves not enough).
It must be noted once again, as I’m sure the echo chamber has forgotten by now, that this diatribe is not to disregard the increased struggle in front of working class women, POC’s and sexual minorities (to keep the list short and basic). It is only to push the envelope further and combat the stagnation of theory, to destroy the sedentary nature to which American radicalism has reduced itself.
We have nothing to lose but our chains.
