- To talk about class struggle as including those who have not submitted to capitalist discipline because they cannot, or refuse to. Apart from the white gay men who are fetishized as “the pink dollar” or the posterchildren of liberal companies, many queer folks will continue to fall into this camp. Queer youth especially, given that heterosexism will drive many out of biological families and support structures, and youth unemployment/exploitation, much less queer youth unemployment/exploitation is high.

- How to talk about the alliance that needs to be built b/w those who reject/are shut out of capitalist discipline, and those who are oppressed by it in workplaces?

I think it is important to talk about these in terms of how people are materially oppressed, but it is also important to talk about this in term of consciousness and mental liberation.

It is a contradiction how many progressive non profits will talk all day about the need for there to be mental liberation for people through art, poetry, etc. This focus on art, creative expression etc focusses on people as members of a community/racial group/identity group etc, but seldom as workers. In other words, when progressive scenes talk about labor, it ends up ALMOST ALWAYS being about wages, and NEVER or seldom about the mental liberation workers should experience ON THE JOB.
I think further theorizing on the Jamesian/Marty Glabberman concept that capitalist discipline on the job consists NOT ONLY of material oppression (in the form of wages) but also in the form of freedom and creative expression and social relations (that can potentially help them run the workplace more efficiently.) I think further theorizing on how this relates to gender might also be a way we can more substantially talk about the need for unity b/w those who are shut out from capitalist discipline (thru unemployment) and those oppressed by capitalist discipline, so class isnt just defined by being in the heart of the means of production. Likewise, class struggle should expand beyond immediate material concerns to mental liberation. [by mental liberation I mean broadly the ability to build real human relations that arent hampered by capitalism, creative self expression, sexual desires, etc] In addition, what organizations need to be formed to facilitate this unity?

- Caring work — on one level the expression of compassion and love– is hampered and under-valued under capitalism by capitalist patriarchy and class exploitation. The relationship b/w worker and “client” are also hampered by this capitalist discipline. There is a huge field of workers who do this form of labor that remain unwaged, ununionized, unrecognized as legit members of class struggle. Can we theorize caring work organizing as a way of opening up space for new values of love, compassion, self expression, etc to be expressed? What demands would facilitate this in campaigns?

- Queer liberation is not simply liberation for a narrow group of people. Queer identity is constantly expanding and changing because peoples’ desires and sexual identities are always changing and moving. Hammoid points out above that if workers wake up lavender, then the world would be a different place. How would it be different, I think, is a key question! You also ask, what role in the division of labor do queer workers play? I think these 2 questions are very connected.

In my understanding, part of the project of theorizing a class struggle queer liberation, is to point out how heterosexist and transphobic values in dominant society are tied to the forms of production of capitalist society. In having a class analysis of patriarchy, many of us would agree that its role in workplaces serve to divide the workforce by giving men a sense of superiority and power over women as opposed to uniting in solidarity w women for similar class demands. This superiority is also replicated in the household where women are socialized to be subordinate to male needs.

Likewise, the delegitimization of queer relationships in the workplace, either through brutal suppression or through individualizing it as a fetish/personal abnormality, means that a heterosexist conception of family is protected and maintained at the workplace; The heterosexist conception of a family under capitalism is one that does reproductive labor (the upbringing of a new generation of workers) for free because kids are an extension of our biology. To the extent we are supposed to take care of ourselves based on our own paychecks, we are told we need to be solely responsible for our kids cos they are an extension of us. Queer families and relationships are not bounded by biology, and neither is it based on the concept of huddling as a narrow, static, two-some in a big cruel world. Our very existence as transitioning, changing identities and relationships threaten the concept that reproductive labor should be done freely out of fixed biological relations. Our solidarity as queers rejected by heterosexist society who perceive us as abnormal, might mean that we take care of one another as family, and we may likely demand a salary at the workplace that covers the needs of our ever expanding family. Reproductive labor will not be free, on the basis that kids [aka the next generation of workers] are our biological responsibility; Instead, our politicization against the heterosexism of many of our workplaces may serve as a starting point for our politicization against the fact that our salaries do not cover the needs that our queer family members need, to survive and grow in this society. ..

Rough thoughts, in the spirit of trying to think through some of these questions openly and would appreciate any feedback/thoughts!

In the past (and too often in the present) socialists have deployed these categories as wholesale units, that soon cease to become relevant…the quaint “housewife” in the Marxist-feminist domestic labour debates…the imagery of factories and industry as the bastion of the working class that can alienate those in say the informal, care, or service economies.

Unfortunately, this work of deconstructing and reconstructing identities and subjectivities has too often been turned over to the Foucauldians and Derridians and Butlers of the world, who will never theorise with a socialist vision in mind.

There is no reason that this kind of work cannot be performed within a materialist framework and a socialist orientation. But it is our task to do it, and if we don’t, the post-modernists will long reign the humanities.

For a great example of what I’m talking about, see the book by Buxton and Bezanson “Social reproduction: Canadian feminist political economy challenges neo-liberalism”

What I’ve seen happen many times is that people try to answer these questions on a moralistic instead of a strategic basis. In other words, they ask “who is the most oppressed” and say we should work on “their” issues first. There are several problems with this:

1) it can lead to the “oppression Olympics” where folks have to compete to explain why they are the most oppressed and why the group should focus on their issues. This can be demoralizing and humiliating and it can also lead to unproductive and abstract debates like whether Black or Brown folks are more affected by white supremacy today. Questions like this can only be resolved through a concrete analysis of social relations not through personal anecdotes about who has been more traumatized (I am all for personal anecdotes and collective healing, but these need to be integrated back into a long term strategy to actually stop the oppression that causes the trauma in the first place).

2) As JOMO lays out, each oppressed group does not necessarily identify with a specific defining “issue”, demand, or campaign. Just because the prison industrial complex affects Black folks doesn’t mean that every Black person will see this as the top priority for what organizing needs to happen. Demanding jobs, stopping budget cuts, or ending Israeli apartheid might be just as important.

3) Related to this, the intersectionality analysis sometimes overlooks what Javier from Advance the Struggle calls the “independent internationalist agency of people of color/ oppressed people.” In living breathing oppressed communities you don’t just have different identity based groups that need to come together through intersectionality and coalition building. You also have lots of militants in particular oppressed communities who want to be tribunes of the people, taking up all issues and fighting all forms of oppression as part of a long term revolutionary vision. This means that militants may actually wish to take up a cause that is historically more identified with another identity group rather than their own. Shouldn’t this be encouraged rather than discouraged?

4) As revolutionaries we need to take up struggles at least partly based on which layers of society are moving right now. We need to block with militant layers who are moving because they will shake things up and loosen/ open up space for other layers to move in the future. We need to choose our campaigns at least partly on this, not on an abstract calculus about who is most oppressed. The fact is that it is often the most oppressed who move first anyway (for example custodians at the U. of Washington moved before Grad students) but it doesn’t always play out that way. Also, once a group moves and you build deep relationships with that group in struggle you can’t just abandon them when the struggle subsides, you need to keep building relationships to prepare for the next upsurge. So for example Democracy Insurgent is majority queer folks and we are involved in labor organizing with the custodians. When the protests around gay marriage were popping off this fall we couldnt’ play a key role cuz we had our hands full with the labor work and couldn’t just peace out. So instead we integrated an analysis of queer liberation into our labor work and JOMO’s piece is partly a result of those reflections. We hope we are building the basis for future labor struggles around queer liberation in the workplace, including struggles that many of us will face on our own jobs.

“Feminism at Work” looks at the strategic, organizing implications of “intersectionality” towards class solidarity in the workplace: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/456

If you haven’t read the USFI resolution on lesbian/gay liberation, I recommend it – a few years old but I believe it’s an excellent international overview: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article177

I have become aware of queer-theory within the past 1-2 weeks. My new girlfriend is queer and I find that I resonate very well with her ideas, and in fact I find that I support the goals of this movement.

I would like to make a comment about one thing you wrote:

“We hate the white supremacist queers…”

A mentor of mine taught me not to be “anti” anything. I also believe that hate does nothing but encourage further hate. I have befriended many white-supremacists/racists and sexists, and through my compassion and understanding have been able to dialogue with them about there views so that I could see things from their perspective, give them an opportunity to speak their minds to an open-minded person, and also give me the opportunity to share my points of view on the matter. After listening to their sometimes over-the-top extremely hateful and uninsightful ranting, or perhaps understandable points of view, I speak with them from my heart and express that we are all one. If one suffers we all suffer. If one bleeds we all bleed. Etcetera.

I appreciate your eloquence and thorough research in what I feel is a very important movement, and wonder if you yourself find folly in your expression of hate, or whether you truly do hate, “white supremacist queers…” Building bridges is important. It allows people from both side to meet in the middle, and eventually mix together. Tearing down bridges, through hate, only guarantees that hate continues to exist.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks for everything!

while we criticize the patriarchal, middle class heteronormative structures of mainstream institutions (like universities and the workplace) and counterhegemonic ones (like radical groups), shouldn’t we put some heat on queers themselves who focus on less than central questions? queer folks should take the lead on producing queer marxist class struggle praxis. i dont know, maybe what im saying is bordering on blaming the victim, but i actually do think the victim plays some part in their victimization in most situations. developing praxis for your own liberation is the meaning of self-determination. queer folks seem to have denied themselves the most powerful tools available to them – the marxist method.

the major crisis of Marxism today is less, in my opinion that there’s too many straight white males that embrace marxism, but that not enough black, brown, yellow, queer, and woman people do. thats what is so refreshing about this piece, because i know Gathering Forces is mostly people of color, gender balanced, and has queer members. hopefully this is just a first step toward a more complete queer liberation praxis that is fused with every other section of the working class. the Radical America article about Gay/Lesbian – Blue Collar unity in the 1984 British Miner’s strike is dope and i couldnt recommend it enough.

but now i would like to put the question to you all that i did to the man-boy love dude: where in the division of labor do we see the highest concentrations of queer folks? what are the implications for our organizing?

ps thanks for a great article and getting our wheels spinning on this crucial question.

“Are we in danger of saying “Queers and Straight, Unite and Fight?” . .. For our purposes, how do we avoid the same class reductionist strategies that call for an undemocratic popular front between queer workers and a by-far heteronormative labor movement?”

the best counter-narrative to the heteronormative labor movement i have EVER come across was the alliance of gays and lesbians (i dont remember mention of other queers) with the welsh miners in Britain in 1984. there is an excellent account of it in an issue of Radical America from the 80s.

a gay/lesbian solidarity organization formed to support the miners and the miners even invited them to lead one of their marches. at one miner came out of the closet after getting to know the gay activists who visited the mining town on a regular basis to show support. anyway, try to find that issue of Radical America, it was amazing.

For reference, check out the pamphlet by A. Rausch put out by STO in 1980, entitled “IN PARTIAL PAYMENT: Class Struggle, Sexuality and the Gay Movement” (Urgent Tasks No. 7).

At: http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html

Quote: “The gay movement’s existence outside, for the most part, of strug­gles in the workplace and factory is another limitation that exists. If all gay people woke up lavender, as one long-time activist said, then the struggle would immediately change character.”