2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 24, 2016, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)
between "social justice" and "economic justice" activists.
In fact, in the left I grew up in, those were the SAME people about 90% of the time.
There are distinctions between the movements focused on combatting institutional bigotry(which are the series of causes being talked about now as representing "social justice" and those challenging extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the few/extreme concentration of economic power in the hands of the few/the exploitation of working people.
But in the post-1965 left(as opposed to the old CP-based left) there were few, if any situations in which economic justice types saying "shut the hell up about that racism/sexism/homophobia/other bigotry jazz-it'll all be taken care of 'come the revolution'".
There was a clear understanding that, for either justice struggle to prevail, the other had to prevail, too. The rise in backlash politics and grassroots racism was directly proportional to the weakening of unions, the assault on the middle-class standard of living, the sense that there was "less", so people had to "stick with 'our own kind'". The decline in the effectiveness of the various freedom movements, essential as all of the are, was directly connected(in addition to a few other factors) with the loss of a general sense of prosperity
In the Mid-Sixties, some of the New Left was slow to back feminism(a lot of the early second-wave feminists were female New Left types who were sick of being expected to make coffee, clean the office and worse by the MEN in the movement)and didn't back the gay liberation cause until after Stonewall, even then taking their time about it. But they had always been a part of the civil rights and farmworker causes and were backing feminism solidly by 1974 or so, and gay and lesbian rights by about 1978. So, for at least thirty-eight years now, the social and economic justice wings of the change community were at least largely on the same page and worked together in close coordination in both causes. People of all races, genders, and sexual orientations have been strongly represented in economic justice work. White, male economic justice advocates have joined in many, many struggles against social injustice.
So how did we manage to get to the place, in 2015 and 2016, in which it sounded like you could be active for "social justice" a range of causes that always had a clear economic component, since it has been clear from the time of Dr. King that you couldn't defeat bigotry without addressing the economic factors that play a major role in keeping it alive) or "economic justice"
which has been recognized for decades now as requiring a person to be a committed opponent of grassroots AND institutional bigotry), but somehow not BOTH?
Are there people reading this who actually believe that "economic justice" work somehow means being chill with Jim Crow? Or that "social justice" work means seeing the corporate sector as a reliable ally for liberation, and those who want us to come up with an economic model that puts human dignity, worth, and need as enemies?
We are past the 2016 primaries now. Neither Hillary nor Bernie will ever seek the presidency again. We need to move past any feelings have about any of them and find the way back towards the unity of commitment most of the American left had on social AND economic justice, causes that are distinct, yet will always be intersectional and related.
For our own survival, especially for the survival of the most vulnerable communities in this country, communities who have only become MORE vulnerable, we need to get past the notion that this is binary...that you can only support ONE struggle for justice, rather than both.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):