“Woke 1.0 was crazy,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said in a recent interview.
The congresswoman, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, seemed to distance herself from the positions of an era of Democratic politics around 2020, shortly after she rose to prominence. Some on the left now see the rhetoric of that time as ineffective and divisive. There has been a widespread retreat on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts among corporations. And some public officials, including Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, have walked back their calls to defund the police.
That’s why you stick to the concerns of the workers, economy and poor in your messaging, not cultural war rhetoric. Power to the people is a great message that appeals to most.
Defeat capitalism and THEN human rights for marginalized groups can take off. Blue collars and rural poor will no longer have to scapegoat others when material conditions are favorable.
I understand the sentiment, but realistically we can push for more than one thing at a time. There is limited political capital, so I understand we cannot devote equal time to everything, but gay people and people of color used to be openly murdered. What would have happened if we decided that we couldn’t worry about that then and needed to focus on other issues? I think we’ve come quite a way, and I don’t see why we have to draw a line and decide we can stop pushing for social equality now and just focus on class. We can win doing both. In fact I think doing both is integral to progress overall. If we can’t stand up for our othered friends then how do we show we stand for anything at all? Taking up just the easy fights is a failure of both politics and morals.
Someone responded to you suggest that feminism has run its course. Andrew Tate was able to continue to do unspeakable things to women in part because UK cops refused to take women’s accusations seriously. He could have been caught way sooner if they had. Say what you will about men turning right because of economic issues, but if men viewed women as equal then it wouldn’t matter what the economic conditions were, they wouldn’t believe Tate when he said that women are incapable of having real feelings. This is a multi pronged issue and I think we need to approach it from all angles in order to ensure we get it right.
I was definitely taken aback by the comment “feminism has run its course.” Feminism is far from accomplishing its intended goals and infighting in the movement between “TERFS (jfc)” and “second wave (who may have given up on core values and are just promoting open objectification/commodification of their bodies to serve the sexual whims of men and compete with other women),” and the militant wing who are pushing forward for true equality and liberation.
The whole concept of women even needing to fight for their rights in this world makes me sad. In a socialist society where class divisions melt away and the bourgeois that pushes narratives of hate and oppression are defeated, the entire notion that women are not equals would be a bizarre, antiquated notion that sounds batshit insane. Same goes for oppression towards racial/ethnic groups and LGBTQ+.
My point was that to accomplish its goals it needs to accept that (past a certain point) fighting for women as it’s main goal is self defeating. It’s hard to get individuals that are struggling just as much or more than women as a group to fight primarily for women’s equality.
Think of it like fighting gravity. You can get pretty far with wings and a propeller, but at some point a complete change in tactics is necessary. Some feminists really don’t want to understand that.
I think it’s nice to think that inherent to socialism/communism/etc is the idea that we’re all equal hence deserving of equal treatment, but if we don’t push that idea both socially and economically, I fear we won’t actually get there. Maybe after socialism we can work on it, but the idea that once socialism happens we’ll all just be equal strikes me as naive (no offense intended). It will take time even after whatever political ideology is implemented. You can make the argument that it’s easier to fight for that in a more equal society, which is very likely true, but in the interim you’re just telling the affected people that they have to wait their turn for equality.
I really do hope we get to an equal place economically, but people deserve to be heard and fought for in the interim. Somewhat tangentially, I never liked Platner, but the number of people willing to stick with him despite rape claims was really scary. People are willing to throw others under the bus if they think it will benefit them and I can speak from experience that it doesn’t engender confidence in the movement. If we care about two things equally we should be able to fight for them both. I believe in social and economic justice and I have no reason to believe that one will inevitably lead to the other any faster than the reverse (see women’s liberation leading to better economic outcomes for women and the push for civil rights leading to better economic outcomes for POC).
It’s very easy to make a “socialist” argument against any group, so if we don’t enter socialism with the goal of removing these social issues then we set ourselves up for failure. Is a womb not in some senses a means of production? Should it not belong to the public? If a woman opts out of reproduction is she not in some sense robbing a productive tool from the rest of society? Of course YOU would never make that argument, but if we don’t do our due diligence then someone else will. I know there’s arguments about what counts as real communism/socialism/etc but the USSR which had no religious reason eventually made abortion illegal. I hope we keep that in mind when we think about which rights we think need to take a back seat to what we view as economic freedom.
You make excellent counterpoints and I also need to consider that chauvinism may have still occurred under such regimes as the USSR, and it’s something worth educating myself about.
I appreciate the pleasant and levelheaded discussion. For what it’s worth I think people exclusively fighting the economic fight and people exclusively fighting the social fight are both needed as there’s only so much time in the day for education and activism. We should just always respect and support each other’s aims. We’re all in this together.
Yeah, that’s kinda where I’m at. It’s hard to get people that have to worry about making enough to survive to worry about what some middleclass person is struggling with 100 miles away.
That’s why until the recent backsliding, I’ve thought for awhile that feminism has kinda run its course. Most issues feminists have are either a symptom of capitalism run amok, or shitty people in general getting away with sociopathic behavior. The intersectionality stuff tried to amend that, but at the end of the day it’s a band-aid solution to a bigger issue.