j reacts to the growing implications of the race (or gender) v class debate

this race v class thing again. it's the issue of our time. it's not new; you can trace it back to the 60s. and, i've pointed out a few times that it's older than that - it's the very idea that the united states was founded on: get the slaves fighting over race so they forget about class and don't fight us (because then we're fucked). but the way it's begun to manifest itself over the last few years, one could posit since occupy, has exposed larger fracture points that the democratic primary seems to have taken to a boil: the debate is not really about 'race v class' anymore, if it ever was at all, it's now just really all about class. and, when i say that, what i mean is that it divides the left very cleanly into liberals and socialists.

if you think it's about race, what you're arguing for is equality of opportunity. so, is it any surprise that you're voting for clinton? you're not really that keen on the unrealistic ideas and lofty ideals on the left in the first place. what you want is a system that gives everybody a fair opportunity to climb up the hierarchy. so, is it about race? it's not - it's about class, and your insistence that it not be abolished, because you want to climb your way up a few rungs and be in a position of greater status and wealth. you have a fundamentally competitive, calvinist, market-oriented, capitalist outlook on society. you just want to make sure the rules are fair - that nobody is starting off from a privileged position. you're a liberal.

but, if you think it's all about class, you're focused more on equality of outcome. you're a sanders supporter. when you argue for equal opportunities to education, it's because education is a human right - not because you think everybody should have the same starting points. you think everybody should have equal access to healthcare, too. it's a right! it's not something you should have to earn, or something that hard work should provide you with advantages in. you don't assign much importance to climbing up any hierarchy, because you don't think there should even be a hierarchy to climb at all. or, you may be a little bit of an existential nihilist about it, too. you have a fundamentally co-operative, egalitarian, distributive justice based, communitarian outlook on society, which should be designed so that people can enjoy their lives from cradle to grave, not spend almost all of it fighting for position in a chart. you're a socialist.

i think you can connect these ideas to the different movements that have defined the last five years, too. occupy was all about class, and is pretty strongly behind sanders. black lives matter was all about race, and seems to be mostly supporting clinton. one is a fundamentally liberal movement with a fundamentally liberal outlook; the other is very much in the tradition of socialism.

i understand that there is a need on the left to build broader movements that integrate different racial organizations, so the idea of breaking movements apart like this may be kneejerked against by many. i'd probably make the same argument, myself. but, that is merely a restatement of my position: it's all about class. is what you're saying any different? and, the more push back i hear on the point, the more i realize that it's coming from viewpoints that are thoroughly liberal and genuinely do not wish to abolish class at all. does a common cause actually exist?

perhaps some sober reflection is in order.