Towards #FullQueerCommunism

So a friend was just banned from the queer network for, among other things (all of them equally baseless), posting a video of Black Panthers chanting “No more pigs in our community” on a thread.

1517582_10152536252583312_358984893_n

In case you can’t read the text it says that “slurs” which might offend queer police officers are bad- that it’s a problem that Pat’s posts might affect the delicate feelings of queer cops (and how delicate their feelings must be, being a traitor to your gender and/or sexuality is just so hard).

Ray also argues that Pat isn’t in the position of the Black Panthers, no doubt true, but does Ray think that the Black Panther’s attack on the police was limited to a particular standpoint? It was supposed to be, in a sense, universal in scope.

This is the perfect case study in why an identity is not a politics. An identity might help you reach a certain level of political awareness, but it’s possible to be oppressed in countless ways and still fret about the feelings of the police.

Anyway I bring this up because if we want a radical queer movement, which doesn’t concieve of radicalism as intensified moralistic handwringing, it’s obvious we have to build it ourselves. The current queer movement has two wings- a a “left”-wing and a right-wing. The right-wing worries about looking respectable and the absorption of queers into the existing social. The “left”-wing seems mostly concerned with norms of interpersonal respect and language in popular culture and everyday interaction. In effect while the right tries to squeeze us into existing social mores, like respectable monogamy, the “left” demands that new social mores be constructed to fit us into what exists.

Neither pose  a total critique  of the existing social order. We need a movement that recognizes that the fundamental ways in which this world reproduces and expands itself presuppose our oppression, and thus what exists must be dismantled by us (that is the “us” who produce this world, the vast bulk of humanity) both for the sake of our liberation and the liberation of all.

In other words, we need a movement which recognizes that our particular oppression as queers is one of the conditions  of oppression as a whole. That our movement is part of a larger whole and can find its greatest utility, for ourselves and others, as an aspect of the real movement to abolish the present state of things- communism.

Power to all those who stand against the violence of the police.

#Yolocommunism

Advertisements

About timothyscriven

I study philosophy at Sydney University. In the grand scheme, I'm not very important.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Towards #FullQueerCommunism

  1. “In other words, we need a movement which recognizes that our particular oppression as queers is one of the conditions of oppression as a whole. That our movement is part of a larger whole and can find its greatest utility, for ourselves and others, as an aspect of the real movement to abolish the present state of things- communism.”

    This ties into my ongoing discussion at my own blog (http://unitedleftusa.blogspot.com) about Liberal Feminism v. Marxist Feminism. If any identity is to be politicized, it has to be intersectional. To be intersectional means that the solution to the woman/queer/racial/sexual problem is the same as the social problem. It is almost so obvious as to be self-evident that the social problem contains all the problems of so-called “identity” politics.

    “it’s obvious we have to build it ourselves. The current queer movement has two wings- a a “left”-wing and a right-wing. The right-wing worries about looking respectable and the absorption of queers into the existing social. The “left”-wing seems mostly concerned with norms of interpersonal respect and language in popular culture and everyday interaction. In effect while the right tries to squeeze us into existing social mores, like respectable monogamy, the “left” demands that new social mores be constructed to fit us into what exists.”

    In other words the “right” wing (I wouldn’t use that terminology) are assimilationists (that’s the term I would use) and the “left” wing are…accommodationists? I’m not really following your argument for the left. At any rate, I subscribe to the notion that Bebel, Owen, and others in the early Socialist movement subscribed to that the abolition of the family is absolutely necessary for full social emancipation of all those involved. In modern parlance, this is the abolition of heteronormativity. It doesn’t require the construction of new social mores, it simply requires the absolute destruction of what exists as “normal” to allow what is normal behind closed doors to be normal in the light of open displays and discussion. Considering the majority of homoerotic male relationships are NOT monogamous, it follows that if the heteronormative definition of what constitutes a respectable family is abolished and completely destroyed, there’s no reason to construct new social mores because what already exists will fill the void.

    Beyond that, I love this. After my feminist cycle is over (four weeks if I post according to schedule and don’t extend it) I want to explore queer marxism and queer anarchism, and I will most definitely be searching for resources. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s