Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Sexual Liberation and/or Capitalist Assimilation ?

brixtonscot

Well-Known Member
3 quotes below which I think are fairly self-explanetary.
While there has undoubtedly been progressive changes in many places ,
eg. Heteronormative marriage and nuclear family is no longer so compulsory , which is very welcome……
have many of the radical aims of the original Women’s & Gay Liberation movements been assimilated and/or contained by Capitalism ?

Sexual Liberation & Power :
As Aldous Huxley wrote in his 1946 preface to Brave New World, a novel about a futuristic dystopia in which sexual promiscuity becomes the law -
"as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator . . . will do well to encourage that freedom . . . it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate."

Sexual liberation, despite its apparent eventual successes, might be interpreted, as the philosopher Michel Foucault suggested (with reference to Reich), as having ushered in "a more devious and discreet form of power".
Wilhelm Reich: the man who invented free love

Social Liberal Seduction :

"Of course, there were human gains in this enthusiastic turn by mainstream politicians towards the agenda of social liberalism, from the 1990s onwards: same-sex marriage, an embracing of trans rights, drugs reform (or at least a more tolerant legal attitude towards individual possession), and freer divorce and abortion (all these advances having been made more possible by social movements).

But we should note that this wave of social liberalism – eventually embraced and even championed by the likes of the Cameron-Osborne Tory government in the UK – hid a turn to the right in other policy areas. The Blair government in the UK enthusiastically embarked on a new round of neo-colonial military interventions culminating in joining the ill-judged US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
( and queers would be permitted to join military aggression )

Above all, this new era of social liberalism provided a convenient political smokescreen across the Western world for pillage and despoilation (of people and the natural environment) unseen since the dawn of capitalism. A billion more wage workers were recruited – a doubling of the global workforce – to toil in the sweatshops of Asia. Another two billion were forced off the land, to eke out a marginal existence in the favelas of the global south – while their farms were gobbled up by rapacious agribusiness.

Above all, a new global finance capital emerged bent on reducing the European and American working classes into indebted, obese consumers. Making these exploited multitudes think they were a new generation of liberated individualists free to be anything they wanted to be (while plugged into the internet) is the very essence of the social liberal seduction technique."

George Kerevan : Conter - Shadow Boxers

Identity Politics as a New Imperialism :
European colonialism didn’t just spread pre-and early capitalist property relations to the rest of the world, but it also spread a particular Christian cosmology.

There was only one god, rather than the thousands upon thousands of gods the conquered people knew.

Humans stood outside of nature and in linear time, rather than as part of nature and within animist conceptions of time. By converting the colonial subjects to this newer cosmology, European capitalists were able to re-create the world that created them, over and over again in each new place.

What is happening now is the same thing: identity politics ( including “lgbt” ) allows Anglo-American neoliberalism to recreate itself throughout the rest of the world.

The problem everywhere becomes racism and anti-genderism, not capitalism, meaning that the solution everywhere becomes identity politics, not anti-capitalist revolt.

As such, the core theorists of identity politics become like the early church fathers or the Reformation figures, providing the sacred cosmology for imperialist conquest.

Identity is How Capitalism Intends to Perpetuate Itself by Rhyd Wildermuth​

Identity is How Capitalism Intends to Perpetuate Itself
 
"Above all, this new era of social liberalism provided a convenient political smokescreen across the Western world for pillage and despoilation (of people and the natural environment) unseen since the dawn of capitalism"

it really wasn't a very successful smokescreen, was it? Both, it was argued by some, were examples of extending the enlightenment and liberalism, but very few people actually bought into that.

Not to mention that it was the original bit of straightforward colonisation that saw the imposition of spread of homophobia in the first place.

I am reminded of Gary Younge's line that 'identity politics means whatever you want it to mean. As long as you're against it.'
 
Been a while since I last engaged with Wildermuth on this subject, and my own thinking's probably changed a bit since then, but I remember getting the impression he was an absolute prick. Is he still defending Atassa?
 
Been a while since I last engaged with Wildermuth on this subject, and my own thinking's probably changed a bit since then, but I remember getting the impression he was an absolute prick. Is he still defending Atassa?
I just saw he chose to identify as a druid. And immediately thought 'fuck that prick'.
 
I don't see an issue with equalities issues existing alongside class issues. the working class includes people who are black, gay, trans, disabled (and so on, and assorted combinations thereof) and people are allowed to be multi-dimensional.

the idea that 'the working class' only means the white, straight, working class, is a right wing divide and rule concept, and some people on the left seem to have gone along with that.

racism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry / discrimination is what's divisive, not challenging / opposing them.

opposing racism, homophobia and the like doesn't have to go with supporting a right-wing / neoliberal economic viewpoint.

or have i completely misunderstood the question?
 
EVERYTHING is contained by capitalism, capitalism is utterly dominant.
This is true, but it is only half (okay, maybe three-quarters) of the tale.

Back in 'the day', the aim of the Gay & Women's Liberation movements wasn't mere equality, it was for the destruction of the bourgeoise family, the abolition of marriage, communal childcare, full access for all to elite spaces. But now (or recently) the campaigns have been for gay marriage, the right to serve in the fucking army, equal tax and pension rights, basic representation or even just equal healthcare. Capital has accomdated various anti-discriminatory movements, but those movements have also accommodated themselves to the demands of capital.

To me, its a question of reformism v revolution than 'idpol' v class
 
3 quotes below which I think are fairly self-explanetary.
While there has undoubtedly been progressive changes in many places ,
eg. Heteronormative marriage and nuclear family is no longer so compulsory , which is very welcome……
have many of the radical aims of the original Women’s & Gay Liberation movements been assimilated and/or contained by Capitalism ?
Those 3 long quotes cover a lot of ideas , but are you wanting a different debate from the ID politics thread here? Or just expressing the disappointment at the lack of radical aims of younger queer people?
 
Above all, a new global finance capital emerged bent on reducing the European and American working classes into indebted, obese consumers. Making these exploited multitudes think they were a new generation of liberated individualists free to be anything they wanted to be (while plugged into the internet) is the very essence of the social liberal seduction technique
The system is indeed seductive and advertising works. Who wouldn't want a glossy hair and a comfortable life...
Few people see through that and fewer still reject it all totally.

Short of living in a forest, growing your own food, off grid it's impossible for most of us to live outside the system.
 
opposing racism, homophobia and the like doesn't have to go with supporting a right-wing / neoliberal economic viewpoint.
very much agree , in principle.
in practice though , those movements have largely been assimilated into right-wing/neo-liberal viewpoints
 
To me, its a question of reformism v revolution than 'idpol' v class
A good summation. What annoys me is people who aren't affected by certain reforms because they already enjoy those basic human rights denouncing others who dont have the same rights and dare ask for them, and are then criticised for not demanding the complete overthrow of the capitalist system for their troubles.

As for "the destruction of the bourgeoise family, the abolition of marriage, communal childcare", those ideas are still out there and popular, one of the most popular left books this year is

...in Britain at least id say that the economic/structural ability to live anti-capitalist lifestyles within capitalism has greatly diminished, the space that was open in the 80s and earlier has closed tight like a fist. Try starting a commune now. Who could afford to?

Why revolutionary zeal appears to be low in Britain is an interesting question. I don't think its anywhere near as simple as that people have become reformist sellouts at heart(though there is a lot of that too). I think theres a sizeable amount of wishing for a radically different system out there, main problem is no one can work out how to gain the power to make it happen.
 
Why revolutionary zeal appears to be low in Britain is an interesting question. I don't think its anywhere near as simple as that people have become reformist sellouts at heart(though there is a lot of that too). I think theres a sizeable amount of wishing for a radically different system out there, main problem is no one can work out how to gain the power to make it happen.

I think there's a lack of a coherent vision as to what it would be as well tbh. Who'd trust anyone nominally on 'the left' to put together some form of new system? Virtually no-one.
 
I think there's a lack of a coherent vision as to what it would be as well tbh. Who'd trust anyone nominally on 'the left' to put together some form of new system? Virtually no-one.

I think there's a couple of generations who basically have stopped reading or relating to the Russian revolutionary canon. Your Lenin's and Trotsky's and Bakunin's were carrying a lot of that 'visionary ' load in the not that distant past. I think that's basically gone now, in Britain at least. I don't mean the general ideas, but as figureheads around which to rally.

There are lots of solutions to the worlds problems out there already. I'm not sure it needs much invention, though may be time for a new manifesto? I caught sight of my copy of the Communist Manifesto just yesterday, and it struck me what a historical document it now was and how there hasn't been anything quite like it to fill it's place today.

Interesting to imagine what a modern new First International might look like and what conclusions it would come to!! Not a dictatorship of the proletariat or armed seizing of the state, that's for sure.
 
true…..
but I think many of the original radical aims of those movements was to challenge/overthrow/replace the conservative , capitalist system - not to be assimilated into it
Original radical aims were not forgotten when I was young. I have challenged the status quo - but as overthrowing/ replacing the capitalist system hasn't happened yet, what am I to do? Overthrowing capitalism has been beyond my skills.

I may not want to 'assimilate' but I have to survive. Is living within a system assimilating?

Talking about overthrowing capitalism seems like such youthful idealism, that I can't imagine how it will happen.
 
Last edited:
Anything that is popular is immediately marketable and so exploited by capitalism. The progress in identity politics/sexual liberation is no exception, and I think it's important to appreciate that we have that progress in the first place. Being complex beings, we can hold both ideas in our minds at the same time: that some developments are positive and that capitalism tries to capitalise on them. As usual, it is important to stay vigilant (e.g. so we don't exclude class from our idea of intersectionality, don't stop thinking globally, etc.) but imho bickering over what's 'revolutionary enough' is counter-productive.

TL;DR: the causes have been capitalised on, but that's not really new, and aims live on in as much as people keep them alive
 
On an individual level, I think it's undeniable that being excluded from many of society's institutions and being viewed as a deviant drives you towards / makes you more open towards radicalism of various kinds. Back in the 80s / early 90s coming out did feel like an very transgressive step that put you at odds with the prevailing culture and politics and therefore more questioning of the entire system. That's just not the case now.
 
Not to mention that it was the original bit of straightforward colonisation that saw the imposition of spread of homophobia in the first place.
Not the original bit,surely. The Greeks didn't impose homophobia afaik. Maybe some much later colonisation. But not the original bit of straightforward colonisation.
 
I think there's a couple of generations who basically have stopped reading or relating to the Russian revolutionary canon. Your Lenin's and Trotsky's and Bakunin's were carrying a lot of that 'visionary ' load in the not that distant past. I think that's basically gone now, in Britain at least. I don't mean the general ideas, but as figureheads around which to rally.

There are lots of solutions to the worlds problems out there already. I'm not sure it needs much invention, though may be time for a new manifesto? I caught sight of my copy of the Communist Manifesto just yesterday, and it struck me what a historical document it now was and how there hasn't been anything quite like it to fill it's place today.

Interesting to imagine what a modern new First International might look like and what conclusions it would come to!! Not a dictatorship of the proletariat or armed seizing of the state, that's for sure.
I think you should read up on the first international
 
A good summation. What annoys me is people who aren't affected by certain reforms because they already enjoy those basic human rights denouncing others who dont have the same rights and dare ask for them, and are then criticised for not demanding the complete overthrow of the capitalist system for their troubles.

As for "the destruction of the bourgeoise family, the abolition of marriage, communal childcare", those ideas are still out there and popular, one of the most popular left books this year is
Interesting you should mention that, when I was looking up the mistletoe shagger to remind myself exactly why I dislike him I found he'd written a review of that book slagging it off for that shitty alt-centrist Compact mag:
Wildermuth vs Lewis is a proper plague on both their houses one for me, but I reckon Wildermuth is probably a fair bit thicker than her, even if his prose style is a tiny bit less obnoxious.
 
Interesting you should mention that, when I was looking up the mistletoe shagger to remind myself exactly why I dislike him I found he'd written a review of that book slagging it off for that shitty alt-centrist Compact mag:
Wildermuth vs Lewis is a proper plague on both their houses one for me, but I reckon Wildermuth is probably a fair bit thicker than her, even if his prose style is a tiny bit less obnoxious.
i cant keep up on all these people, so glad urban hive mind does

as an aside i heard someone make the fair point recently that the use of the word "abolition" puts a lot of people off ideas that in fact are far more nuanced and multilayered - see abolish police/prisons, family, and state (monarchy remains though ;) ). Abolish the family appears to be much more about widening the circle of care than anything else, but if you just read the title its easy to misconstrue.
 
Back
Top Bottom