User:RD/9k/The proletariat is not a constituency (Q618)
Main entry
- The proletariat is not a constituency / The working class is not merely one constituency among many in the struggle against capitalism (David North; Trotskyism onto post-Marxism) [1]
Related
- community senators / (9k) -> the motif of "organic communities" of people planning their entire culture and identity around whether they will be able to justify themselves through the process of sending expert delegates to a capitalist or Liberal-republican congress of experts where experts will "rationally" argue points at each other and anyone can reject those points for any reason.
this concept is really relevant when talking about exactly what a "constituency" is. how do you define it from the bottom up instead of from the very top and the capital city of the United States down to the local? you can't start with the United States constitution because that did not emerge at the local level. the U.S. constitution was not written by gay or transgender people. so if new demographics are to be represented they simply cannot be covered by the logic of the existing constitution. they have to emerge through some other process that comes into conflict with the U.S. constitution can only be subsumed afterward. what are the low-level or organic processes that generate 'the legal expert for all gay people' or 'the legal expert for all women'?
I would argue that the lowest-level economic base of the United States is actually agorism, not capitalism. agorism consists of people forming into multiple socially-linked populations which are the minimum fabric to constitute a society, and only within and on top of that, people fight over each node in the graph and its access to other nodes to be the best at generating society and "community" while the worst "societors" who are the least good at "societying" are increasingly shoved to menial tasks and finally to homelessness or other countries. the distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is a quantity distinction, although that quantity isn't money, it's more like skill and number-of-hours-training-that-only-count-once-a-product-is-produced-and-sold. "rationality" and "reasonableness" are both things that only accumulate proportional to individual ability to make money and provoke consumerist behavior that has been re-labeled as "social" or "pro-social" behavior. so, ability to be a capitalist and ability to be a "democratic representative" are just two faces of the exact same thing built on a foundation of physical ability and anti-disability. - president of all gay people / Gay President (hypothetical president of all gay or lesbian people inside a particular country) / (9k) -> a very silly thought experiment I came up with one day. if "democracy" truly comes from the individual citizens of a country and its national culture and not the Liberal-republican state, then why are gay people a subpopulation, instead of spontaneously forming into their own gay republic complete with a gay president? LGBT+ people have their own distinct culture, especially in the case they're furry-fans. as well, LGBT+ people have to come up with theories of LGBT+ human rights and LGBT+ freedom among themselves rather than going to anyone else, so their "constitutional rights" come from entirely within their own demographic population of people and not from the United States constitution or any of the demographics of people that originally wrote it. so if countries were really made out of culture, you'd expect gay culture to have formed its own country, and if democracies were made out of human rights, you'd equally expect gay civil rights to have formed their own republic. how is it, then, that this hasn't happened, and all political movements for gay rights have been within the framework of how to improve a country mostly made of straight White people?
Gay movements are against the proletariat
() / (9k)- The problems of women cannot be addressed without an overall party structure changing comprehensively (JRCL 2021) / 全体的計画がないと、組織全体に女性の問題を提起することができない [2] / Without a party structure that is equipped to handle misogyny in an underlying feudal order or capitalist population, structural patterns of misogyny within the economic base will seep into the party and slowly expel all the women as their "unrelated" issues (possibly left over from feudal times) are dismissed -> this article from the JRCL really brings into perspective how Communist parties and movements for demographic identities form almost separately and in parallel to each other.
can we actually say the proletariat isn't just a demographic? or is that a formalism? is the reality that all national populations are made up of countably plural demographics, and demographics are basically what corporations and capitalists cage? the history of Third World women's movements and of gay movements and transgender movements would really seem to bring that into question.
Ideologies or fields
- IV onto LR
- IV onto HM