Is identity politics detrimental to the class struggle?

[Megabot]

Much has been made about right-wing lambasting of identity politics, e.g. the civil rights movement, feminism, LGBT rights, etc., for the obvious reasons of conservatives wanting to maintain the current social order. But recently I came across a less conventional leftist critique of that political ideology on a Marxist website, which delves into the history of International Women's Day and its roots as a socialist movement among working class women:

http://koleksyon-inip.org/international ... -struggle/

International Working Women’s Day: a day of class struggle

This entry was posted in Applications Political Line and tagged history identity politics patriarchy on March 4, 2015

by Gerye Proletari

(March 4, 2015)

The bourgeoisie constantly recuperates what belongs to the people. International Women’s Day emerged from class struggle, but various states and imperialist organizations want to turn it into a mere holiday. According to the UN:

“International Women’s Day is celebrated in many countries around the world. It is a day when women are recognized for their achievements without regard to divisions, whether national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic or political.”

Capitalism attempts to wash the historical context and class significance right out. But International Women’s Day is also (more appropriately) known around the world as International Working Women’s Day.



A Brief Historical Perspective:

IWWD emerged from the proletarian struggle in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. On March 8, 1857, women workers from textile and garment factories organized a strike in New York City for better pay, better conditions and basic bourgeois-democratic rights (rights such as wage increases, gender quality, and any rights you would expect in a bourgeois-democracy which can be attained without fundamentally questioning capital). On March 8, 1908, women workers of the needle trades went on strike in honor of the 1857 strike—still struggling for basic rights and the ending of child labor and bettering their horrific working conditions. On November 22, 1909, Clara Limlich, a Ukrainian-born proletarian militant, led 20,000 garment workers on strike in New York City against their horrible conditions and terrible wages. On March 25, 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, where women workers had been organizing, caught (or was set) on fire. The owners of the factory (which like most, was a sweatshop) locked the fire exit and got away with the murder of over 140 workers! In 1910, at the Second International, Clara Zetkin, a German born proletarian militant, suggested that March 8th be the day designated for the working women of the world.

It is important to note that bosses often locked workers in factories to force them to work longer hours, and though we mark these specific dates, the class struggle of this period was constant. Often police repression ensued (along with repression by the Pinkerton detective agency, used as a parallel army of the bourgeoisie mostly for the suppression and repression of labor – they still exist today) leading up to mass arrests even murders. This is basically still the same situation around the world, especially in social formations (countries) dominated by imperialism. Also, the majority of garment workers at the time in the US were women.

In 1977, the imperialist United Nations appropriated the working class struggle of proletarian women and declared March 8 “International Women’s Day, attempting to erase the historical struggle and sacrifices of working class women against all the horrors they faced.

Moving Forward – Dangers of Identity Politics:

We have to understand that the UN’s declaration of the holiday was an imperialist appropriation. By taking the proletarian history out of the picture, the international bourgeoisie can not only erase a whole history of class struggle and co-opt struggles, but they can blur the class lines and interests of people involved. When WORKING Women’s Day becomes “Women’s Day,” then the working class women being exploited in factories around the world are placed in the same box as the women of the capitalist class that is exploiting them.

Throughout the long history of capitalism and working class struggle, and specifically these struggles of working women, the bourgeois woman never stepped foot on the picket line. No, what she did was organize and collaborate with repression against the workers, what she did was support her husband who organized repression, what she did was live off the blood, sweat and tears of the working women she stole from.

Eleanor Roosevelt never joined the Spanish workers fighting imperialism and capitalism (as the west had “non-intervention treaties); Hillary Clinton never stood with Afghan women when Bill starved them and their children with sanctions; Michelle Obama isn’t standing with the women her husband is exploiting in sweatshops and murdering with drones.





While bourgeois women lived and live in mansions, working women lived and live in squalor. The working women of the world have no interests in common with the bourgeois women of the world. The danger of identity politics is that it takes focus and struggle away from the fundamental contradiction in the world of capital vs labor, reflected in the working class versus the capitalist class.

Identity politics, by blurring the class lines, is a form of populism that unites fundamental enemies; they make women workers and their exploiters the same, which is not the case. Identity politics play into the hands of our enemies by making us lose sight of the fact that our enemies are our enemies; it identifies tendencies of capitalism as fundamental (it situates particular effects of the struggle between capital and labor – such as racism, sexism, homophobia – as the central struggle; it defines capitalism as a system of oppression that we need to fix, rather than a mode of production based on the struggle between labor and capital to be destroyed).

Identity politics would have women organize their interests separately from men, black from white, etc. While autonomy is the right of any oppressed section of people, if we are to win our fight against capitalism/imperialism, we need to understand that what we have in common and what our common interests are based on is class. This does not mean that only class matters and nothing else; on the contrary, we have to constantly struggle in our ranks against all forms of oppression that stem from capitalism, as we struggle against all bourgeois ideological tendencies. We must constantly acknowledge and struggle against sexism, misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc. We must see ourselves as comrades and truly internalize this concept.

As proletarian militants, our job is to ensure that the historical context of our struggles are not recuperated by our enemies, and to struggle based on our class interests. We have to expose the charlatans and opportunists even among our own ranks wherever they are, whenever they show their heads. Slaves and masters aren’t equal just because they have the same biological components, because they share the same complexion, or hair texture or place of birth, etc. Slaves and masters are not equal – because slaves are slaves and masters are masters. March 8 is not a day for both the worker and the boss, the exploiter and the exploited, the dominator and the dominated.

The collective struggle of the proletariat led to many capitalist concessions in some social formations that are now taken for granted, as if bestowed upon by our enemies’ good will — but they weren’t, they were fought for tooth and nail, and often won with blood! Workers DIED for every shortening of the work day (which was commonly 16 hours in some branches of industry!) Child labor was legal and common– IN MINES! These conditions are still common in some social formations – and the only thing that will end them is WORKING CLASS STRUGGLE.

March 8th is the day of the WORKING women of the world! Let’s remember the historical role of the women in our struggle, fighting side by side with their male and LGBTQI comrades! Let’s remember, the masses make history!

LONG LIVE THE PROLETARIAN FIGHT AGAINST CAPITAL!!!

A couple of thoughts:

1) In regards to different forms of identity politics, I find myself wondering if a cartoon similar to the one in the essay could be made about so-called "Uncle Tom" Republicans like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. On the other hand, the essay's focus is on the class struggle, and other historically oppressed minority group like people of color, LGBT people, etc. have not made up a significant part of the bourgeois/capitalist class/1%/oligarchy/aristocracy/feudal lords/patricians/whateverthefuckyouwannacallthem, whereas women have always been an equal part of that social class simply by virtue of being half the population and therefore also bear culpability in upholding oppressive power structures as the essay points out, just at a (usually) lower level due to historically patriarchal societies systematically preventing women from attaining the same level of political and economical power as men. (And certainly not limited to just a handful of relatively recent "hard power" politicians like Clinton, Albright, Rice, Kirkpatrick, Thatcher, etc.; see how Jeff Bezos would've never gotten anywhere near as far as he did without his ex-wife MacKenzie's support) Further skewing people's perceptions on the matter is the fact that, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's been a systematic and deliberate effort throughout history to downplay and even erase women's power and contributions to society outside the domestic sphere (the Victorian era was particularly notorious for this and had the unfortunate effect of severely warping modern perceptions of gender relations throughout history).

2) I find it interesting that both politicians in the cartoon are both Democrats, since I figure that the aforementioned Condi with an Iraqi woman would be a more contemporary and obvious choice than Madeline Albright, as if to make the point that liberals bear just as much responsibility for perpetuating western imperialism and exploitation as conservatives do.

3) Even thought the writer asserts that the class isn't the only thing that matters and other social justice issues are also important, not only do they frame the class struggle as the central struggle (which may or may not be a valid point), but they also maintain that all other forms of oppression stem from capitalism, a claim that I find rather dubious considering that misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc. long predate capitalism across many societies and time periods. Then again, one can argue that contemporary versions of those forms of bigotry coincide with the rise of capitalism and industrialization, such as modern racism and white supremacy as we know it tracing its origins back to no earlier than the Age of Enlightenment (how ironic...),the roles of medieval peasant women vs women in the post-industrial age being like night and day, the acceptance of LGBT people in various societies not influenced by Abrahamic religions, and so forth, so maybe they're onto something after all...

[The Romulan Republic]

One has to define "identity politics". Its one of those vague buzzwords that's meant to have sinister and scary undertones and gets thrown around a lot, but what does it actually mean? And a lot of the time, its just a pretty clear dog whistle for "Mentioning that racism and sexism are still problems? WAR ON WHITE MEN!"

In this case, it appears to be being used to saying that "Identity politics" are a distraction from the "real issues" (ie the ones the author of the piece cares about), that class distinctions are the ONLY ones that should be acknowledged, and that racism and sexism will just magically go away (just like the dictatorship of the proletariat will magically go away?) once economic injustice is fixed. Which is both contemptuous to the very real struggles of women and minorities, and ignores that racism, sexism, and economic injustice are closely-intertwined (though not synonymous).

Note that this exact perception (fair or not), that he thought everything was about economics and ignored racism, was a critique leveled against Bernie Sanders in 2016, and probably accounts for some of his lack of support in the black community. And regardless of how much it applies to Sanders, it absofuckinglutely applies to Marxists, who tend to be notorious for viewing everything through the lense of their economic theory, and trying to make everything fit that theory.

As an aside, I also find it deeply dispiriting that more and more people on the Left seem to be responding to the resurgence of fascism with a return to Marxism, which is also a failed, oversimplistic, authoritarian ideology.

Also,

2) I find it interesting that both politicians in the cartoon are both Democrats, since I figure that the aforementioned Condi with an Iraqi woman would be a more contemporary and obvious choice than Madeline Albright, as if to make the point that liberals bear just as much responsibility for perpetuating western imperialism and exploitation as conservatives do.

More proof that the far Left (presuming that is where this even originates- I have zero familiarity with the source or its authenticity) is generally far more concerned with attacking Democrats than attacking Republicans, and therefore effectively functions as nothing more than tools of the Republicans to divide the opposition.

1) In regards to different forms of identity politics, I find myself wondering if a cartoon similar to the one in the essay could be made about so-called "Uncle Tom" Republicans like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

Of course it could, but see above.

Also, I expect you were unaware of this, so I'm not subscribing any malicious intent to your post, but you should know that the use of the term "Uncle Tom" is now considered by many to be racist.

[Jub]

I generally agree with the premise that the average person is too easily distracted from the things that matter. Look at how easily a sensationalist news article can get both the right and the left wasting their time debating about washroom usage while ignoring the far greater issue of class inequality. It's too easy for any real issue to be overwhelmed by the story of the week be that a story about gun control, abortions, washroom usage, etc. and that's not even saying that the above aren't important issues it's simply acknowledging that even a fairly well off westerner has more in common with a starving child in a 3rd world country than they do with Bezos or Musk.

-----

In this case, it appears to be being used to saying that "Identity politics" are a distraction from the "real issues" (ie the ones the author of the piece cares about), that class distinctions are the ONLY ones that should be acknowledged, and that racism and sexism will just magically go away (just like the dictatorship of the proletariat will magically go away?) once economic injustice is fixed. Which is both contemptuous to the very real struggles of women and minorities, and ignores that racism, sexism, and economic injustice are closely-intertwined (though not synonymous).

You're ignoring that the gap between classes is far larger than the gap between genders, sexes, the able and disabled, races, and pretty much every other metric that can be used to divide people. You and a person who earns $250k per year both have more in common with a homeless person than you do with anybody who has a net worth of over $100 million. That also means that the gap between you and anybody working a normal job is fractional in the scheme of things and that the distance between an upper-middle-class white male and a poor lower class black male is also negligible when compared to the mega rich.

You might say that these aren't either or issues but when you have people complaining about burger flippers making $15 an hour when (insert job here) only makes fractionally more than that it becomes clear that people aren't paying enough attention to the greater of the multitude of problems facing them. When you can easily distract an entire segment of society with a debate over washrooms but can't get them to realize that the fight for $15 is a starting point and not an end goal you have a real issue.

More proof that the far Left is generally far more concerned with attacking Democrats than attacking Republicans, and therefore effectively functions as nothing more than tools of the Republicans to divide the opposition.

Criticism isn't an attack. They talk about issues within the left because their voices have a chance at causing the party to change for the better. They don't talk about the Republican party because it is self-evident that they are evil and anybody who doesn't see that is unlikely to be swayed by their message anyway. This is political science 101 level shit TRR and something you should know given how stressed out politics apparently makes you.

Also, I expect you were unaware of this, so I'm not subscribing any malicious intent to your post, but you should know that the use of the term "Uncle Tom" is now considered by many to be racist.

Why should we care about that? The Right can make anything they want a symbol of hate with a few posts on 4-chan, 8-chan, /pol, or r/politics we should worry less (note that I said less and not that we shouldn't care at all) about offending people with our language and more about the clarity of our message. If Uncle Tom or Pepe is a useful shorthand for a problem we wish to discuss we should use those symbols.

[Elfdart]

Megabot, that is a silly article and it reads like a critique from a very naive student in a high school political science class. This part was especially silly:

The working women of the world have no interests in common with the bourgeois women of the world. The danger of identity politics is that it takes focus and struggle away from the fundamental contradiction in the world of capital vs labor, reflected in the working class versus the capitalist class.

The first sentence is so stupid it's a wonder the author can shit unassisted. Ask working women and the more well-off females in Alabama if they have no common interests when the Fetus Christers pass a law allowing rapists and pedophiles to choose the mother of their offspring against her will. Ask Harvey Weinstein's cleaning lady and movie starlet Rose McGowan if they don't share a common interest in not wanting to be molested by a creepy old ogre as a condition of employment. What all but the dopiest of left-wingers figured out back when Marx was still alive is that people have many interests and identities, with class being just one. That's why French farmers and industrial workers were quite happy to pick up rifles and shoot their German counterparts, and vice versa. It's why poor white people in the US habitually vote for politicians who screw them over at every turn so long as they screw non-whites just that much harder. Rich and poor women have common interests, no matter what differences they might have otherwise, like labor law. German and French workers had common interests, no matter how many times their leaders convinced them to kill each other in droves and of course poor whites and blacks in the US have common interests too. To single out the class angle as the only one or the most important is not only dumb, it's futile.

This kind of thing pisses me off when, for example, people in the entertainment industry (movies, sports) try to get fair treatment from their employers and some blowhard decides "Fuck them, they're already rich and don't have to do real work anyway!" without realizing that if a major corporation can treat high-profile workers badly then those who work hourly have NO chance. The same holds true when striking autoworkers are attacked for earning decent wages. Whether they realize it or not, they're inserting and hammering a wedge for the powerful and doing their dirty work for them.

[Jub]

Ask working women and the more well-off females in Alabama if they have no common interests when the Fetus Christers pass a law allowing rapists and pedophiles to choose the mother of their offspring against her will.

This is a class struggle. Unless you feel that this law won't harm poor women far more often than it will harm the mistresses, wives, and daughters of the rich. This isn't even to mention that the Christian church, even taken piecemeal is one of the wealthiest collections of organizations on the planet with political reach above what wealth alone would suggest.

Ask Harvey Weinstein's cleaning lady and movie starlet Rose McGowan if they don't share a common interest in not wanting to be molested by a creepy old ogre as a condition of employment.

You mean to say that the rich and powerful (aka the upper classes) are more likely to be able to indulge their basest desires without fear of any real harm ever coming to them? Color me shocked.

That's why French farmers and industrial workers were quite happy to pick up rifles and shoot their German counterparts, and vice versa. It's why poor white people in the US habitually vote for politicians who screw them over at every turn so long as they screw non-whites just that much harder.

These are literal examples where identity politics were used to manipulate the masses into a war that was against their interests. So I don't think you're making the case you think you're making here.

[Elfdart]

This is a class struggle. Unless you feel that this law won't harm poor women far more often than it will harm the mistresses, wives, and daughters of the rich. This isn't even to mention that the Christian church, even taken piecemeal is one of the wealthiest collections of organizations on the planet with political reach above what wealth alone would suggest.

Fundies are somewhat consistent in wanting to inflict their bullshit on everyone. While it's true the bourgeoisie can simply hop on a plane to get an abortion, the law still oppresses them.

You mean to say that the rich and powerful (aka the upper classes) are more likely to be able to indulge their basest desires without fear of any real harm ever coming to them? Color me shocked.

No, I mean to say that even name actresses, including the daughters of Hollywood bigshots have to put up with lecherous old men trying to extort sex from them. One would hope there'd be major solidarity between them and say, office workers getting groped by supervisors and in many cases, there is. There are however naysayers who dismiss these as "first world problems" or "rich people's problems".

These are literal examples where identity politics were used to manipulate the masses into a war that was against their interests. So I don't think you're making the case you think you're making here.

Try reading the whole post.

[The Romulan Republic]

I generally agree with the premise that the average person is too easily distracted from the things that matter. Look at how easily a sensationalist news article can get both the right and the left wasting their time debating about washroom usage while ignoring the far greater issue of class inequality. It's too easy for any real issue to be overwhelmed by the story of the week be that a story about gun control, abortions, washroom usage, etc. and that's not even saying that the above aren't important issues it's simply acknowledging that even a fairly well off westerner has more in common with a starving child in a 3rd world country than they do with Bezos or Musk.

Surely the ability to address more than one problem, or understand how they are interconnected, is not too much to ask for? For a lot of people, however, it evidently is. Hence the power of such false dilemmas which use an issue the author labels "more important" to distract from one they want ignored (a classic example that isn't related to class is "Why are we spending money on the space program instead of (insert issue here)?).

You're ignoring that the gap between classes is far larger than the gap between genders, sexes, the able and disabled, races, and pretty much every other metric that can be used to divide people. You and a person who earns $250k per year both have more in common with a homeless person than you do with anybody who has a net worth of over $100 million. That also means that the gap between you and anybody working a normal job is fractional in the scheme of things and that the distance between an upper-middle-class white male and a poor lower class black male is also negligible when compared to the mega rich.

Are you prepared to prove that claim with statistical evidence?

There are many, many issues that affect how a person is treated and viewed, they interact in complex ways, and I don't think one can say that a single one is "the most important" in all or nearly all cases. Race and sex shouldn't matter much, but because of racism and sexism, they do, and acting like the problem isn't there, or can be papered over by focussing on other issues, just helps the racists and sexists and hurts their victims. I can't ultimately speak for them or anyone else, but I strongly suspect that a lot of women and people of colour would dispute your view (as a white man who hasn't personally experienced the way in which society treats them on account of their race/sex/gender) that class is always more important, as opposed to an issue which is more important to a certain stripe of mostly white progressives.

It does have the advantage of being an issue that affects everyone, so is theoretically a point on which otherwise different groups can unite, but it won't serve that purpose addressing it comes at the expense of the individual concerns of those groups. Because then, to them, its just a deflection tactic, and a way to ignore them once again.

You can say "A rising tide floats all boats", but that will probably not be greeted enthusiastically by the people who society has already pushed off the boat without a life jacket.

I don't normally go around telling people to "check your privilege". I don't normally care for that phrase, as its too easy to use as an ad hominem, to discredit an argument based on the speaker's demographics. But I think this is an issue where it often applies.

You might say that these aren't either or issues but when you have people complaining about burger flippers making $15 an hour when (insert job here) only makes fractionally more than that it becomes clear that people aren't paying enough attention to the greater of the multitude of problems facing them. When you can easily distract an entire segment of society with a debate over washrooms but can't get them to realize that the fight for $15 is a starting point and not an end goal you have a real issue.

Why not both? In fact, I'm pretty sure the people who care about the one are also mostly the people who support the other.

Again, I think you are falling for a false dilemma here. One which is useful to drive a wedge between white/male progressives, and women and minorities, for the benefit of our common enemies.

Criticism isn't an attack. They talk about issues within the left because their voices have a chance at causing the party to change for the better. They don't talk about the Republican party because it is self-evident that they are evil and anybody who doesn't see that is unlikely to be swayed by their message anyway. This is political science 101 level shit TRR and something you should know given how stressed out politics apparently makes you.

That sounds reasonable, but I am also very hyper aware of the amount of propaganda targeted at "anti-establishment" Leftists designed to focus them on fighting the Democratic Party, while the Republicans continue amassing power. It worked like a dream in 2016, and they're at it again.

Good old divide-and-conquer.

Why should we care about that? The Right can make anything they want a symbol of hate with a few posts on 4-chan, 8-chan, /pol, or r/politics we should worry less (note that I said less and not that we shouldn't care at all) about offending people with our language and more about the clarity of our message. If Uncle Tom or Pepe is a useful shorthand for a problem we wish to discuss we should use those symbols.

I'm just giving him a heads-up before someone else does it less politely than I did.

[Civil War Man]

Fundies are somewhat consistent in wanting to inflict their bullshit on everyone. While it's true the bourgeoisie can simply hop on a plane to get an abortion, the law still oppresses them.

It less oppresses them and more inconveniences them, since it just means they have to go through extra steps in order to get their mistress/daughter/wife an abortion. And fundamentalist forced-birthers are often not consistent in this if they are wealthy, as it's not entirely uncommon to hear of wealthy anti-abortion legislators paying to get their mistresses abortions after knocking them up, while simultaneously burning the midnight oil to make sure everyone less wealthy than them won't be able to get one.

And in many cases, the plutocrats behind these movements have very straightforward motivations behind wanting to make things like abortion impossible for specifically people less wealthy than them. If the poor are able to easily control the size of their families, then that means they are producing less grist for the mill. Fewer poor children means fewer poor workers, and a less desperate workforce isn't willing to work for starvation wages.

That is not to say that I buy into the whole "solve everything through economics" stance. Economics has largely been the source of most of societies ills, but that doesn't mean it's also the solution. Part of the solution, but not the entirety of it. Societal ills with an origin in economics, like racism, sexism, ableism, etc., have metastasized to the point where it's going to take more than economics to cure them. That's where we get into the realm of the necessity of identity politics.

[Jub]

It less oppresses them and more inconveniences them, since it just means they have to go through extra steps in order to get their mistress/daughter/wife an abortion. And fundamentalist forced-birthers are often not consistent in this if they are wealthy, as it's not entirely uncommon to hear of wealthy anti-abortion legislators paying to get their mistresses abortions after knocking them up, while simultaneously burning the midnight oil to make sure everyone less wealthy than them won't be able to get one.

And in many cases, the plutocrats behind these movements have very straightforward motivations behind wanting to make things like abortion impossible for specifically people less wealthy than them. If the poor are able to easily control the size of their families, then that means they are producing less grist for the mill. Fewer poor children means fewer poor workers, and a less desperate workforce isn't willing to work for starvation wages.

That is not to say that I buy into the whole "solve everything through economics" stance. Economics has largely been the source of most of societies ills, but that doesn't mean it's also the solution. Part of the solution, but not the entirety of it. Societal ills with an origin in economics, like racism, sexism, ableism, etc., have metastasized to the point where it's going to take more than economics to cure them. That's where we get into the realm of the necessity of identity politics.

I agree with this take. My issue is that it's difficult to see how we can keep all these fires tended at the same time when people will vote against 4 of these steps in the right direction because they disagree with one of them. Or because they don't like the person who made the suggestion, or because an article on (insert news network) distracted them with something else. If we tackle wealth inequality first it removes things like sole control over a media empire from the hands of a small and biased group while also hitting lobbying groups as well. It allows for an easier time of working on the other serious issues that otherwise divide groups too much to allow for any unity of purpose.

[Civil War Man]

I agree with this take. My issue is that it's difficult to see how we can keep all these fires tended at the same time when people will vote against 4 of these steps in the right direction because they disagree with one of them. Or because they don't like the person who made the suggestion, or because an article on (insert news network) distracted them with something else. If we tackle wealth inequality first it removes things like sole control over a media empire from the hands of a small and biased group while also hitting lobbying groups as well. It allows for an easier time of working on the other serious issues that otherwise divide groups too much to allow for any unity of purpose.

Yes, but there is an issue that there are certain issues that can't be properly addressed unless you also address other related issues at the same time. For example, in order to fix issues of wealth and income inequality, you also have to fix issues of systemic bigotry that results in out groups being on average paid less for the same type of work as their straight white male colleagues, or in many cases being simply denied the opportunity for advancement entirely. And that opens up a massive can of worms because in order to make progress you now have to address things like redlining or ratifying and enforcing the ERA or how in some states it's 100% legal to fire someone for being gay.

[Jub]

Yes, but there is an issue that there are certain issues that can't be properly addressed unless you also address other related issues at the same time. For example, in order to fix issues of wealth and income inequality, you also have to fix issues of systemic bigotry that results in out groups being on average paid less for the same type of work as their straight white male colleagues, or in many cases being simply denied the opportunity for advancement entirely. And that opens up a massive can of worms because in order to make progress you now have to address things like redlining or ratifying and enforcing the ERA or how in some states it's 100% legal to fire someone for being gay.

That's a pretty American way of looking at things. The wage gap for minorities in other nations is verifiably smaller in most western nations than it is within the US. Research suggests that Canada may have such a wage gap, but with self-reporting and small sample sizes, it's difficult to confirm. Some research suggests that visible minorities born in Canada earn about 87.4% of their non-minority counterparts.

In the US that percentage is closer to 63% among African American and Hispanic workers. In Germany, the cap is around 4% when all factors are taken into account or 20% if looked at without examining possible explanations. As such, I think we can say that the problem is far larger in the US than it is elsewhere in the west and thus we shouldn't care as much about issues specific to the United States when talking about the class struggle as a whole.

Flattening the curve on wealth inequality also removes economic barriers which currently restrict access to higher education, health care, and other services which currently serve as barriers to socio-economic mobility. Thus confronting the current economic issues already serves to tackle other forms of inequality whereas the reverse is not true to the same extent especially when one looks at nations with less racial inequality than the United States.