We need to draw a line between oppression that is based on the extraction of cheap labor vs. other types of "oppression"

Call me old fashioned, but I'm one of those old school leftists who believes in oppression based on material reality.

One of the things that really annoys me about leftist discourse nowadays is the weaponization of false victimhood narratives (aka identity politics or "oppression Olympics") [Edit: bad phrasing on my part. I'm referring to a style of political engagement that focuses more on individual identity and choice rather than critiquing structural oppression] and dumbass self-serving performative wokeness that doesn't actually require any effort and doesn't create any meaningful change.

The definition of "oppression" has expanded and become more and more stupid over time, to the point where you have people who aren't even oppressed (such as white male kinksters) claiming that they are actually be MORE oppressed than, say, a black woman.

Oppression is largely based on the extraction of cheap labor from a subordinate group for the benefit of the ruling class

(Side note: There are a small number of issues that don't fall into this category, such as gay rights and disability-based activism, that I personally consider legitimate causes, but more on these later)

Some examples of oppression-based-on-labor include:

1. Female oppression, which is based on the extraction of reproductive, domestic, and sexual labor from women for the benefit of men.

.

2. Socioeconomic oppression. While it has taken many forms throughout history (capitalism, feudalism, slavery, etc.) regardless of the actual system, ever since the dawn of civilization there has been a stratification of society based on social and economic class. It always involves a tiny ruling class wielding power over and exploiting a much larger group of workers. Racism falls into this category as well because it's about creating an underclass of devalued and disenfranchised people that the ruling class has the privilege of paying less (or not pay at all- see slavery).

In other words, oppression is about power. It's not about being a demographic minority, or being unique, or having weird sexual paraphilias, or having interests that are not socially acceptable.

Other people judging you is not oppression.

For example, pedophiles (or MAPs, as they like to call themselves, meaning Minor Attracted Persons) like to pretend like they are oppressed because fucking raping children is (rightly) taboo in our culture.

Kinksters and fetishists like to act like they are oppressed because other people judge them for liking weird sexual shit.

Liking anime or video games doesn't make you oppressed just because other people judge you when you act like a weeb in public.

Men like to act like they're oppressed because women won't fuck them and because they cannot legally own women as property anymore.

Are sex workers oppressed? YES, but not for the reasons that most libfem pickmes think. It has nothing to do with "whorephobia" and other people being prudish and judgemental, it's because sex workers are a large pool of cheap labor exploited by men. Consider onlyfans: you've got a large pool of women creating content, the vast majority of whom are barely making any money, meanwhile the person making the most money is the owner of OF, Tim Stokely. The mainstream porn industry is the same way, most porn stars actually make a pittance (or nothing at all) meanwhile it's the pornographers and owners of porn websites making the most money. This is why sex work is NEVER EMPOWERING: the sex workers themselves are members of the subordinate oppressed class, their labor is exploited by the ruling class (men and capitalists).

But what about gay rights? Am I saying that gay people aren't oppressed? Not at all. Same sex attraction is still heavily stigmatized and gay people definitely do face discrimination. However, their oppression is not predicated on the extraction of labor, it's predicated on nonconformity, and not all forms of nonconformity are oppressive. However, in the case of gays and lesbians, they fail to uphold the status quo in a way that threatens the ruling class. That's why religion is so freaked out by them, because 1) same sex couples challenge patriarchal gendered power dynamics ("which one of you is the man?"), and 2) until very recently, same-sex couples couldn't have children and therefore failed in their duty to be baby factories cranking out more believers, consumers, and soldiers.

Likewise, disabled people are oppressed on the basis of nonconformity, and are seen as a threat to the ruling class because they are seen as "unprofitable". Disabled people who can't work are seen as "non revenue generating" under the dehumanizing system that is capitalism, and even disabled people who do work are seen as "too expensive to accommodate" because putting in ramps or railings or having more braille costs money and therefore cuts into their profits.

However, not all nonconformity results in oppression. In general, nonconformity is only subjected to oppression when it threatens the ruling class. For example, polyamory or BDSM doesn't threaten the ruling class at all. There's nothing subversive about it. If anything, polyamory and BDSM actually upholds existing power dynamics. Of course, this is a vast oversimplification but you get the idea.

So why do these distinctions matter?

Because it is important to recognize the financial incentives that accompany certain types of oppression.

The extraction of labor creates a financial incentive to continue the oppression. The more that the ruling class stands to lose, the harder they will fight to keep hold of their power.

You can see this when you compare the speed with which various social justice movements are accepted by the ruling class. Abolitionists had to fight for hundreds of years (Edit: mixed up the timeline, it was actually about 90 years) to outlaw slavery and even after an extremely bloody civil war, it was just replaced with Jim Crow laws, and even when that was abolished, police brutality and other systemic racism continues to oppress POC even today. Another example: it took feminists 70 years to win the right to vote, and even nowadays women STILL haven't achieved true equity, especially in the realm of dating, relationships, and sex.

In contrast, certain social justice movements have been accepted by the ruling class with such speed and enthusiasm and you can't even criticize it on Reddit or Twitter without getting banned.

In general, I strongly advise being suspicious of any social "justice" movement that gets accepted a little too quickly by the ruling class. Those in power seldom capitulate to the demands of civil rights activists unless they think it will serve their interests in some way.

If you're like me and you want to create a more equitable world, it is important to make this distinction of oppression-based-on-labor, in order to keep your priorities straight and to stay focused and not have your efforts derailed by those who aren't actually oppressed but are exploiting social justice language to serve their own interests.