Systems, structures and institutions are made up of individuals. Classes are made up of individuals. Our class-based systemic/structural analysis in no way diminishes individual moral responsibility for one’s choices and actions. In fact, moral responsibility and accountability for one’s actions are central to radical feminism.
The radical critique of “choice” in no way suggests that there is no such thing as choice.
Individuals make choices to abuse, rape, and murder, and have moral responsibility for their actions. Being in poverty or being oppressed or marginalised (or even starving) does make it morally acceptable for a person to violate another person’s rights – especially someone even more marginalised than them.
The idea that poor people have no other option but to commit heinous crimes against other poor people is infantilising, patronising and classist. It treats poor people as different from “real people like you and me”, less human, less capable, less adult. Making the argument that they are less responsible for their actions is rhetorically patting them on the head. The most abjectly marginalised human being has agency and can take responsibility for their choices. Every human being is equal. Treat all people (even and especially the marginalised) on a ground of equality. Treat all people as people. Anything other than this is dehumanising.
Liberal individualism denies the existence of classes. Radical class-based analysis does not deny the existence of individuals. Classes are made up of individuals.
The radical critique says that choices are not made in a vacuum, and that to understand and fight oppression, we must fight the root cause of oppression. The purpose of this is to liberate the victims, not absolve the perpetrators – or those complicit in oppression – of moral responsibility.
Structural analysis does not, however, absolve any of the individuals of their responsibility for upholding, playing their designated role within, the structure. To claim otherwise is a misuse of radicalism.
The structure requires individuals to act as cogs in the machine of oppression. Refuse to be the cog. Be the spanner in the works. Lay down your weapons and refuse to play your part. Recognising this truth gives immense power to even one individual to bring structures crashing down. Taking responsibility is powerful.
Liberalism tries to convince you that structural change is not possible. If you believed that change was impossible, why would you change your actions and choose differently? The radical recognition that change is possible lays a responsibility on all those who make up the system to recognise their complicity and make different choices.
In fact, the systemic, radical critique of choice stresses the fact that perpetrators of oppression choose to oppress and can choose not to oppress. It stresses the truth that if nobody participated in oppression, if everyone resisted oppression, oppressive structures would immediately fall. Liberation would be immediate.
This is the theory behind the general strike. A strike brings the machine to a grinding halt. This is achieved by individuals taking responsibility and refusing to play their part to perpetuate the system. A scab is one who continues to work while a strike has been called. It is an irresponsible person, who refuses to respond to the radical call to action. A scab is a traitor to their class.
The plumber who fixed Hitler’s toilet was complicit. The mechanic who repairs the dents and scratches on the tanks from rolling over human bodies is complicit. The doctor who treats the PTSD of the soldier which he got from shooting children is complicit. The government bureaucrat who draws up the logistics of genocide is complicit. (See Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem.) “Just following orders” is no defence against complicity in genocide.
Genocide happens because others continue their normal, daily lives while others are being massacred. All those who turn a blind eye and go about their lives and allow others to go about their daily lives while genocide is happening are complicit. It’s everyone’s duty to acknowledge their complicity in oppression and to stop participating in or giving cover to oppression.
Genocide victims do not have the privilege of normality; they exist in “a state of exception” where normal laws have been suspended. Nobody should be allowed to live a normal life when genocide is happening. Refuse to fix the pipes, the tanks, the cars . . . Don’t let them drive. Blockade the highways. Don’t let them attend concerts. Don’t serve them brunch in their favourite restaurants. Not without reminding them that the lives of the oppressed matter. Let the privileged classes be uncomfortable, inconvenienced, in every area of life. Disrupt their lives, force them to acknowledge their victims. This is how you apply pressure and bring about change.
The most radical critique you can make is to understand that the root cause of oppression is, ultimately, the choices of the oppressors. Thus, all individuals who make up an oppressive class, system, institution and structure (as well as collaborators, beneficiaries, and bystanders) have moral responsibility for oppression. For their choice to oppress. For justifying and allowing to continue oppressive systems for their own benefit. And, for ending oppression.
We hold every perpetrator of heinous crimes – as well as collaborators, beneficiaries, and bystanders – against women and children accountable for his or her choices.
Thus, the radical, systemic critique stresses the importance of moral responsibility, while liberalism is a flight from moral responsibility.
The purpose of liberalism is to justify the unjustifiable, to protect privilege, to muddy the waters about the clear and obvious truth about who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor.
Individualism (which means a denial of classes, a denial of history, a denial of material power inequalities) helps liberalism achieve this aim.
If individuals can’t be held responsible, then who can? If systems are not made up of individuals, then what is it made out of? What is a system? How can a “system” be held responsible? How can a system respond to the victim’s cries for justice? I’ve heard liberals blame “the people at the top” and “the people giving the orders” – but when in history or the present day have the people at the top ever been held responsible for their crimes? They have power. They can’t be held responsible because they are at the top. How can you judge the judges?
What solution does liberalism offer to hold these perpetrators to account? All liberals can do is cry and cry about the injustice as if genocide is a natural disaster, a tragedy that’s out of anyone’s hands – precisely because of their inability to hold anyone responsible for their actions.This is how liberalism protects power and prevents real change, by effectively denying moral responsibility at any level of the pyramid.
The purpose of liberalism is to protect power structures. A materialist analysis shows that there is no other purpose to liberalism. The rhetoric of social norms, human rights, dignity, multiculturalism, tolerance, etc., is belied by the fact that this rhetoric happens concurrently with material oppression of the same people that liberals (rhetorically) celebrate. Liberal rhetoric serves a purpose – to hide and whitewash the crimes of the powerful. Ideology (false consciousness, lies) is the superstructure that hides the material, economic base (reality, truth). If you pay more attention to ideology than the base, words rather than reality, you are falling for the trap of liberalism. When you hear that rhetoric, look past the superstructure to the reality beneath. Familiarise yourself with liberal dog whistles. Don’t stop performing radical, materialist analysis.
Follow the money. Follow the power. Every beneficiary of oppression is complicit. Which is why radicalism demands integrity. The moment you accept the benefits of oppression, that is the moment you have allowed yourself to be bought, corrupted.
Feminism fights for the class interests of women. When you take money from men, your interests align with those of men. The more money men can make – off the backs of women and children they exploit – the more you may receive because you have sold your integrity to them. Not only are you beholden to them, you hope to gain more from them. You tell yourself, you’ll use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. You delude youself into thinking your integrity has not been compromised. This is how your interests align with men when you benefit from male power and money. That’s why beneficiaries must be held accountable for their complicity. Audre Lorde has told us the truth: the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Listen to our radical foremothers. They speak from long experience in resistance and organising.
Failure of integrity destroys class consciousness, unity, solidarity and working for the interests of your class. It’s nothing less than collaboration, betrayal. Integrity is precious. You won’t realise its value until it’s gone.
Conscience is a real thing, the realest and truest thing in the world. Hold yourself accountable – let yourself be held accountable – for your actions in the past, keep holding yourself accountable for your actions in the present, and you will reach freedom. Utopia is in the here and now. Live a radical life. Live a free life. It’s not too late for anyone.
The central truth that radicals tell is the truth that your actions are a choice. Your actions that oppress others as well as your complicity in your own oppression.
Words are actions too. “Playing devil’s advocate”, whataboutery, hypotheticals, and “solely academic” arguments are very often attempts to evade responsiblility for your words. Own your words, your arguments. Defend them. If you can’t defend them, stop and think more, read more, understand more – or concede the point to stronger arguments. “Good faith” arguments are dialogues in which both people are sincere, believe in each other’s sincerity, and truly want to reach the truth together. Communication requires trust. The minimum of trust required for a good faith argument is trusting that the other person believes what they’re saying, that they’re not saying one thing and meaning another, that they have no hidden agenda. “Devil’s advocate” arguments are by definition bad faith arguments because you say one thing and you claim that you don’t believe it. It’s a way of disclaiming responsibility for your words.
You don’t always have to argue, even if you’re right. Pick your battles. The purpose of argument is to find the truth. Arguing for argument’s sake is a waste of everyone’s energy. Keep your focus on liberation. But always, hold yourself accountable for what you say.
It is a choice, and you can do it. You can choose responsiblility, accountability and freedom – at any moment. The best time to make that choice is now. Take responsibility for your actions that oppress others as well as your complicity in your own oppression.
Responsibility means the ability to respond. Responsibility is always responsibility to someone, to each other, to the person who you have hurt – to the powerless, not to power. Only humans have the ability to respond to each other. That’s what makes us different from other animals: responsibility requires language. If you hurt me, I can tell you you hurt me, and you have the responsibility to respond. That’s all it actually means.
You must always identify the real victims of an oppressive system. Liberalism tells you only the powerful and privileged are human, that only the powerful and privileged need to be respected, listened to, responded to. It says that only the powerful and privileged matter. Liberalism tries to paint perpetrators as victims. By doing so, it erases and dehumanises the real victims, the wretched of the Earth. They ignore the existence and rights of those without power. This indifference and dehumanisation, this lack of concern, this erasure, this silence, is what enables genocide – not hatred.
Stop trying to protect the perpetrators, collaborators, beneficiaries and bystanders of oppression when radicals try to hold them to account, hold them responsible for their actions. Stop engaging in “shooting and crying” propaganda.
To ignore the real victims at any point in your arguments means you are complicit in this indifference, erasure, dehumanisation and silence – such an argument is a justification of genocide.
To demand sympathy to the perpetrator of genocide and fail to acknowledge their crimes, their victims’ lives and rights and the injustice that perpetrators inflict on them, is a justification of genocide. Demand sympathy for the women who are raped. Demand sympathy for the children whose flesh and blood was burned through with white phosphorus. The lives of the powerless matter.
Holding someone accountable is an act of love. Telling the truth is act of love. Facing your responsibility sets you free. To try to stifle the truth about individual responsiblility for genocide is genocide denial. Take responsibility for your words. Words are actions.
Your responsibility is to the powerless, not to power. They are asking you a question. This question is directed at you. Answer them:
Radical feminism frees you from guilt by introducing you to responsibility. You are responsible for your actions, your words, your choices, your ideas, your efforts and the consequences of your actions. But you are not your actions, your words, your choices, your ideas, etc. Your thoughts and ideas often come from brainwashing; they are spoken by Big Daddy, the internalised patriarch, the internalised misogynist. The internalised man who looks at you and other women through the male gaze. This is your Ego. Your Ego is not your Self. Your Ego is your Self’s enemy. Don’t get defensive about criticism of your words, actions and choices. Only by taking responsibility can you open the door to change. If you are your actions, then how could you ever change them? How could you choose differently and still remain you? This conflation of your actions and your actions prevents change. You are not your actions. Your actions are something that you do, not something that you are. Learn to separate your ideas from your person, your character from your politics, your ideology from your identity. Choose differently.
Don’t cling to your prison cell (the devil you know) because you’re afraid of the outside (the devil you don’t know). Don’t get institutionalised. You will never escape, help your sisters escape, and burn down the prison together if you believe the most you can hope for is a more comfortable prison cell. Liberation requires imagination. Don’t be afraid of freedom. There’s nothing to fear. Freedom is joy. It’s good out here.
Woman and Wilderness 