
The position which Amos characterizes as “class reductionism” is not the focus of this essay. It is enough to conclude, for now, that, aside from being a pretense for chauvinist apathy towards trans rights, it is a form of economism whose internal logic would preclude any embrace of the (also currently minoritarian) position that the proletariat, as a class-for-itself, should seize political power.
The position which Amos characterizes as “trans liberalism” is actually closer to material reality than Amos’ confused attempts to argue that trans oppression is “a material part of the patriarchal reproduction of capital and the state.” Communists should indeed fully support the democratic rights of trans people for the very reason that it “enable[s] [their] participation in (Western) capitalist society.” Amos’ position is a form of vulgar materialism that flattens democratic and socialist struggles into a single chimera, and does a disservice both to the struggle for trans peoples’ democratic equality and to the cause of revolutionary socialism.
more...






