"Equal pay for equal work" | Gender, race, and class

The issue of gender-based inequality in pay was a prominent theme at this year’s Democratic National Convention. Numerous speakers called for “equal pay for equal work” (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/25/elizabeth_warren_at_dnc_when_we_turn_on_each_other_we_cant_unite_to_fight_back_against_a_rigged_system.html), and the final Democratic Party platform ratified by the Convention stated, “We will fight to secure equal pay for women” (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=117717).

Here in Massachusetts, pay equality has even taken a big step forward at the legislative level. On August 1, the Republican Governor, Charlie Baker, signed into law a bill requiring that “men and women be paid equally for comparable work” (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/08/01/massachusetts-equal-pay-comparable-work-baker-bill/).

All of this is of course an incredibly welcome development. Socialists have historically been and should continue to be involved in the fight against gender discrimination and inequality in wages in all sectors of the economy. Sexist inequality is unjust and in fact damaging to the interests of all working class people.

However, an anti-capitalist and intersectional approach to gender pay inequality requires ultimately taking the question a few additional steps further.

For instance, while the often-cited statistic -- that women in the US earn approximately 78% of what men earn -- is certainly outrageous, it is also the case that both Black men and women, and both Hispanic men and women, earn less than both White men and women (http://www.aauw.org/2015/07/21/black-women-pay-gap/).

Black men earn 75%, and Black women earn 64%, of what White men earn; while Hispanic men earn 86%, and Hispanic women earn 69%, of what White women earn (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html).

Moreover, it is ultimately necessary to talk about wage inequality as a function of class inequality. While winning an equivalent $10/hr wage for both men and women working full time at Wal-Mart is an important first step, it is simply insufficient for the conversation to end there. We also have to talk about the fact that the men and women working for $10/hr at Wal-Mart earn less than 1% of what top Wal-Mart executives earn (http://www1.salary.com/Rosalind-G-Brewer-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Wal-Mart-Stores-Inc.html).

As socialists, our end goal is not simply to secure an equivalent rate by which the labor of both the men and women in a given workplace or industry is exploited by their employer.

We should therefore strive to bring to the fore the fact that the “work” of all members of the working class is systematically undervalued against that of the upper and ruling class within the context of capitalist society.

 For instance, the current female President of Harvard University, who makes close to $1 million a year, exerts the same (if not less) magnitude of labor in a given year as the largely-female clerical workforce at Harvard who earn an average of 5% of what the President makes (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/5/16/administrator-salaries-990-2012/).

Or take the single richest individual in Massachusetts (who happens to be a woman), Abigail Johnson, CEO of Fidelity Investments, who has a net worth of $14 billion (http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2016/05/how_much_is_the_wealthiest_person_in_mas.html). Abigail inherited control of the financial corporate giant from her grandfather.

Now, if one wants to truly talk about “equal pay for comparable work,” there is no way that Abigail has done a comparable magnitude of work as, say, a male or female born into poverty who has had to work their entire life in order to survive and today has a (median) net worth of $45,000 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-wealth/); in other words, 0.000003% of Abigail’s net worth.

Lenin on the question of oppression, working class unity, and the process of engaging with the justified distrust that oppressed people feel towards those of the oppressor social group

I've been thinking a lot about the question of what it actually takes to build a truly united, multiracial, multigender, multi-all-forms-of-oppression, movement that is truly based in genuine solidarity and the collective striving toward mutual emancipation from exploitation and oppression.

It is of course an understatement to say that this is a very difficult task. This is precisely because capitalist society is so effective at dividing the working class and creating definite strata within the working class along the lines of various forms of social oppression. Black workers are invariably subjected to racist attitudes by white workers, and likewise between men and women, and so on. The distrust that exists within the minds of oppressed groups towards those of the oppressor social group -- regardless of class -- are quite real, and frankly understandable, in a strictly logical sense, because of the foregoing.

Thus, the task of establishing unity between oppressed groups as part of a larger united working class struggle for the abolition of capitalism presents very difficult challenges.

In particular, the question of building a revolutionary organization along these lines can be immensely confounding. Indeed, history is littered with social movements, revolutions, and even mass revolutionary parties which have foundered precisely on this contradiction; the contradiction between the needs of unity of the entire working class, and the immense enmity and suspicion which exists between them at present because of capitalist social relations.

Oftentimes, trust will breakdown between comrades within a group or social movement over this issue, with oppressed people feeling slighted, marginalized, or not taken sufficiently seriously.

First of all, I want to say that I actually don't think this is ultimately a matter of individuals being racist or sexist [though that certainly can and does happen on the left and even within revolutionary organizations].

I also don't think that racism or sexism or really, by definition, any form of oppression, in general -- as social constructions -- are the product of any one individual's attitudes. Rather, it is a product of the ensemble of social relations which obtain under capitalism.

Yet, the fact is that this oppression does exist, is real, and permeates virtually all of our relations within the system. Inequality exists between various strata of the working class due to this oppression -- in terms of their opportunity, livelihoods, well-beings -- which then in turn impacts oppressed people's sense of confidence and self-worth, etc., especially in relation to those strata of the working class which rest above them (not even to mention in relation to the upper classes of the dominant social group).

As I sometimes do, I decided to see what comrade V.I. Lenin may have to say on the matter. Now, I don't think that Lenin (or anyone for that matter), was an infallible genius or other such nonsense who always has the "correct" thing to say on every matter.

Nonetheless, I do think on this particular question he offers some important insights.

The day the music died

I was just informed by the powers-that-be at the place where I've worked for 4 years that I was no longer allowed to sing or hum while at work, because it is "unprofessional."

Maybe I could understand it if I had a god-awful voice and if the patients were complaining that they were coming in for back pains, but leaving with ear pains.

But that's not the case. Nobody lodged a complaint against me. On the contrary! Not to brag, but my coworkers regularly say they like my singing, that it brightens the place up, and that I have a good voice. Besides, I have a good-enough rapport with my coworkers that if one of them politely asked me to stop, I would immediately (half the time I'll just start absent-mindedly humming a tune and won't even realize it til I'm well into the second verse).

Why do I sing (and sometimes whistle) while I work? The reasons are manifold.

I sing in order to retain my own sense of humanity during those eight hours of the waking day that I don't really control -- indeed, when someone else really controls me. When some unaccountable, unelected bureaucrat can tell me what, when, and how to do something, whether right or wrong, and I have to do it.

I sing to mitigate the indignity of being paid just above the poverty level by one of the world's wealthiest institutions.

I sing to block out the incessant chatter of my bigoted coworker, indefatigably spewing forth disdain for people on welfare, people with eating disorders, the elderly, immigrants, unions, Muslims, antiwar activists, etc., etc.

Most of all, I sing as a way of saying, "My body and mind might be trapped inside these sterile walls, beneath these inescapable lights, bent towards accomplishing a monotony of tasks, surrounded by a group of people as utterly alienated as I am from one another and from themselves (each expressing it in their own unique way); all these things may be so, but at least my spirit, my soul, my yearning for beauty, humanity, universal freedom -- these things will still be mine. You cannot have them, too!"

Well, apparently they can.

As someone once said of that jealous God, the Capitalist, "he demands of the worker not just his labor-power, but also his very soul."