Oppression, definition

Hello, another Holla Forumsack here. I come to ask you a serious question.

Some time ago I talked with one of you about the term "oppression" (in marxist perspective) and my objection was that it is never properly defined. He gave his definition, so I pondered a bit on it and asked some follow ups. For example; "can one be voluntarily oppressed" etc. Here is where I was able to find scenarios that didn't exactly fit with his definition and clarifications. So I redefined it to fit the terms in every scenario he proposed. Sadly, I didn't get any response, and the thread got deleted after some time.

So to the meat of the thread:
If I would define oppression [being oppressed] as: Being denied goods or resources you actively want.

Would that be correct definition of oppression, and if not, can you propose a scenario in which it is not? Thank you for your time.

It's weird but now you say it I don't think I've seen this discussed here before.

It was on some thread mentioning Jesus in OP, about a month ago I would say.

In the classical Marxist/Hegelian sense oppression is loss of autonomy and heteronomy.

Since the Hegelian definition subscribe to positive model of freedom ( as opposed to negative freedom – freedom from harm, the kind of freedom commonly referred to in Anglo countries), being denied the full development of a person by structural or active denial of things he need for the development of his capacities would be oppression.

I remember seeing it but didn't read that one. I don't really see what use there could be for drawing a line in the sand for the definition of oppression. It seems more like a good word for use in propaganda more than anything.

oppression is vague. exploitation is what marxists care about.

This. Oppression is like the people, we should absolutely use it in propagand, but never in our serious theory.

Adding flag for recognition.


Theory aside (since there are often multiple methods of achieving the same calculation) is there anything wrong with the definition I posted in OP? If yes, can you propose a scenario in which your sense of oppression is more expanded/limited than mine?


This is going to go a bit outside of the subject, but can you define exploitation?

That's the most liberal capitalist definition I've ever heard - and is exactly why the answer to all liberal oppression is to commodify fucking everything. (We stop oppressing muslims by selling Nike Pro Hijabs!). Also whoever you were talking to was obviously not a Marxist, in that case.

Oppression is loss of autonomy

Or I guess you could try to define oppression depending on where you see the origin of rights?

If rights come from the self: Oppression is the material denial of others rights and abilities - removal of that autonomy

If rights come from social relationships: Oppression would be the denial of rights or ability already agreed upon between relevant parties - removal of the decided autonomy between the parties

If rights come from that state: oppression does't exist then lol since all ability is "granted" to you by the other

This is an issue. You may want many things, including things that may cause loss of freedom in the future.

Freedom and oppression can only be defined in relation to a positive model of development of the person and society at large.

I didn't say that you would like the definition, and there are probably many aspects from which you could approach this subject.

For that reason I asked for examples. Can you propose an example under which someone is oppressed that is not included in my definition? Or, likewise, if you think that it is too broad, can you give an example of something that fits in my definition of oppression but is not oppression in sense you would use it?

It is the worker who produces all the value in a good, but only gets back part of this value as a wage - the rest becomes someone's profit. Property is theft, profit is plunder.

Before you cite the "lol LTV refuted", the LTV was what Adam Smith and David Ricardo adhered to. Marx used the Law Of Value. Difference? Well, the LTV holds that labor time translates directly into the price (exchange-value) of a product. Marginalism is intended to refute it. The Law Of Value holds that, for every exchange-value, there must be a use-value. What is use-value? Well, when you argue about whether an iPhone costs $200 or $210, it's a given that you value it and will therefore pay someone for it. Why? Well, you can't snatch it out of the air, someone has to make it! Someone has to refine the silicon and etch it, someone has to refine oil into plastic and mold it, someone needs to get all the rare earths for its processors, someone needs to program it, someone needs to assemble it, someone needs to transport it, someone needs to market and sell it. All throughout, these people are adding use-value. Even if you find a stash of flour-filled pills and sell them off as boner pills, you're still adding use-value through your marketing efforts.

So yeah, that's exploitation in a nutshell. Liberals talk about "oppression", which is a rather murky term and simply not worth addressing. We don't believe in identity politics (religion, race, gender, etc.) here.

Can you provide an example?
If I remove the part "you actively want" you can be oppressed by not getting something you ask.

For example, if there was no "active want", then you could say that a man that died hungry but never asked for food was oppressed by anyone that had it.

by not getting something you DON'T ask for*

If a person died of hunger, then he lives in an oppressive society even if he didn't ask for food, for whatever reasons.

Think of the perfect human, not perfect in wealth or such, but perfect in capacity and capability. If the society is preventing anyone from achieving that, then it's an oppressive society.

Thanks for your definition, I will think about it.

The exchange between me and other guy was strictly in economic/labor terms, we didn't touch upon race and other stuff.


My example was ridiculous, but this is a cop out and I will demonstrate this in the following example. Before that I will point out that anorexic/bulimic people often died even though they have that resource available. Let's ignore this scenario for a moment because there is a much better one.

If my definition didn't include "active want" then the person that wanted icecream but didn't ask for it was oppressed.

This changes things a lot. Can you define perfect human?

Do you think ice cream is necessary for the development of human capacities? I think that's a luxury most of the time.


There's no agreed on definition of this. Different philosophers have different interpretations. I'm giving you the most utopian version. I would think human capacity development would depend on the capabilities and resources of a given society, with the recognition that it's still imperfect and to be gradually improved over time.

Hmm. I, in my definition, have set "oppression" in paradigm of private property. If being denied existing goods and resources that [do not necessarily make "perfect human"] or [help development] does not oppression make, then my definition is completely wrong.

Just to recapitulate. Denying someone goods and resources is not necessarily oppressive if they do not necessarily help development […]?

I don't know how a mental illness like bulimia somehow relates to the fact people need to eat. Biology is coercive in itself as people need food, sleep and a social life to be able to function. Lolbergs often forget about that and reduce coercion to voluntary exchanges. The problem is that when you already living in a world which has a coercive nature, this equation makes no sense. You need fur in winter otherwise you gonna starve to death.

The only way out of this philosophically is to somehow argue that human life, science, progress and the forging of the mind and body has absolutely zero intrinsic value - but then you'd go full Stirner and all you get is a cheap cop-out.

No, exploitation is the result of the social relations of production, and the extraction of surplus value from the social divisions of labor. Oppression is the result of the repressive state apparatus, and its coercion against minority groups or castes.

No, holy shit. I don't think the oppressed cares if it's a state apparatus or some communal milita of whatever taxonomy you want on apply infringes his freedom.

You sound like you're going to exclude a group of people from something. That's the path towards resentment, division and conflict. A fair society would operate on an equitable principle of how distribution of necessary goods occur… something like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".