Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[The39thStep]

Both, just like I said. I think he's a crap poster, and he signed back on using a different nick after being banned. What's your point?

Just trying to understand someone who thinks its good posters are ban because they think they are crap posters and then hides behind saying that they broke the rules. I think I have the measure of you, thanks.

 

[_angel_]

Both, just like I said. I think he's a crap poster, and he signed back on using a different nick after being banned. What's your point?

You really shouldn't be banned for being a bit tiresome but he does need to get some new material. Continuously asking why we are all bothering to post about everything, ever, all the time on a message boards, y'know where people come to chat and have opinions and things is just a tad daft.

 

[The39thStep]

You really shouldn't be banned for being a bit tiresome but he does need to get some new material. Continuously asking why we are all bothering to post about everything, ever, all the time on a message boards, y'know where people come to chat and have opinions and things is just a tad daft.

absolutely but that is entirely different to what Truxta was expressing

 

[TruXta]

Just trying to understand someone who thinks its good posters are ban because they think they are crap posters and then hides behind saying that they broke the rules. I think I have the measure of you, thanks.

No, you're not getting this. I was personally PLEASED that he was banned because I think he's a fuckwit and a bore. I didn't say those were good reasons to ban him per se. He got banned, with good reason AFAICT, initially for something unrelated to this, and banned again as Sam Goloden because he signed back up. There, that clarify it for you?

 

[The39thStep]

I understand why he was banned thanks.

 

[cesare]

I didn't say no one responded. In fact, you were one of the people who responded to me (I think!)

What I said is that no one could say how privilege politics helped with anything.

That's absolutely not the case. There were some very detailed posts on that thread, which basically amounted to a view (amongst other views) that it's the corruption of privilege theory, its misuse/abuse, the tendency for privilege politics to run concurrently (where it does) with class politics rather than being integral, use of it to close down debate, veering too close to/reinventing identity politics of the 70s and 80s etc that poses more of a problem than the theory in itself. You may not have agreed with the responses you got, but it's not fair to make out that no-one pointed out the potential positives of privilege theory.

 

[Fez909]

You really shouldn't be banned for being a bit tiresome but he does need to get some new material. Continuously asking why we are all bothering to post about everything, ever, all the time on a message boards, y'know where people come to chat and have opinions and things is just a tad daft.

In a way, I feel he is right in his central 'thesis'.

But to give up doesn't make sense as it will only make things worse (I believe I've read him saying the only future for the left is to slow down the inevitable). Given doing anything is relatively pointless, he then says the debate is therefore pointless, so...what next? No answers there.

 

[TruXta]

I understand why he was banned thanks.

Then what's your beef? That I personally don't care for his posts, and thought it great he'd been fucked off?

 

[framed]

i suspect it won't be public you stalky weirdo.

hehe

Nah, I read earlier that she'd been going mental about this thread on facebook, so I fancied a wee peek.

I thought Dave might be 'public' wherever she was on t'internnet.

 

[_angel_]

No, you're not getting this. I was personally PLEASED that he was banned because I think he's a fuckwit and a bore. I didn't say those were good reasons to ban him per se. He got banned, with good reason AFAICT, initially for something unrelated to this, and banned again as Sam Goloden because he signed back up. There, that clarify it for you?

Once again these things are patchy. There are lots and lots of banned posters who come back and don't get rebanned. Do the mods know who they are? maybe sometimes but not always and then there was a sort of amnesty recently. I say 'sort of' because it didnt include everyone.

 

[TruXta]

Once again these things are patchy. There are lots and lots of banned posters who come back and don't get rebanned. Do the mods know who they are? maybe sometimes but not always and then there was a sort of amnesty recently. I say 'sort of' because it didnt include everyone.

Sure, I know that. It's for the mods to decide, but in this instance I for one am glad to see the back of him. There's no principled stance behind that, just personal dislike.

 

[Fez909]

That's absolutely not the case. There were some very detailed posts on that thread, which basically amounted to a view (amongst other views) that it's the corruption of privilege theory, its misuse/abuse, the tendency for privilege politics to run concurrently (where it does) with class politics rather than being integral, use of it to close down debate, veering too close to/reinventing identity politics of the 70s and 80s etc that poses more of a problem than the theory in itself. You may not have agreed with the responses you got, but it's not fair to make out that no-one pointed out the potential positives of privilege theory.

Well, as someone coming at this with a clean slate, so to speak, I asked for a description of what privilege theory actually is. Spanky gave a simplified explanation which I understood and was not challenged by anyone on the thread. I assume his explanation was accurate.

Given that's the true meaning of privilege theory, I asked how it could be used. No answer. 4 more pages of rubbish about whether the working classes are to blame for their own obesity. VP showed how it can be used, which is just "check your privilege" and she even admitted it's not especially useful if that's how it is used. No other way of using this tool was given.

It's a way of shutting down debate and nothing else, IMO. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.

 

[_angel_]

Sure, I know that. It's for the mods to decide, but in this instance I for one am glad to see the back of him. There's no principled stance behind that, just personal dislike.

Like arnie, he'll be back. Of this we can be sure.

 

[TruXta]

Like arnie, he'll be back. Of this we can be sure.

I think you're right there.

 

[cesare]

Well, as someone coming at this with a clean slate, so to speak, I asked for a description of what privilege theory actually is. Spanky gave a simplified explanation which I understood and was not challenged by anyone on the thread. I assume his explanation was accurate.

Given that's the true meaning of privilege theory, I asked how it could be used. No answer. 4 more pages of rubbish about whether the working classes are to blame for their own obesity. VP showed how it can be used, which is just "check your privilege" and she even admitted it's not especially useful if that's how it is used. No other way of using this tool was given.

It's a way of shutting down debate and nothing else, IMO. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.

Most of the analysis was before you asked that question, I think. Frankly I'd got bored with it becoming a whinging vehicle & excuse for some people to voice their fucking prejudices.

 

[Fez909]

Most of the analysis was before you asked that question, I think. Frankly I'd got bored with it becoming a whinging vehicle & excuse for some people to voice their fucking prejudices.

I hope you aren't including me in your "some people" there.

I did read through the thread and I was none the wiser. I'll try to give it another reading sometime to see if I can get anything more out of it.

 

[cesare]

I hope you aren't including me in your "some people" there.

I did read through the thread and I was none the wiser. I'll try to give it another reading sometime to see if I can get anything more out of it.

No, I wasn't including you.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

so what is the fucking point? let's just not be dicks, not piss around. if your movement doesn't attract women, or black people, or whoever, then maybe you need to do some work, not develop a complicated theory of privilege that doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Very true. But any organisation which indulges 'privilege theory' has an automatic advantage given that a woman or a black person or any other 'identity' can show up, get fawned over by middle-aged cunts, told how fuckin awesome they are to have become enlightened in the battle against..er..middle-class white cunts and get to feel 'special'. This way 'privilege checking' becomes self-perpetuating. I suppose the idea is that their solidarity is 'staggered'...so the self-denigrating bourgeois white males are the most solid, then come white females who are solid with all except the white men...to whom they get to feel a bit superior, then, say the black guys or the gays who are solid with all but the...etc. pure fuckin bollocks.
It's class based or it's fuck all.

Mind you, if it wasn't for this tiered brand of solidarity, the middle classes wouldn't get to play in the first place...they'd be reclassed as the fuckin enemy. With privilege theory, they get to join in...feel egalitarian, and get the cushy comment gigs in the Guardian.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There were some very detailed posts on that thread, which basically amounted to a view (amongst other views) that it's the corruption of privilege theory, its misuse/abuse, the tendency for privilege politics to run concurrently (where it does) with class politics rather than being integral, use of it to close down debate, veering too close to/reinventing identity politics of the 70s and 80s etc that poses more of a problem than the theory in itself.

Yes, there were posts along those lines. And the fundamental problem with them is that they conflate "privilege theory" with "caring about oppressions other than class". The problem is not that privilege theory is misused. It's used exactly as its supposed to be used. The problem is that privilege theory is a particularly unhelpful way of looking at oppressions other than class.

There seems to me to be considerable confusion on this point, as indeed there is about the term "identity politics". Neither privilege theory nor identity politics are synonymous with thinking that other forms of oppression matter. They are particular ways of looking at how those oppressions matter, which rest on certain political assumptions and imply certain political answers. It's not "corruption", its inherent.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, I strongly suspect that British Anarchism is going to be much more vulnerable to it than the rest of the socialist left. The AFed's dabbling and the response over on libcom are indication enough of that, particularly when you remember that those are amongst the more politically serious bits of British anarchism. The lifestyle fruitloops will be completely defenseless. But amusing and all to watch as that will most likely be, if it gets seriously entrenched it could be problematic for everyone in the longer term.

I agree with this - and the main reason why the rest of the socialist left won't be infected is cos we're fucking allergic to anything new, which is often a problem but in these kind of cases it's a definite strength. It's kind of like what Dimitri Orlov says about why the USSR coped with collapse better than the USA will, but on a much smaller and essentially irrelevant scale

 

[framed]

Mind you, if it wasn't for this tiered brand of solidarity, the middle classes wouldn't get to play in the first place...they'd be reclassed as the fuckin enemy.

Well worth repeating in big fuckin print!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I agree with this - and the main reason why the rest of the socialist left won't be infected is cos we're fucking allergic to anything new, which is often a problem but in these kind of cases it's a definite strength.

It's practically a point of principle in the Socialist Party that we squint suspiciously at any new political fad for a minimum of two decades before anyone touches it.

And joking aside, the Trotskyist groups have enough in the way of their own theoretical heritage and internal education and general critical mass to ignore suddenly fashionable ideas if they want to (or go chasing after them if they so decide), while the much more atomised and disparate Anarchist scene is inherently more vulnerable to those fashions, for good or for ill. As the radical liberals go, so too will many of the Anarchists.

 

[sihhi]

dunno but she's not Boris's sister

She is Boris Johnson's sister in law.

 

[cesare]

Yes, there were posts along those lines. And the fundamental problem with them is that they conflate "privilege theory" with "caring about oppressions other than class". The problem is not that privilege theory is misused. It's used exactly as its supposed to be used. The problem is that privilege theory is a particularly unhelpful way of looking at oppressions other than class.

There seems to me to be considerable confusion on this point, as indeed there is about the term "identity politics". Neither privilege theory nor identity politics are synonymous with thinking that other forms of oppression matter. They are particular ways of looking at how those oppressions matter, which rest on certain political assumptions and imply certain political answers. It's not "corruption", its inherent.

Well I consider Laurie Penny's use of privilege politics as misuse, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[cesare]

She is Boris Johnson's sister in law.

Thank you

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Well I consider Laurie Penny's use of privilege politics as misuse, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm not going to hector you about it if you can't be bothered having an argument at the moment, but I'm genuinely curious about how Penny is misusing "privilege theory"? She seems to be using it in pretty much exactly the way it is generally used.

 

[DaveCinzano]

...Or yet another bit of diary-filler by Hugh Muir.

Talking of Hugh Muir, is this the same Hugh Muir who ingratiated himself at the Telegraph and Standard with prominent Met Police Press Office-supplied stories on Reclaim The Streets?

The ones with the Orgreave-esque approach to what-happened-when? The ones that liberally (LOL) employed such words and phrases as "agitators", "anarchist yobs", "hijacked", "Left-wing hooligans" etc? The ones that even tried to - stop giggling at the back, please - suggest that RTS was some kind of beard for Red Action?

 

[cesare]

I'm not going to hector you about it if you can't be bothered having an argument at the moment, but I'm genuinely curious about how Penny is misusing "privilege theory"? She seems to be using it in pretty much exactly the way it is generally used.

It's not so much "can't be bothered" as having loads of housework to do, presents to sort out etc

 

[The39thStep]

Good to see at least one Urbanite hard work on editing LP's wiki page

 

[rekil]

All I had to go on before was a picture of Stalin and a Twitter feed full of hate.

This is of course a massive fucking lie. Disgusting. Gotta cook atm but I'll come back to this later.