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

[butchersapron]

Still with the trick:

"this is hugely problematic, as far as I'm concerned. 'identity' politics like race, gender and sexuality are not sideline issues in the class struggle- they ARE the class struggle. I have seen far too many white male radicals claim that 'identity politics' are not relevant to the central issue of economics, claiming- for example- that talk of sexism 'splits' the left.

 

[butchersapron]

And another trick played again - and this after reading the article and being informed of the background of the author and their political activity and that of the IWCA who the article was written for:

That aspect of the piece was what struck me as racist and sexist. I'd stand by that. I have no idea what's in your heart as regards race and gender."

 

[killer b]

Also the assumption that all criticism of her comes from white males (guilty there myself, but many arent...)

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

How the fuck did it get to be my implication? I've been arguing the exact opposite.
My point is that you seem to be indulging the people who do draw that implication...ie LP and her like minded confederates.
So you fuck off...and check your privilege

 

[cesare]

No worries, and we could throw a whole series of non-scary people who have argued along similar lines at her: Amartya Sen, Paul Gilroy etc - that said, this would surely be pandering to her smear and the way in which it was made (and the function it performs) by arguing look here some other respectable people who you may even pretend to have read say it's ok (and as a bonus one is black and one asian). So i'll not be bothering to help her later bluffing on the issue

I'm not familiar with these non-scary people, I don't know who they are. I might "even pretend to have read"? Wtf? I've either read something or I haven't. She was well out of order in what she said, and to the extent that she might have misunderstood the basis for anti-multicultarism I'll point out why she might have misunderstood it and if I see something that might serve to show her why she's wrong, post that up too. I'm not helping her bluff the issue and I'm certainly not expecting you to.

 

[butchersapron]

Also the assumption that all criticism of her comes from white males (guilty there myself, but many arent...)

Not only the assumption but using that assumption to facilitate smears against others - again drawing the lines of who can talk in public and what they may talk about. Defining what politics is for everyone else.

There's nothing radical at all left in this ever deeper immersion in identity politics. In fact she's attempting to colonise class politics for identity politics (in the way that Jones did in Chavs but, i think, without meaning to or realising that he was). A corrective dose of Maria Dalla Costa, Selma James, Silvia Federici etc is prescribed.

 

[weepiper]

She's well and truly nailed her colours up now. Dividing line drawn and understood *shrug*

 

[cesare]

How the fuck did it get to be my implication? I've been arguing the exact opposite.
My point is that you seem to be indulging the people who do draw that implication...ie LP and her like minded confederates.
So you fuck off...and check your privilege

Indulging her? Twat.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not familiar with these non-scary people, I don't know who they are. I might "even pretend to have read"? Wtf? I've either read something or I haven't. She was well out of order in what she said, and to the extent that she might have misunderstood the basis for anti-multicultarism I'll point out why she might have misunderstood it and if I see something that might serve to show her why she's wrong, post that up too. I'm not helping her bluff the issue and I'm certainly not expecting you to.

No, i'm saying that she might not be scared by them and she might even pretend to have read them - not you. And i'm saying that at a later date she may well claim familiarity with them to suggest that she wasn't simply caught out being a lazy smearer using her networked social power but was in fact articulating a well thought through informed critique of the article.

 

[butchersapron]

She's well and truly nailed her colours up now. Dividing line drawn and understood *shrug*

Absolutely, and what's even more insulting about this line drawing and attempts to throw sand in our eyes is that she thinks people like us are too stupid to see exactly what she's up to or to thick to understand it.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

Indulging her? Twat.

Well if you're not indulging her and her warped little world-view, why the need for the "not necessarily"?
You gonna start talking about men and adding "but he's not necessarily a racist? Start that shit and you're making concessions to her.

Cunt.

 

[Orang Utan]

Apparently the further to the centre you are and the higher you are paid, the more deserving of flak you are.

 

[The39thStep]

Most immigrants come here for a better life than the one they had in their homeland which implies that as they settle in and get on, the sense of identity they originally had develops into something different. When economic times are tough and their dreams can't be realised, the tendency to encourage immigrants to celebrate what they are rather than what they could have become is patronising to them, an admission of defeat that they can't progress and worst of all dangerously divisive. What you then get is an erosion of class identity as all the different ethnic / cultural groups that make up the working class retreat into their own identity instead – the kind of divide and rule the powers that be absolutely love.

That is very well put

 

[cesare]

No, i'm saying that she might not be scared by them and she might even pretend to have read them - not you. And i'm saying that at a later date she may well claim familiarity with them to suggest that she wasn't simply caught out being a lazy smearer using her networked social power but was in fact articulating a well thought through informed critique of the article.

Ah, ok, I see what you mean. I hope she doesn't claim at a later date to have based her smear on some kind of well thought out critique. There was nothing bloody thought out in what she said, she didn't even read it before labelling ld etc as racist.

 

[cesare]

Well if you're not indulging her and her warped little world-view, why the need for the "not necessarily"?
You gonna start talking about men and adding "but he's not necessarily a racist? Start that shit and you're making concessions to her.

Cunt.

Read a few pages back, and start also fucking attacking the other people that say they don't altogether agree with everything the IWCA have stated as their position. Then once you've got all the people that don't altogether agree clear, round them all up and extrapolate those "don't altogether agree" positions into what you've just said to me as "you gonna start talking about men and adding "but he's not necessarily a racist" fucking shite and see how far that fucking stupid extrapolation gets you.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've been reading this on the libcom website - This part is particularly good:

The initial exploration of identity proved useful, providing a greater understanding of the ways in which domination and its specific manifestations (racism, sexism, homophobia) are connected to the state and capitalism. The 1960s were also years of resistance and uprising more generally. These events did not happen separately; instead, they were a part of a larger discontent with society as a whole. However, much as the energy of the 1960s was dissipated into the traditional, rigid forms of activism and managed dissent, so was the revolutionary potential of exploring identity.
Over time, these movements have left us with organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and National Organization for Women (NOW) as the self-proclaimed leaders in the struggle for equality under the law. However, what is interesting to note is that these organizations serve as explicitly political organizations, seeking political equality through political processes. These groups can thus be understood to engage in identity politics.
2: Identity Politics and Anti-Identity Politics
Given the political effectiveness of these organizations, their model has been emulated by others seeking to reform the current socio-economic order. This has led to identity politics becoming a central part of the contemporary United States political order. This is especially true in the liberal reformist movement, where organizations such as the NAACP, HRC, and NOW are prominent. With their successes in political reform, they (and many other identity-politics organizations) have become embedded in the dominant political discourse. It is here that we encounter one of the main problems of identity politics: the groups which sought to challenge identity-based oppression have instead merely entered into a partnership with those who benefit from oppression. This partnership concerns the ability to define the political agenda for a certain identity. This is clearly demonstrated in the queer community by the HRC, with their push for hate crime laws, marriage, and military service. These demands show that the HRC has accepted the logic of and requested partnership in the government and the marketplace. Essentially, the HRC is fighting for assimilation into, rather than the destruction of, a system that creates and enforces the very oppression they are allegedly struggling against.
However, even identity politics does not have unfettered power in the political mainstream. Even the appearance of altering power relations in this society is, to some, a threat. These reactionaries claim that identity politics seeks special rights for certain groups. This flawed logic rests on the idea that, since people are guaranteed equality under the Constitution, then the problem of legal inequality is non-existent. Even if one accepts the logic of the state, the discrepancy between legal/political equality and social equality is telling.
Another reaction to the Left’s adoption of identity politics is the rise of hard-Right identity politics. This leads to absurdities such as men’s rights movements, white rights movements, and groups dedicated to preserving Christian culture and identity. One can see a connection between these two reactionary positions, despite their apparent contradictions. Each position represents a different tactic towards the same goal: maintaining a class-based society along with the homophobic, white-supremacist, and patriarchal structures that uphold it. This stands in contrast to identity politics, which seeks to mildly reform class society and its institutions.
In short, there today exists a tension between progressive identity politics and reactionary anti-identity politics. The failure of both rests in their reliance on the state and capitalism as basis for their vision of society. Both seek to better manage the present order. It is clear: there exists a subset of people in this society that benefit from the current social order. These people include queer people, people of color, women, and every identity. Politicians, police, prison guards, landlords, and bosses: these are our enemies. They come in all forms.
It is equally clear that queer-bashers, rapists, and racists are similarly enemies of liberation. While in some cases these are not people with access to and the backing of institutional power, the violence they inflict is no less real or important. Indeed, their tactics are taken directly from the state, and uphold systems of control even after the formal powers officially abandon them.
Identity is meaningful in that it marginalizes us in different ways, and the affinity that comes from similar or shared experiences is powerful. However, it must always be remembered that such affinity is rendered useless when it is integrated in a system of domination and control. Such affinity ought to be encouraged, as it strengthens our bonds to one another and promotes conflict with the social order, be it bombing police cars or expelling rapists from one’s community.

...

By working within the political arena, identity-politicians work within accepted notions of power, change, and struggle. They become another lobby, another special interest that some politicians are beholden to while others rail against them. The people that constitute these identities are lost in all of this, become a voting bloc to be traded around rather than people.
This model fails us. Our lives are not political questions, positions to be taken, or votes to be won. We cannot be reduced into discrete categories of identity, each with its own set of lobbyists to win over the bourgeois politicians. This is the dead-end of assimilationism. This is the dead-end of politics. Rather than more politics, more money for lobbyist, and more ad campaigns, we need an end to the political process.

...

It is clear that, because identities shape our experiences, we cannot write off identity as unimportant. However, it is equally clear that we cannot afford to maintain the identities imposed upon us. Thus, an apparent contradiction arises between the necessity of recognizing socially constructed identity while simultaneously trying to destroy the class society that enforces those identities. This contradiction proves difficult, with a range of responses from a disregard for the destruction of class society to a disregard for identity, and many other arguments somewhere between these two positions. The problem is that there is no contradiction. Indeed, the former necessitates the latter. In order to destroy class society, an analysis of how it functions is critical. In short, we must know our enemy. However, it is important to avoid the pitfall of essentialism; it must always be understood that these identities are constructed by the larger socio-economic structure. The oppression that affects people with various identities is enforced by state power and the power of capital. Understanding this is generates a premise for solidarity, as those marginalized find affinity within their communities with those who face similar struggles. Additionally, the understanding of connections between one’s experience with identity and one’s experience with the larger socio-economic order allows for a solidarity that goes beyond any specific identity.
The importance of identity lies not in identity politics, but rather in the fact that identity is socially constructed by the dominant system in order to maintain capitalism and state power. In turn, the oppression that follows is an integral part of the social order as a whole, whether the violence is on an interpersonal, institutional, or structural level. Oppression also helps build affinity, through shared experiences or through shared struggle. Recognizing identity and identity-based oppression as social facts allows for stronger affinity, and the connections between one’s experiences and the larger social order similarly allows for a solidarity between people who want to abolish the state, abolish capitalism, and abolish the domination that both maintain over our lives. This abolition requires not political negotiation, but anti-political organizing and action.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Give it a rest eh ronnie?

 

[sihhi]

No worries, and we could throw a whole series of non-scary people who have argued along similar lines at her: Amartya Sen, Paul Gilroy etc - that said, this would surely be pandering to her smear and the way in which it was made (and the function it performs) by arguing look here some other respectable people who you may even pretend to have read say it's ok (and as a bonus one is black and one asian). So i'll not be bothering to help her later bluffing on the issue

Are posts here for the benefit of her or for us?

Cesare has no reason to apologise, as a piece it's hit and miss. The author gives only two examples of multiculturalism - one is an example used in another context in a piece on liberal imperialism as justified with reference to gay rights. It mostly attacks German liberal Muslim feminists, the Pink News etc with some criticism of Peter Tatchell as Britain's super-activist speaking on behalf of migrant homosexuals - on solid grounds. If you read what the trio wrote, they are not defending Sacranie - they are attacking the manner in which Tatchell makes his calls for UAF to disassociate from MCB. The other example is the owner of the Socialist Unity (lol!) English Parliament fan Andy Newman making an irrelevant historical truism point after a blog post. ... And that's it.

I reject this point below, 'cultural relativism' as Idris will explain no doubt, has meant different things to different people, and I am sure it existed in 'philosophy' before 1945:

However, it was after World War II and with the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the concept of cultural relativism expanded into the philosophical sphere. Thus, people saw cultural relativism as synonymous with moral relativism, the conclusion of this line of thought being that all cultures are both separate and equal, and that all value systems, however different, are equally valid.

It turns absurd here:

This is the simplest of ideas and yet the most often overlooked. Too many people think that we either allow people to hold to distinct cultural identities or we have a central value system. Diversity is placed in opposition to “one law for all.” But, of course, there is no reason that we can’t uphold basic, universal values whilst allowing people to pray, dress, talk, or cohabit differently. And what are those basic, universal values? In essence, freedom and equality. The freedom to live without coercion or violence, as long as you don’t impose the same upon others, and to do so without others having an artificial advantage over you, or you over them.

There is a very good reason we can't uphold basic, universal values such as freedom and equality, it's because we have won neither freedom nor equality, for us to be able to uphold these things.

No one has yet done a really thorough job of pinning down where cultural promotion ends and 'multiculturalism' begins, and more importantly, what it all means for social struggle/class struggle today.
Nor has anyone fully examined whether it might be the case that the middle-class of migrant groupings will still prosper from a trend towards 'community cohesion' and 'common values' away from separate ethnic minority projects.
After all, it is the middle-class of the immigrants - that have the most convenient means (money and nice housing) to cohere with their partners in the middle-class of white Britain. For parts of the working-class, maintaining any form of jointly-produced 'culture', when social conditions (short-term tenancies, long working hours, limited socialised childcare, longer demands for job-seeking, more conditions on council leases, fear of robberies by known associates, fear of drug influences upon children) are deteriorating, is an uphill battle.

Why should we suspect that the local state has any interest in mobilising working-class groups (that it normally seeks to diffuse and keep sedated) by genuine long-term, sustained, inter-communal activity? More likely, the central state will usurp the mantle of 'community cohesion' in an attempt to form an intelligence relationship with those 'extreme' elements of young Muslims - ie the PREVENT agenda.

The IWCA piece is not fault-less either:

The liberal left is unable to understand that there is nothing progressive in unthinkingly encouraging people to simply celebrate what they are. This is particularly the case when reactionary and backward social practices not only go unchallenged but are excused on the basis that they are an ‘integral part of the culture’. This unthinking encouragement for ethnic minorities to celebrate what they are is at odds with the prime motive of any immigrant which is to start a new life in a new country and to leave the past behind. The major failure of the left was promoting this uncritical celebration of culture for pretty much every ethnic and religious minority while at the same time, strongly condemning and such expression of pride from the white working class majority.

That idea in the middle - in italics - at odds with reality, and has now been ammended in the response Thurrock IWCA Dave has given to Laurie Penny. I have done a few interviews with the generation of immigrants from mainland Turkey who came in the 1970s and 1980s (not Cypriots) and the motives for leaving the home country were almost wholly about trying to provide money for families and extended families at home. Leaving the past behind was the last thing on anyone's mind - the past and the home country remain the fixation for decades afterwards. It leads to a form of minority national approach in politics - a basic total disinterest in all destination country politics, except on issues or figures where a change might benefit the home country.
In the case of Kurds who start arriving towards the end of the 1980s, it's precisely not to leave the past behind, that they seek to revive Kurdish language and culture from the outside - in states where Kurdish nationalism is not seen as a state security threat.

The IWCA piece does not give any examples of "reactionary and backward social practices" being "excused on the basis that they are an ‘integral part of the culture’". It does happen, but it needs to be explained more fully.
As for the criticism that there is "nothing progressive in unthinkingly encouraging people to simply celebrate what they are" - one could apply this everywhere. Simply celebrating what they are: Sinn Fein celebrating being culturally Irish and culturally republican. Durham Miners Gala's celebrating being from an area that used to have a fair proportion of miners in it. Is it possible to 'thinkingly' encourage people to "celebrate what they are", or not? It's left unanswered.

On Laurie Penny's laughable response:

"I certainly don't expect you to listen to me. I expect, in fact, a lot more weary, baseless trolling and rumour-spreading. The only conceivable way this would stop would be if I stopped what I'm doing, ceased to have a public voice, and advocated for another straight white male columnist to take my place. There are plenty of them around, most of them both far more highly paid and with far more centrist views than me, and I've always wondered why the British Left doesn't spend more of its energy attacking them instead. The awful thing is - I think I know."

Let's remember that on Woman's Hour 2011 special Laurie Penny was selected as the figure in a room full of women to analyse 2011 and the public disorder of that year. So in a programme dedicated to women, Laurie Penny was selected above any other working-class woman.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

Read a few pages back, and start also fucking attacking the other people that say they don't altogether agree with everything the IWCA have stated as their position. Then once you've got all the people that don't altogether agree clear, round them all up and extrapolate those "don't altogether agree" positions into what you've just said to me as "you gonna start talking about men and adding "but he's not necessarily a racist" fucking shite and see how far that fucking stupid extrapolation gets you.

Yeah I could do that. But I'm not going to because what I'm objecting to is the use of the phrase "not necessarily racist" which is symptomatic of a mindset which feels it has to apologise for its stance against multiculturalism. I doubt anybody would claim that 'multiculturalism' hasn't had its benefits. That said, this is only the case if you regard multiculturalism as containing every single anti racist and ecumenical initiative over the years.

I was assuming we were discussing multiculturalism as a set of policies and protocols aimed at preserving and affirming distinct cultural beliefs and practices for their own sake as inherently good in themselves. And in this sense it's pure bullshit and I make no apology for saying so.

And as for 'attacking', I think you're being just a fuckin tad disingenuous. I started my first post with a statement that I didn't altogether agree with the tone of your comment; it was you who weighed in with the 'fuck offs' and 'twats'. I'm pretty sure you couldn't give a flying fuck whether we stop slagging each other off or not; any more than I could. However, I think we're closer on this than you seem to think. So in that spirit: happy Xmas, you prick.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I've been reading this on the libcom website - This part is particularly good:

It is interesting yes and a great reminder that regardless of who we are, how we 'identify' and for whatever reason, reflecting on and checking why and how our own priviledge manifests is fundamental. IMO without this process of personal reflection, we most often do reinforce a flawed system of labelling/identifying/characterising and inherent hierarchies.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't think you're racist. I certainly don't think the IWCA is racist. And I certainly don't expect you to listen to me. I expect, in fact, a lot more weary, baseless trolling and rumour-spreading. The only conceivable way this would stop would be if I stopped what I'm doing, ceased to have a public voice, and advocated for another straight white male columnist to take my place. There are plenty of them around, most of them both far more highly paid and with far more centrist views than me, and I've always wondered why the British Left doesn't spend more of its energy attacking them instead. The awful thing is - I think I know.

Is anyone else getting sick to the fucking back teeth of this? Tell you what I'd like you to be replaced by Laurie? Another female writer, but a working class one. There's a few on this thread who could do that job very, very well.

And why don't the 'british left' (whatever that is) spend more time attacking them? Simple - they don't pretend to speak for us.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

It is interesting yes and a great reminder that regardless of who we are, how we 'identify' and for whatever reason, reflecting on and checking why and how our own priviledge manifests is fundamental. IMO without this process of personal reflection, we most often do reinforce a flawed system of labelling/identifying/characterising and inherent hierarchies.

Don't like the condescending and hectoring tone of this...whoever wrote it needs to check their privilege...as does anyone who adopts the right to lecture others...or basically do or say anything.
In fact, I'm not bothered if the whole world starts checking its privilege. It's window dressing. Fact is, some people need their privileges downgrading whether they acknowlege them or not. I thought that's what socialism is.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

To be honest I'd never heard of her until this thread popped up and I can't pretend to have read this thread either. Anyway, I found one of her pieces and it was about disability and I can truly say if I have come across her in a situation where I have a drink in my hand, I'm going to do an Anna Ford.

 

[Firky]

That is very well put

I thought the article as a whole articulated the whole debate in a clear and understandable way that anyone can understand.

 

[sihhi]

'identity' politics like race, gender and sexuality are not sideline issues in the class struggle- they ARE the class struggle. The splits i've seen mainly come when (eg) men become angry at being confronted with their own unexamined privilege, and that was what came across in the article to me- claiming that a universality of approach, a denial of difference and privilege, would somehow help the left. That aspect of the piece was what struck me as racist and sexist. I'd stand by that. I have no idea what's in your heart as regards race and gender." So yes, that's the basis for my contention that there are issues of unexamined privilege at the heart of the 'anti-multiculturalism' argument on the far left. I think that unexamined privilege is the basis for a great deal of the strange hatefest going on on the British left right now against anyone who dares to put forward anti-capitalist ideas whilst not being a straight, working-class white guy - as if anyone else isn't the 'real left'.

I don't think you're racist. I certainly don't think the IWCA is racist. And I certainly don't expect you to listen to me. I expect, in fact, a lot more weary, baseless trolling and rumour-spreading. The only conceivable way this would stop would be if I stopped what I'm doing, ceased to have a public voice, and advocated for another straight white male columnist to take my place. There are plenty of them around, most of them both far more highly paid and with far more centrist views than me, and I've always wondered why the British Left doesn't spend more of its energy attacking them instead. The awful thing is - I think I know.

Here's a hint: those other columnists do not distort events, make up quotes, 'fake interviews' and blame it on unnamed subs.

 

[Treacle Toes]

As an aside it's why I have a dislike of ' cultural anthropology' and much prefer interactions with representations of individuals/communities/geneologies from their own perspective and on their own terms.

 

[sihhi]

Is anyone else getting sick to the fucking back teeth of this? Tell you what I'd like you to be replaced by Laurie? Another female writer, but a working class one. There's a few on this thread who could do that job very, very well.

I don't want Laurie Penny to be replaced, I think working-class women writers could happily replace all the male columnists on pretty much any paper and I wouldn't care a fig. Laurie Penny could then remain, letting working-class women describe sexism and classism from a working-class perspective and Laurie Penny could start attack the centres of privilege .

In fact of course none of any that is going to happen, and Laurie Penny is not going to be removed from her post. It's not going to happen - she brings a readership, her twitter followers are far higher than other New Statesman figures like Mehdi Hasan (43,000) or Helen Lewis (23,000). New Statesman with about 25,000 subscribers has more of a chance of converting the twitterati into paid subscribers with Laurie Penny than anyone else on their books.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Don't like the condescending and hectoring tone of this...whoever wrote it needs to check their privilege...as does anyone who adopts the right to lecture others...or basically do or say anything.
In fact, I'm not bothered if the whole world starts checking its privilege. It's window dressing. Fact is, some people need their privileges downgrading whether they acknowlege them or not. I thought that's what socialism is.

There wasn't a condesending/lecturing tone in the way I wanted to present my experiences/opinions so I ask you not to project one onto it if at all possible. I include myself in it of course as I am not an island. I used the first person, it denoted that my opinions are my own. I used 'we' to present opinions that I have experienced to be true for myself and others. I don't mind if you disagree with me.

As for 'downgrading priviledge', it is also my experience/opinion that it will never happen in any meaningful way unless 'individuals' engage willingly in the process of it, anything else is IMO 'window dressing' and doing so in a 'detached/defensive' survival mode.

 

[Firky]

The huge quotes of text make this thread difficult to read on a phone.

 

[sihhi]

The huge quotes of text make this thread difficult to read on a phone.

(((Fancy phone owning privilege)))