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

[SpineyNorman]

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.

OK, I probably could have put that better - but what I'm saying is that my dislike of her politics and her journalism has nothing whatsoever to do with her gender or sexual orientation. And that if I were asked who I would like to replace her that would be my answer - a working class woman.

Somewhere on this thread there's a tweet of hers where she says she'd like to see more disabled, black and trans women in journalism - but no mention of class at all. This is the problem with identity politics - it makes it all about these subjective identities, allowing the most privileged members of these groups to be made spokespersons for the group as a whole. But these are the people whose interests are most easily met by the system.

Capitalism can, quite easily, handle this - all it has to do is create a black/female/queer/insert minority here elite and integrate it into the existing power structures. And all this really does is strengthen the system, creating a black etc middle class that serves to hide the inequalities and oppressions that continue to be an integral part of that system. In the language of multiculturalism these are the community leaders.

It does fuck all for those right at the shitty end - the working class blacks, queers, women, etc. In fact it often makes things worse for them. Initiatives like affirmative action can create resentment towards these groups as it can appear that they are being given preferential treatment (whilst in truth this is not the case the perception is, nonetheless, there). And guess who this resentment is taken out on - not the elites.

That's why Laurie Penny and anyone like her can never be an effective voice for women, queers or anyone else. She's no more qualified to speak for them than I am. Because she benefits from those power structures to a far greater extent even than me, with all my 'unexamined white male privilege'.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

I think you've misunderstood her mate. She was agreeing with the piece I just posted a quote from and that piece argues precisely that.

I took rutita's post to be more directed at the likes of Laurie Penny than the likes of us.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

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 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.

Fair enough. There was a fair amount of projection on my part. I'm a bit irritable this morning for various reasons.

However, the idea that change will come about once those with privilege acknowledge it, recognise it as a problem and decide to voluntarily redress the balance seems, given the historical record, a little wide eyed. You might also same the same about those without revolting and removing privilege by compulsion...but that seems far more likely...has a precedent...and is what I thought the left was all about.

 

[sihhi]

OK, I probably could have put that better - but what I'm saying is that my dislike of her politics and her journalism has nothing whatsoever to do with her gender or sexual orientation. And that if I were asked who I would like to replace her that would be my answer - a working class woman.

Somewhere on this thread there's a tweet of hers where she says she'd like to see more disabled, black and trans women in journalism - but no mention of class at all. This is the problem with identity politics - it makes it all about these subjective identities, allowing the most privileged members of these groups to be made spokespersons for the group as a whole. But these are the people whose interests are most easily met by the system.

Not attacking you, I agree. I was thinking along the lines of Laurie Penny could serve a useful role even as a confessional/personal mode of journalist if she concentrated on private schools and Oxbridge and how they operate. Like a more thorough version of her Dispatches programme.

 

[Athos]

@lauripenny said:

"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."

Yeah, I know why too. It's because you divert attention away from - and thereby damage - genuine left-wing struggle i.e. a class based movement, by seeking to displace class in favour of identity politics. Centrist columnists don't, because they don't have the power to do so; they haven't positioned themselves as the voice of the left.

You do so because, on grounds of gender and sexuality, you can portray yourself as one of the oppressed; whereas, on grounds of class, as a well paid, middle-class hack, you're firmly in the other camp. What's worse is that you seem to want to take on the role of the oppressed as a business opportunity; for you to make money from the niche you've carved out for yourself as the voice of the radical left, the public perception of the radical left must be perverted to your own conception of it. As well as this being insulting to those who are genuinely oppressed, people don't take kindly to you damaging a cause they've fought for earnestly and made great sacrifices for, so that you can make a quick buck. Their disdain is heightened by the fact that, for all your claims, you don't appear to sacrifice anything or even do much - you just write about what others do - and the little that you do tends to be paid.

These are legitimate criticisms and not based on sexism; for you to seek to avoid having to respond to them by smearing those who dare to make them as sexists is a cheap trick. And, when those people have a record of putting themselves on the line for anti-fascism and anti-racism, people become understandably angry.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Fair enough. There was a fair amount of projection on my part. I'm a bit irritable this morning for various reasons.

Fair enough, thanks for that.

However, the idea that change will come about once those with privilege acknowledge it, recognise it as a problem and decide to voluntarily redress the balance seems, given the historical record, a little wide eyed.

Yes, I can see why you think that. I wasn't however saying that it's the only way change can 'happen'. Again, my opinions are biased because they reflect my ideas about what 'meaningful' is. I am sure of one thing. I don't have all the answers.

You might also same the same about those without revolting and removing privilege by compulsion...but that seems far more likely...has a precedent...and is what I thought the left was all about.

Given the current discussion on the thread and how often people that fall in to this description 'the left' disagree ...I think there's a strong argument in looking at/reflecting on how using this terminology can translate to reforcing the very same system/hierarchy. It's a minefield though as we have limited language/terminology and it all exists in relationship to something else, has 'historical' personal and collective association etc.

 

[bluestreak]

if you throw out class then you're no different from those people who think that racism isn't important because they're white, that gender equality isn't important because they're male, you're just another person who refuses to acknowledge the privileges of their position and other people's oppression.

 

[Idris2002]

Re: sihhi's point about cultural relativism above.

The short answer is that a) the concept is indeed highly contested, b) it does not necessarily imply (IMO) moral relativism, and c) it has a long history going back at least to Montaigne's essay on cannibalism from the (IIRC) 1590s. (You could probably identify 'cultural relativism' in Herodotus, even).

 

[SpineyNorman]

'Privilege' speak is back.

Here it is, the tweet I was talking about. In fact it's worse than I remembered - she's encouraging precisely the kind of assimilation I was talking about a couple of posts ago. She's not saying the structures need to be changed - rather that members of minority groups should be represented at the top ('promoted').

 

[Treacle Toes]

I think you've misunderstood her mate. She was agreeing with the piece I just posted a quote from and that piece argues precisely that.

I took rutita's post to be more directed at the likes of Laurie Penny than the likes of us.

Not at LP directly/only, but yes more so to those that have a platform like she does for pretty much all of the reasons given by others on the thread so far.

That said...I do stand by my 'we can all check ourselves' perspective. Including us, here on Urban and any other forum/platform we engage with.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not at LP directly/only, but yes more so to those that have a platform like she does for pretty much all of the reasons given by others on the thread so far.

That said...I do stand by my 'we can all check ourselves' perspective. Including us, here on Urban and any other forum/platform we engage with.

I think I get what you mean - like sometimes when I'm in meetings with younger, less confident people when I disgree with them I don't necessarily respond as 'robustly' as I would with someone of my own age and experience. But that's just not being a dick really isn't it? I don't think you need a theory to back it up.

 

[bluestreak]

my missus looked at that and said "what about working class women?"

end of thread, basically. what about working class women?

 

[Treacle Toes]

I don't think you need a theory to back it up.

Quite. The not being a dick thing is about power dynamics IMO, in context I mean. Someone will link to theory I'm sure which is fine, just as long as it's not the only way discussion/analysis of these things are valued. Again, my bias and i'm aware of it.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Maybe I've been misunderstanding the identity politics liberals all along. If male genitalia = the height of privilege maybe they're just encouraging us to check our testicles for lumps? Very sensible if you ask me.

 

[Athos]

Here it is, the tweet I was talking about. In fact it's worse than I remembered - she's encouraging precisely the kind of assimilation I was talking about a couple of posts ago. She's not saying the structures need to be changed - rather that members of minority groups should be represented at the top ('promoted').

Getting black trans women to join her at the top of the heap suits her interests; it means that the heap remains - rather than it being distributed amongst the working class.

 

[The39thStep]

Identity politics are not THE class struggle, in fact they are quite the reverse.

 

[Athos]

my missus...

Misogynist!

 

[goldenecitrone]

Misogynist!

missusogynist, surely?

 

[Athos]

missusogynist, surely?

Missusogenius!

 

[SpineyNorman]

@Buckaroo I'm expecting a phone call in a couple of hours time - after that I'll hopefully be able to give you an update on how 'm' is.

Interesting that she's had time to reply to Dave. I wonder if that's got anything to do with him having a media platform (however small)? Only she claimed not to have the time to discuss anything with me until this afternoon. Even though those accusations are still there on her twitter feed for all to see. Even though the number of people who've asked me about my 'racism' is now 6. I do wonder how many just haven't bothered asking, instead assuming it's true since it came from the voice of the left and not an 'enemy'? How many haven't seen me to ask? How many political opponents (a campaign I'm involved in at the moment is taking on the council head on and they know who we are) have noted it?

But none of that matters when compared to the prospect of Laurie Penny having to lose face by admitting she made a terrible mistake.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Getting black trans women to join her at the top of the heap suits her interests; it means that the heap remains - rather than it being distributed amongst the working class.

Precisely.

 

[phildwyer]

'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.'

That is very well put

You reckon?

To me it seems to be saying that immigrants shouldn't 'celebrate what they are' (presumably their ethnicity--but why shouldn't they celebrate that?) but rather 'what they could have become' (which is what? British? Wealthy? Why should they celebrate any of that?)

If that is what it's saying, ıt's reprehensible (at best). If that's not what it's saying, it's badly written.

 

[The39thStep]

'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.'



You reckon?

To me it seems to be saying that immigrants shouldn't 'celebrate what they are' (presumably their ethnicity) but rather 'what they could have become' (which is what? British? Wealthy? Why should they celebrate any of that?)

If that is what it's saying, ıt's reprehensible (at best). If that's not what it's saying, it's badly written.

Sorry don't understand what you are saying is reprehensible

 

[phildwyer]

Sorry don't understand what you are saying is reprehensible

I'm saying it's reprehensible to suggest that immigrants should not celebrate their own ethnicity but should rather celebrate being (or becoming, or the possibility of becoming) British. Reprehensible at best.

 

[phildwyer]

This is also confusing (at best):

'... a point that was made quite often to me on the doorstep by white working class men and women was why was it when every other culture was encouraged to celebrate their identity, when they wanted to celebrate their English / British identity, they were dismissed as racist. For the record, the majority of these people had no problem with other cultures celebrating their identity, all they wanted was a chance to celebrate their own.'

Are we seriously supposed to believe that white people are being prevented from celebrating their identity? Or that they are being called racist when they do so?

White people may certainly be called racist when they celebrate their ethnic identity (i.e. being white). But that's surely fair enough, right?

Or are we to understand that the article advocates white people celebrating their whiteness? Surely not... but in that case, it's not making itself very clear at all.

 

[phildwyer]

Just to make my own position clear:

I think it's good for black people to celebrate being black.

But I think it's bad for white people to celebrate being white.

Is there anyone here who would disagree with that?

I'll explain why I hold my position if I need to. But I'm assuming (or at least hoping) that I don't need to.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Impossible to agree/disagree seeing as though myself, and many others don't conform to living, identify ourselves and then interact with the world around us solely in terms of Black people' and 'White people' or 'good' and 'bad'. Those polarisations are part of 'a' problem IMO.

ETA: It's not difficult, using those terms I don't exist as a human being, an ethnicity, a person. Physically, biologically, culturally, politically nor experientially

 

[sihhi]

I think this episode - u75/u75 posters on twitter against Laurie Penny and her denunciations of u75 - is now over

Let's examine again 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'.

it is

'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. 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.

This bit - the "strange hatefest going on on the British left right now against anyone who dares to put forward anti-capitalist ideas" against leftist middle-class people, leftist women, leftist non-whites (does it include white immigrants?) and non-straight leftists - I don't see at all.
Is Laurie Penny conflating genuine leftist base anger against leftie celebrities and middle-class leftists with other forms of discrimination?
It's an absolute caricature of the left that only "a straight, working-class white guy" is ever listened to.
It's the kind of nonsense the New Realists of the 1980s and Blairists of the 1990s routinely wheeled out.
If I wanted to stick my neck out I'd say that in the left (and in general, maybe)... it is middle-class men being listened to instead of working-class men; middle-class women being listened to instead of working-class women; middle-class immigrants being listened to instead of working-class immigrants.

Laurie Penny states that the article's claim that a "universality of approach, a denial of difference and privilege, would somehow help the left" is a bogus one. We don't find out what Laurie Penny's approach is, though.

My only slight criticism of the IWCA piece is it doesn't go far enough in explaining: "As a consequence of this, we oppose funding for initiatives that are restricted to particular ethnic and cultural groups as they undermine community solidarity. We support efforts to end discrimination, with the aim being equal treatment for all."

I agree with the principle of equal treatment for all, but "initiatives that are restricted to particular ethnic and cultural groups" needs more. For a start, these sorts of initiatives are increasingly not funded by the local state at all. If you look at the foreign language lunch clubs and immigrant women's groups - they are sustained almost entirely by subscriptions and private donations. As the state cuts its funding, this type of private philanthropy remains as the only diminished source.

The contours of society are determined by funding for initiatives that are restricted to or highly benefit particular superior classes:- (bank bailouts, Arts Council and its several dozen millions subsidising the Royal Opera House, expenditure on European cultural programmes - particularly Spanish, German, French etc, high-speed rail link with soaring ticket prices, new airport terminals, development money for the gentrification of inner city estates etc etc). The aim could be to oppose class-based funding/projects on whole working class grounds, and to more critically examine any funding for minority-heavy groups - on worldwide working-class grounds (yeah I know).

Some 'open to all initiatives' - without a word like Punjabi or Harambee in them - open to all Christian play-schemes, sports for youth, weekend schools, peace events - can weaken positive working-class principles and (by a culture of blaming the feckless uninterested, or of target meeting in order to attract funding) more so than divisive ethnic formations.
Having said all of that, there are a raft of ethnic and religion based organisations - even apparently progressive formations of self-identified communities - are deeply dangerous. So what do I know.

 

[frogwoman]

Great posts sihhi.

 

[love detective]

If I wanted to stick my neck out I'd say that in the left (and in general, maybe)... it is middle-class men being listened to instead of working-class men; middle-class women being listened to instead of working-class women; middle-class immigrants being listened to instead of working-class immigrants.

bingo - and as a result the working class have quite rightly stopped listening to the left