Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a certain commonality between the AF Women's Caucus Privilege stuff and this "Anarchist Intersectionality" piece, in that they seem to be first and foremost attempts to adopt fashionable language and ideas from radical liberalism while avoiding the most obviously liberal of the necessary political consequences of adopting that framework. It's an attempt to both have and eat a cake.
 
its this whole orange tan/sunbeds/dieting/botox stereotype thing i think

might be imagining it though :hmm: does anyone know what i mean or am i talking bollocks?

idk, but imo, anyone who criticizes a woman for altering her appearance, or any aspect of her appearance being grotesque, without realizing that their perception of their right to constantly criticize her is part of the reason she's fucked up about her appearance is a fucking moron
 
There's a certain commonality between the AF Women's Caucus Privilege stuff and this "Anarchist Intersectionality" piece, in that they seem to be first and foremost attempts to adopt fashionable language and ideas from radical liberalism while avoiding the most obviously liberal of the necessary political consequences of adopting that framework. It's an attempt to both have and eat a cake.

Basically this. Although the idea's associated with it aren't exclusively linked to liberalism, are they? There's a material basis for much of the oppression/privilige stuff and it's roots are in class politics. Which is why I made the point it's not intersectionaily per se that I feel bothered about, it's when this intersectionality stuff attaches itself onto late capitalist post-class liberal identity politics, gets strained through a million different tumblr's, and then comes out masquerading as some kind of Anarchism when it's actually pretty straightforward heirachical liberal identity politics.

Worrying really coz if your too scared to defend your own political tradition for fear of being accused of various kinds of bigotry you're not gonna have much of a chance of overthrowing the state with violent revolution, are you?
 
An example of the word 'intersectionality' appearing, where before anti-sexism and anti-racism would have been used - a small green anarchist group in Australia:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/common-cause/common-cause-where-we-stand/107109362824677


Intersectionality

We recognise that this mentality is in play where patriarchy employs sexist and misogynistic illogic to make women the scapegoats for the way that men allow our love of power to get the best of the power of love, just as we recognise that the same is true where white supremacy employs racism and xenophobia to make people with different skin colour scapegoats for the inability of white bigots to think for themselves or take control over the conditions of their own lives. Blaming those who have no control over the conditions of our own lives for our inability to take control over them ourselves just goes to show that the best argument against white supremacist ideology is its adherents.

We work then to develop an anarchist intersectionality that draws out commonalities between different forms of oppression by attempting to understand in practise how the mentality of the oppressor and tyrant, who sees in workers, women, the young, the old, people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, people of different sexualities and abilities as well as the flora and fauna as objects whose main value resides in their exploitability, with a view to enhancing our ability to fight back.
 
Basically this. Although the idea's associated with it aren't exclusively linked to liberalism, are they?

Yes, they are. Even in its original "white skin privilege" guise, before it passed through the liberal academy's digestive tract and was shat out as today's liberal privilege theory, it came from the fringe of US New Left semi-Maoism, which is best seen as the guilty anarchoid milieu of its day. Intersectionality is straight from the liberal academy, with less in the way of preexisting radical roots.
 
Basically this. Although the idea's associated with it aren't exclusively linked to liberalism, are they? There's a material basis for much of the oppression/privilige stuff and it's roots are in class politics.

Its roots today are in the ineffectiveness/failure of class politics to have overcome (quickly enough) aspects of domination (racism, sexism etc) that also effect middle class people (hence spearheaded by middle-class people enduring backward assumptions and (c)overt prejudice).
 
Yes, they are. Even in its original "white skin privilege" guise, before it passed through the liberal academy's digestive tract and was shat out as today's liberal privilege theory, it came from the fringe of US New Left semi-Maoism, which is best seen as the guilty anarchoid milieu of its day. Intersectionality is straight from the liberal academy, with less in the way of preexisting radical roots.

i was told the ideas originally came out of black feminism?????
 
i was told the ideas originally came out of black feminism?????

Which ideas?

Privilege theory comes from "white skin privilege", a theory developed by a couple of white dudes in and around the semi-Maoist Sojourner Truth Organisation (Noel Ignatin and Ted Allen).
Intersectionality comes from black liberal feminist academics (Kimberle Crenshaw and Patrica Hill Collins).

Privilege/Intersectionalists prefer not to mention the embarrassing origins of privilege theory not as a howl of the oppressed but in the theorising of white dude, ahem, "allies". It raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions about white dudes speaking on behalf of "the oppressed". They also prefer to project intersectionalism back in time to the, somewhat more radical if also rather problematic, Combahee River Collective, which didn't actually use the term.
 
Which ideas?

Privilege theory comes from "white skin privilege", a theory developed by a couple of white dudes in and around the semi-Maoist Sojourner Truth Organisation (Noel Ignatin and Ted Allen).
Intersectionality comes from black liberal feminist academics (Kimberle Krenshaw and Patrica Hill Collins).

that fits. soz, if i get confused, i always check whether it's my understanding or my memory that's fucked.
 
Here's my take on Combahee, frogwoman

The Combahee group was for black women and encouraged essentially a form of separatism, certainly from male-infected family structure, all AFAIK were - to a greater or lesser extent - able to coincide with a lesbian feminist outlook.

Some of its members Audre Lorde (had a famous exchange with Mary Daly who said all religions were sexist, Lorde said black and African ones weren't) and Cheryl Clarke were involved in Conditions, particularly the famous 5th issue - a major collection of black feminist writing.
That issue in 1979, large run later reprinted in 1982, featured the brilliant or notorious poem (depending on how you look at it) 'Minority' (either expressed the rejection of black history or appeared to pit Jewish minority against black minority):
"Mine is not a People of the Book/ taxed but acknowledged;/
their distinctiveness is not yet a dignity;/ their Holocaust is lower case"

A lot of Combahee and Conditions production was feeling-based and literature-based featuring recollections of events of a past racism and sexism often in the formally segregated Deep South.
Not all black feminists left the mainstream women's organisations but the majority of those that did to form Combahee were southern black women.

Although anti-capitalist in general, because most were outside of the labour market in their formative experiences (which the consciousness raising was based/developed upon), a lot of the Combahee's focuses - as mostly black lesbian women in the south - were chauvinism from poor black males and poor whites.
In a sense, perhaps it was an inevitable result of a legacy of a 100 years of failed racist Reconstruction.

Virtually all of them entered either 1 Academia esp. literature and english departments (the old era of writing was dead and boring by the 1980s - needed blood), or 2 widening non-profit charities linked with support to women (funded properly for the first time as women starting making and holding onto their money).

Combahee has become a kind of totem for 'intersectionality' because it was people living through sexism, racism, classism and homophobia, although they only ever used the phrase 'interlocked', it has been retrospectively applied - to make it out as if 'intersectionality' comes from a huge movement when it comes from a 1991 liberal legalistic analysis of women's issues.

'intersectionality' is only tangentially involved with what was in the first place only a consciousness raising exercise (nothing wrong with that at all, but be careful of thrusting it cold to the non-political oppressed in different ways).

Interlocked is actually a much better description because people get it much quicker and it leaves open the aim/goal of people being able to unlock them.
 
Yes, the Combahee River Collective is important to the radical liberals because it's the sort of group that they would like their ideas to have come from. Privilege as the brainchild of white dudes is embarrassing, while intersectionality as that of liberal academics doesn't have enough in the way of apparent radicalism even if they did have the decency to be black women.

The CRC is unassailable in radical liberal identity politics terms, and therefore they make perfect mythological founders. Their politics were far from unassailable from a Marxist point of view, but that's entirely beside the point.
 
Privilege theory comes from "white skin privilege", a theory developed by a couple of white dudes in and around the semi-Maoist Sojourner Truth Organisation (Noel Ignatin and Ted Allen).
Intersectionality comes from black liberal feminist academics (Kimberle Crenshaw and Patrica Hill Collins).

can the sojourner truth organisation really be described as 'semi-maoist'? certainly there were crossover and links with the 'new communist movement', and ignatin/ignatiev and a number of the other founders emerged from stalinist organisations, but the s.t.o. itself was more eclectic; c.l.r. james, operaismo, w.e.b. dubois being influences on their politics, rather than mao or maoism. they were definitely leninist, but maoist? not so sure.

despite my reservations with 'white skin privilege', i think this puts it well:

thinkers like Ignatiev and Allen attempted to offer a rigorous theoretical Marxist answer to the eternal question of social sciences — Why is there no Social Democratic or Labor Party in the United States? — “critical whiteness” purges this theory of its militant content in order to transform it into an academic parlor game of ritual denunciations of the purported privileges between different essentialized identities. This academic fad has now caught on with the incorrigibly middlebrow, “theory”-inclined sectors of the German radical left, without regard for its origins as an attempt to explain the unique class composition of the North American proletariat and its idiosyncratic system of racial stratification.

http://communism.blogsport.eu/2012/...bizarre-critical-whiteness-debate-in-germany/
 
Combahee probably had good and bad in it like all groups, as individuals many did unimpeachable work in rape relief centres or legal rights projects.

It wasn't the first or the only black women's group, but it has become important for intersectionality (particularly Audre Lorde) rather than the early 1970 Third World women’s alliance, short-lasting but action-orientated (as the name suggests) Black women organized for action, the NBFO National Black Feminist Organization and the National Alliance of Black Feminists - perhaps because so much of its output was feeling-based.

Neither Kimberle Crenshaw nor Patricia Hill Collins were involved in the civil rights movement, and both were not part of the feminist movement at the organisational end.

So when Patricia Hill Collins wrote Black Feminist Thought, it just simply assumes that had the civil rights movement accepted black feminist ideas we wouldn't be where we are in 1990 with George Bush in power and few black women anywhere of importance (things change with Clinton with a rise in affirmative and the legacy of earlier policies coming through in a black middle-class, but black women remain on the bottom shut out of welfare by clinton's programmes so you get a contradictory rise more black people going to college with rises far above the rise of whites at the same time as increasing poverty rates - ie 2 and a half decades of neoliberalism since Carter)

Kimberle Crenshaw - see this post - as a law professor you get the feeling almost wants (race plus a fudged class-based at times maybe?) affirmative action in universities and job hiring, promotion in the military and the nonprofit sector management and charity donations, which can all be enforced by tough minded lawyers and activist judges.
 
can the sojourner truth organisation really be described as 'semi-maoist'? certainly there were crossover and links with the 'new communist movement', and ignatin/ignatiev and a number of the other founders emerged from stalinist organisations, but the s.t.o. itself was more eclectic; c.l.r. james, operaismo, w.e.b. dubois being influences on their politics, rather than mao or maoism. they were definitely leninist, but maoist? not so sure.

The earliest origins of WSP theory are in Ignatin and Allen's time in the Provisional Organising Committee (to Reconstitute a Marxist Leninist Communist Party in the United States). The POC was a highly "orthodox" Anti-Revisionist grouping, which actually predated "Maoism". Then in the earliest days of the Sojourner Truth Organisation, when White Skin Privilege was its main unique theory, it was eclectic but more "Maoist" than anything else. It got less "Maoist" and more eclectic as time went on. I said "semi-Maoist" and elsewhere described it as "on the heterodox fringes of US Maoism", because that gets the essential point across about where they coming from.

It's also worth noting that by far the biggest force which adopted and pushed White Skin Privilege in its pre-liberal academia days was the CP(ML), the closest thing the US had to an official Maoist party recognised by the Chinese.

And yes, that quote, although much more charitable to the original White Skin Privilege theory than I would be, does hit on the contrast between WS Privilege as a very specific theory about the interaction of race and capitalism in the US and its later preeminence as Privilege, the radical liberal theory of every kind of oppression everywhere.
 
What do people here think of Cornel West? Particularly interested in what sihhi thinks

I don't know what to think - he is a far-liberal Democrat-supporting academic.
Is he relevant in terms of 'intersectionality' and privilege politics? I don't know I always considered him as a Jesse Jackson style liberal coalition supporter.

I am no kind expert at all on any of this - just find it interesting how the term has been imported into a context where there so little of no working-class-heavy immigrant movement in this country, from which it might have come.
 
Y'know at some point I really want to go through this thread from the start and write some sort of critique about the whole thing. From the start. get all the pertinent stuff archived for when the time comes for the thread to die. I'd love to draw all the significant political stuff out and get it organised and put online somewhere without the hundreds of pages of bullshit.

I'd want help. Who wants to help? Come on there's shitloads of you who could do a great job at this. I've got loads of time to kill until November when I am (fingers crossed) fucking off out the country so lets get to work on this.

But I end up thinking about this a lot with other threads on here. Some sort of radical journal perhaps? Not too big to be sell-out, not too small to be too marginal etc etc :D
 
And this: From Stavvers (who I notice was invited onto Newsnight tonight but appeared to decline the invitation.)

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/may-day-haymarket-and-some-awesome-women/

Check this opening gambit out -

May Day is all about the workers. So, if you’re a worker or unemployed, give yourself a pat on the back for not being the oppressor, at least in terms of class. Yay, us.

That's classism right there. It's good to be w/c because then you're not the oppressor. God forbid we ever get rid of wage-slavery, that'd be terrible, we'd all presumably be oppressors under socialism.

Pat yourself on the back for being exploited for profit. Well done.
 
I'll help if I can, I'll have time in the summer, my current course finishes in a fortnight. You'll have to direct me though. I'd quite like to see a proper essay-style piece on why intersectionality and privilege theory and identity politics and the concept of a hierarchy of oppression is so problematic from a class perspective. It's so hard to get anyone who believes in this stuff - and it's usually fervent as fuck to the point of it being blasphemous to raise criticisms of it - to not just dismiss requests for where class fits into these theories as out-of-touch, misogynist dogma.
 
That's classism right there. It's good to be w/c because then you're not the oppressor. God forbid we ever get rid of wage-slavery, that'd be terrible, we'd all presumably be oppressors under socialism.

Pat yourself on the back for being exploited for profit. Well done.

Can you explain what you mean, Delroy?
 
And this: From Stavvers (who I notice was invited onto Newsnight tonight but appeared to decline the invitation.)

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/may-day-haymarket-and-some-awesome-women/

Check this opening gambit out -



That's classism right there. It's good to be w/c because then you're not the oppressor. God forbid we ever get rid of wage-slavery, that'd be terrible, we'd all presumably be oppressors under socialism.

Pat yourself on the back for being exploited for profit. Well done.

also, it's an understanding of class as one of a variety of competing "oppressions"; the working class aren't exploited by capitalism but oppressed; wage slavery isn't an issue, the problem is ruling class privilege preventing t'werkers getting into parliament or leading businesses. sort that out and class isn't an issue anymore, right?
 
Y'know at some point I really want to go through this thread from the start and write some sort of critique about the whole thing. From the start. get all the pertinent stuff archived for when the time comes for the thread to die. I'd love to draw all the significant political stuff out and get it organised and put online somewhere without the hundreds of pages of bullshit.

I'd want help. Who wants to help? Come on there's shitloads of you who could do a great job at this. I've got loads of time to kill until November when I am (fingers crossed) fucking off out the country so lets get to work on this.

But I end up thinking about this a lot with other threads on here. Some sort of radical journal perhaps? Not too big to be sell-out, not too small to be too marginal etc etc :D
Best of luck with that, it's going to take ages just to whittle down the 18,303(and counting) messages that make up this thread so you have something coherent to write about (not to mention the various digressions and tangential discussions as well) :)

...If i wasn't about to start the busiest time of the year for me, i'd offer to pitch in.. If you're still at it by October i might be up for helping out in whatever way i can ;)
 
Can you explain what you mean, Delroy?

Not without taking ages and I want to go to bed, I'll have a go but it won't be very good. But it's very annoying. Fucking "Classism" as though the whole class struggle can be reduced to "working class are oppressed therefore good, bourgeois class priviliged therefore bad" with the underlying assumption, that runs through the intersectional left like a thread, that class politics (if it's not deemed irrelevent in it's entirity) is just another piece of the big liberal identity politics jigsaw puzzle when it's not like that, it's not about individuals and their class bigotry, it's not reducable to the dumb reductionist framework of oppressed/privilige, it's about the allocation of the material resources required to survive, the one thing that unites every single person on earth regardless of identity - that we all need to eat, drink, have shelter. It's the only thing that intersects with everything yet the very term "classism" presupposes class as seperate conceptual entity that occasionally intersects with other, also seperate, oppressions thereby utterly ignoring racism or sexism inherent within the class system and so on that was traditionally the foundation stone of the marxist feminism I am familiar with. Incidentally that's not something I think "intersectionality" as a pure abstract theory, divorced from it's real-world application, would endorse. But that's a massive digression.

Then there's this. "give yourself a pat on the back for not being the oppressor, at least in terms of class" well done proles, your proletarian life of drudgery is but a small price to pay to be free of the guilt of being an oppressor. Revel in your powerlessness. But you probably beat up your spouse and are racist so lets make sure there's a caveat in there to remind you of this, on the day of the workers. Comradely greetings etc etc.

And yes it's probably really unfair of me to read so much into that one sentence but fuck it I don't even care.
 
also, it's an understanding of class as one of a variety of competing "oppressions"; the working class aren't exploited by capitalism but oppressed; wage slavery isn't an issue, the problem is ruling class privilege preventing t'werkers getting into parliament or leading businesses. sort that out and class isn't an issue anymore, right?

Yes this. And i've not properly gathered my thoughts on it yet but to have this sort of dumb fucking framework then get grafted onto Emma Goldman and co is pretty fucking offensive. I wonder how Goldman, who was no fucking liberal, would appreciate that type of class analysis I wonder?
 

What about when the people working in those jobs are paid to prop up state power and pick on young people, poor people, black people and activists?

Why not just say people or is that not emotive enough as saying 'black people' etc. (she should include 'my posh student friends' in that eclectic mix she made up).

It’s rather like the tense discussion that comes up in activist circles whenever the police go on strike.

Really, you were there were you? Besides when did police in this country last strike, sometime after WWI wasn't it? WTF is she on about, "whenever the police go on strike", it's been nearly 100 years since they last went on strike. :confused:

The entire article is just some anecdotal shite that you'd read on any forum, blog or facebook status. It's shite. I know some people on twitter, I know one who helped me write this article, etc. There's nothing concrete. It's anecdotal drivel.

Haha all the astrix points at the bottom of the article covering her arse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom