Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.

[andysays]

Capitalism still requires labour power to reproduce itself though.

Of course it does, but what I'm saying is that it no longer needs the nuclear family (indeed some aspects of the nuclear family are impediments to contemporary capitalism), and therefore that the social/sexual norms of the nuclear family, which include "traditional" gender roles, are no longer materially necessary, even though their influence still lingers.

 

[Athos]

Great post, but I'm going to focus on just one para because you've reminded me of something I was trying to remember yesterday on the "transgender" thread, when searching for an explanation of how transphobia grows out of the material conditions of capitalism.

The simplistic answer is that industrial capitalism required a way of ensuring the reproduction of its workforce, and the nuclear family was the form which this took. This includes women having the role of unpaid carers of their children, and it also involves the imposition a particular set of social/sexual norms.

But the current material conditions of later capitalism no longer require the "traditional" nuclear family, indeed they require women to engage in the labour market to the same extent as men, and simultaneously require that childcare is largely removed from the area of unpaid work and becomes a market based service like so many others.

So even though the social/sexual norms which were part of the nuclear family (and which are challenged/undermined by "deviant" behaviour including by transpeople) are no longer materially necessary, they remain as the choices of the dead lying like a nightmare on the brain of the living.

(This may also be of interest to Athos)

Capital needs women to work AND do the majority of the unpaid work to reproduce labour. Which it acheives through e.g. social attitudes. That's why gender is important. And why 'deviancy' is a threat.

 

[andysays]

Capital needs women to work AND do the majority of the unpaid work to reproduce labour. Which it acheives through e.g. social attitudes. That's why gender is important. And why 'deviancy' is a threat.

I'll come back to this later in more detail, but I think you are again oversimplifying.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Can you not conceive of a society where class distinctions have been eliminated but there still exists prejudiced against minority groups? In such a society how would that prejudice be tackled?

If structural racism exists then it isn't a classless society.

 

[Athos]

I'll come back to this later in more detail, but I think you are again oversimplifying.

I know that I most certainly am oversimplifying, here. Not least of all becasue there's a tension in the other direction e.g. o the extent that its arguable that transgenderism is favourable to the interests of capital insofar as it reinforces the concept of gender.

And all the looking at causes of problems overlooks (to some extent) the more important question of the different opportunities they present for solution, whether that's those based on division by identity, or solidarity accross identities.

 

[kabbes]

Capitalism still requires labour power to reproduce itself though.

Consumerism needs consumers increasingly more than capital needs labour.

 

[emanymton]

I'll come back to this later in more detail, but I think you are again oversimplifying.

Is it possible to avoid oversimplification in anything shorter than a book through?

 

[emanymton]

Consumerism needs consumers increasingly more than capital needs labour.

Consumers don't do you much good, if you have nothing to sell them.

 

[kabbes]

Consumers don't do you much good, if you have nothing to sell them.

My point is that labour is and will be increasingly unnecessary for that manufacture.

 

[DotCommunist]

you can sell them debt, so we work to service the debt that buys the things.

 

[Red Cat]

The paid childcare is done by women, primary education is mainly women, mental health services, speech and language therapists, social workers, play workers, family support workers, hospital staff, care workers...mainly women, all facing cuts to their salaries, downgrading and an idea that all we need to do is care, be nice, not have specialist training, or be paid for all that over-time, because we're women, and it's natural, we want to do it. And obviously childcare doesn't stop when the paid childcare ends for the day.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Consumers don't do you much good, if you have nothing to sell them.

And likewise products need people with money to sell to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Grandma /eggs! I do have a degree (design not politics) I'm not a school kid and I don't want anymore fucking homework.

That said, I do read stuff - but only if its interesting. Surely the communist manifest is only interesting as an historical item now? Having read excerpts, met many 'communists' and seen the downfall of the berlin wall etc. I don't think its the concept of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat that I'm struggling with here.

To be scrupulously fair, while the Communist Manifesto IS interesting as a historical text, it's also still a relevant text a century-and-a-half after it was written. Why is it still relevant? Because the analysis of capitalism, and of class that it gives, still fits. Other Marxist thinkers have expanded on it - most helpfully a chap called Weber introduced the idea that each class is loaded with different strata by which people differentiate themselves within the class - but the basis analysis is (as Ann used to say, "God help us!") still probably the most sound SHORT explanation out there.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Some of the contrived offence-taking, the unwarranted no-platforming, the abuse of the idea of safe spaces, the rejection of facts/logic/truth in favour of experience, the smearing of opponents as bigots, tone policing, etc., etc.. Basically all the really shit stuff from US student politics which seems to have infected much of what calls iteself the left here (though I wouldn't describe it that way).

Yep, it's hard to have a debate when you're abused for your privilege - and I'm quite willing to accept that as a white male in a society still dominated by patriarchy, I AM privileged - and denied the possibility of presenting your argument because a roomful of rather petty people have decided that you're somehow not worthy to present your argument, and act (very childishly) accordingly.

 

[Red Cat]

Yep, it's hard to have a debate when you're abused for your privilege - and I'm quite willing to accept that as a white male in a society still dominated by patriarchy, I AM privileged - and denied the possibility of presenting your argument because a roomful of rather petty people have decided that you're somehow not worthy to present your argument, and act (very childishly) accordingly.

I just don't think the idea that you're privileged is helpful to anyone.

 

[kabbes]

Remember early in the thread when I said that you can't have a discussion about this without also considering the nature of the society? And lots of people liked that post, which was presumably a tacit agreement. But it seems to me that here we are, ignoring the nature of the society.

This isn't industrial-capitalism, any more. It's consumer-capitalism. It makes a big difference to the way people define themselves and construct their identity, the way they interact, they way they make their politics. It also makes a huge difference to the nature of the dominant structures and mechanisms of control. It's still capitalism and the fundamental issues still apply. There are still owners of the means of production and those who are forced to deal with capital whilst not owning it. But analyses that rest on the idea of large manufacturing-style frequently-skilled forces of labour being a primary driver of the infrastructure are increasingly outdated. It's not how people think of themselves, it's not how they are treated or thought of by the agents of power and it's doesn't tell you truths about why or where the power is being propagated.

The change from industrial-capitalism to consumer-capitalism is encapsulated in the rise of neoliberalism and it explains why identity politics is popular and so useful to the owners of power. It explains why homophobia, misogyny and transphobia were so useful to power in the past but why now we have leaders of the Conservative party instituting gay marriage and trans rights. Focusing on industrial-capitalism alone won't explain that kind of change. And things do change, even whilst they also stay the same.

 

[Athos]

My point is that labour is and will be increasingly unnecessary for that manufacture.

And who will buy the products you've manufactured without labour, and with what will they pay for them?

 

[kabbes]

And who will but the products you've manufactured without labour, and with what will they pay for them?

That's the current crisis of consumer-capitalism in a nutshell. Who will? At the moment, there is either a fundamentalist belief that it will just somehow fix itself (via a magical load of new jobs that come from somewhere we can't imagine), or that we will institute universal income or some other mechanism will save us. Alternatively, there is a belief that this will be the crisis that breaks the current model. Take your choice, because one of those options must be true -- one thing we know for sure is that most current jobs are going obsolete in the coming decades.

 

[Athos]

Remember early in the thread when I said that you can't have a discussion about this without also considering the nature of the society? And lots of people liked that post, which was presumably a tacit agreement. But it seems to me that here we are, ignoring the nature of the society.

This isn't industrial-capitalism, any more. It's consumer-capitalism. It makes a big difference to the way people define themselves and construct their identity, the way they interact, they way they make their politics. It also makes a huge difference to the nature of the dominant structures and mechanisms of control. It's still capitalism and the fundamental issues still apply. There are still owners of the means of production and those who are forced to deal with capital whilst not owning it. But analyses that rest of the idea of large manufacturing-style frequently-skilled forces of labour being a primary driver of the infrastructure are increasingly outdated. It's not how people think of themselves, it's not how they are treated or thought of by the agents of power and it's doesn't tell you truths about why or where the power is being propagated.

The change from industrial-capitalism to consumer-capitalism is encapsulated in the rise of neoliberalism and it explains why identity politics is popular and so useful to the owners of power. It explains why homophobia, misogyny and transphobia were so useful to power in the past but why now we have leaders of the Conservative party instituting gay marriage and trans rights. Focusing on industrial-capitalism alone won't explain that kind of change. And things do change, even whilst they also stay the same.

Interesting. But presents a lot of questions! What is "the nature of society"? Where does it come from? What do you understand by the distinction between industrial and consumer capitalism? What shapes how people see themselves?

 

[friendofdorothy]

Good to have you back danny la rouge. Good post, this is a very interesting thread and has given me loads to think about.

 

[kabbes]

Interesting. But presents a lot of questions! What is "the nature of society"? Where does it come from? What do you understand by the distinction between industrial and consumer capitalism? What shapes how people see themselves?

I don't have time to go into that right now, but my earlier post already deals with some of those questions:

Is it even possible to discuss the types of politics in a society without including a discussion of the nature of that society itself?

From some point post industrial revolution until up until some time in the 1970s, Britain was an industrial society. One of the features of industrial societies is that people tend to define themselves by what they do, and the most important freedoms are political in nature (such as the right to unionise or to vote). It is therefore unsurprising that the chief politics coming out of an industrial society would be those relating to class analysis.

At some point from the 1970s onwards, however, Britain has moved towards being a consumer society. In consumer societies, people tend to define themselves by what they are into, which is associated with the consumption of goods and services being extensions of the self and identity being created via a magpie accumulation of these extensions. The most important freedoms derive from this identity-creation, meaning they are market freedoms (such as the right to choice). It is therefore unsurprising that the politics coming out of a consumer society would be those relating to identity analysis.

I'm not sure any of that clears any of the roadblocks discussed in this thread, but it is important context in understanding why those who have entirely grown up in a consumerist society might be dominated in thought by identity rather than class. It's axiomatic to their whole social ordering.

 

[friendofdorothy]

To be scrupulously fair, while the Communist Manifesto IS interesting as a historical text, it's also still a relevant text a century-and-a-half after it was written. Why is it still relevant? Because the analysis of capitalism, and of class that it gives, still fits. Other Marxist thinkers have expanded on it - most helpfully a chap called Weber introduced the idea that each class is loaded with different strata by which people differentiate themselves within the class - but the basis analysis is (as Ann used to say, "God help us!") still probably the most sound SHORT explanation out there.

maybe so, but like I said I don't want any more homework. I'm beginning to wonder if I did read it, back in the 80s, its possible - I read a lot of political stuff - if I did I must have pushed it aside. My memory is shocking. anyway I have no desire to revise it either.

 

[friendofdorothy]

There has been no change in the definition of working class.

Ever.

really? whats this unchanging definition then?

 

[Athos]

I don't have time to go into that right now, but my earlier post already deals with some of those questions:

Cool. I hope you'll come back to these points when you have more time.

 

[friendofdorothy]

For what it's worth, I can't really imagine that if society had transformed to the point where class privilege was gone because the structures maintaining class privilege were gone, there would be anything such as racism, sexism and homophobia left. Maybe in a small minority of people. There'll always be a small minority of people too stupid to get on well with other people.

Idealistic don't you think? I recall people arguing that after the revolution there wouldn't be any need for gay people to exist. But hey in this perfect classless future we can all imagine whatever we like.

I like to think the best of people - but I imagine there will always be people who like to fight and people who like to like to think they are superior to other people.

 

[Athos]

maybe so, but like I said I don't want any more homework. I'm beginning to wonder if I did read it, back in the 80s, its possible - I read a lot of political stuff - if I did I must have pushed it aside. My memory is shocking. anyway I have no desire to revise it either.

really? whats this unchanging definition then?

Isn't there a certain irony to asking a question immediately after declaring that you're not willing to look in the place you've been told contains the answer?!

 

[Athos]

I recall people arguing that after the revolution there would be any need for gay people to exist.

Who said that?!

You sure they weren't getting at the idea that there'd be no need for the category?

 

[Athos]

.... people who like to like to think they are superior to other people.

A slight aside, but some people are right to think that; depending on the metric, they are superior. (Between me and Usain Bolt, he's superior in the context of a 100m race.) But that isn't anathema to a classless society.

 

[danny la rouge]

A slight aside, but some people are right to think that; depending on the metric, they are superior. (Between me and Usain Bolt, he's superior in the context of a 100m race.) But that isn't anathema to a classless society.

Indeed. Some people appear to be confused about the distinction between equality and uniformity.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Who said that?!

You sure they weren't getting at the idea that there'd be no need for the category?

Sorry I was talking about the sort of thing I commonly heard from marxists in the 80s. Don't forget China, USSR and cuba all strictly outlawed homosexuality - not sure if sexual freedom was considered compatible with communism, that it was some bourgoisie expression of individuality? Any that was the idea I perceived back then. I'll see if I can find a quote.

Interestingly, last night I met an Stuart Feather, early member of the GLF, giving a talk about the start of the movement being brought to Uk by two students with marxist ideals. From his book Blowing the lid; gay liberation, sexual revolution and radical queens :

It saw itself as a gay peoples movement, socialist by virtue of it's demand for social change, revolutionary by virtue of it's recognition of the interconnected struggles of other oppressed minorities fighting for their own demands.

I asked him afterwards how other socialists and marxists reacted 'oh they hated us' he said.