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

[ViolentPanda]

I've always struggled with the ever changing definitions of class. never known how it applies to me or people I know. If its not at all about privilege then I'm completely lost.

Perhaps I do I need to do homework or have a degree in politics to join in any p&p thread.

I don't have a degree in politics - although my degrees are in subjects just as useless as politics - but I do have a basic understanding that Marx said that the further you are from the means of production, the more exposed you are to the vagaries of capitalism.
Marx posited 3 classes: Those who own the means of production; the bourgeoisie - the managerial and merchant class, and the proletariat - the workers. Any definition of class outwith the above is a re-definition of class, the most notorious being the repeated attempts by governments to define class by education and/or occupation, rather than by distance from the means of production.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As thread is moved on. The blame Capitlism for everything thing tendancy. Risible.

Marx might be useful still. Certainly in terms of economic class relations. But cleaving to his words, looking at everything through a Marxian lense. Jam tomorrow if we could just destroy capitalism. What of fudelism and other systems. What and by whom' are these systems enforced. Power, hirearchies don't just disappear. Just as they didn't emerge in the 17th Century.

Marxism is merely a set of analytical tools.

The fact that those tools are more apt for analysis of the current phase of neo-liberalism than say, for example, the set of analytical tools that Keynesianism gave us, doesn't mean that "capitalism is to blame for everything", but it does show us that - wittingly or not - capitalism is allowed to infiltrate every node of modern economic thought, and we - as critics - need to bear this in mind. The set of tools Marx gave us, helps us do that.

 

[Athos]

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

At the risk of 'no true scotsman', I can't see a Marxist justification for homophobia, and the states you mention had little to do with communism.

 

[friendofdorothy]

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?!

So the definition of the working class is the same as the proletariat and has not in anyway changed or been adapted since Marx? Is this generally agreed upon nowadays?

thanks ViolentPanda I think maybe its not only govt who want to define class by occupation / education. Seems to me lots of people use 'working class' as a self definition because of family history or culture.

 

[friendofdorothy]

As thread is moved on. The blame Capitlism for everything thing tendancy. Risible.

Marx might be useful still. Certainly in terms of economic class relations. But cleaving to his words, looking at everything through a Marxian lense. Jam tomorrow if we could just destroy capitalism. What of fudelism and other systems. What and by whom' are these systems enforced. Power, hirearchies don't just disappear. Just as they didn't emerge in the 17th Century.

I agree.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

I almost agree with you. I think that people should consider whether they're speaking from a position of privilege, but I don't think that - as has been the case with a majority of identitypolitickers I've met up until now - it should be the primary focus of whether your contribution to a debate or an organisation is "valid". I think "privilege" should be a matter of individual reflection, not a template that is pasted to us so that contributions can be invalidated or silenced.

 

[Athos]

So the definition of the working class is the same as the proletariat and has not in anyway changed or been adapted since Marx? Is this generally agreed upon nowadays?

Nothing is uncontentious, and there's lots of nuance missing, but yes, in essence, that's right: Marxists define the working class (and other classes) based upon where they stand in relation to the means of production.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

The best threads do. I'm still being educated every day I'm on the boards.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Colour me unsurprised. It seems to me that historically, political purists who can't find an analysis of queer liberation in their source texts or in their upbringing, tend to fall back on reactionary thinking - the very thing they avoid in other circumstances.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I almost agree with you. I think that people should consider whether they're
speaking from a position of privilege, but I don't think that - as has been the case with a majority of identitypolitickers I've met up until now - it should be the primary focus of whether your contribution to a debate or an organisation is "valid". I think "privilege" should be a matter of individual reflection, not a template that is pasted to us so that contributions can be invalidated or silenced.

I agree with the parts emboldened. I do have and am more privileged than other people around me/globally, just as there are many for x, y, z reason that are more privileged than me...I am not scared of reflecting on and unpacking that... My hope is that others can do that also as I feel these discussions and any attempts at 'revolution/solidarity' will never lead to any real learning or change if as individuals we don't do the 'personal' work.

In which contexts have you met idpolitickers of the kind you are referring to? I can't say I ever have. The expression 'check your priviledge' is completely an online thing for me as, in person, IME people are much more forthcoming in discussing contextual inequalities and the reasons why some of us are more of less priviledged more fully.

 

[friendofdorothy]

The best threads do. I'm still being educated every day I'm on the boards.

its mostly why I joined U75 - I realised my involvement in /knowledge of politics somewhat fizzled out in the 90s, when it mostly hinged around opposing Thatcher/ism. I'm looking to you lot to educate me. (but no homework - please!)

 

[ViolentPanda]

So the definition of the working class is the same as the proletariat and has not in anyway changed or been adapted since Marx? Is this generally agreed upon nowadays?

It's changed in the type of worker it encompasses - we don't have scriveners nowadays, for example! - but it's unchanged in what it means in terms of the relationship of the working class to the means of production. Marx never set down a list of what jobs or professions were "proletarian", but he did make clear that if your only means of having the necessary money to feed yourself and your family was through selling your labour to someone who would make a profit on the transaction, then you were a worker.

thanks ViolentPanda I think maybe its not only govt who want to define class by occupation / education. Seems to me lots of people use 'working class' as a self definition because of family history or culture.

I'd say that people defining themselves misses the point, which is that however you choose to define yourself, capitalism allocates you - sometimes unknown to you - a position in society. Your position within the social strata of a class may change, but it's rare that your distance from the means of production decreases. I could call myself "middle class" because I'm well-educated, but I live on benefits, on a council estate. My education hasn't changed my distance from the means of production, so factually I'm still "working class".

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree with the parts emboldened. I do have and am more privileged than other people around me/globally, just as there are many for x, y, z reason that are more privileged than me...I am not scared of reflecting on and unpacking that... My hope is that others can do that also as I feel these discussions and any attempts at 'revolution/solidarity' will never lead to any real learning or change if as individuals we don't do the 'personal' work.

In which contexts have you met idpolitickers of the kind you are referring to? I can't say I ever have. The expression 'check your priviledge' is completely an online thing for me as, in person, IME people are much more forthcoming in discussing contextual inequalities and the reasons why some of us are more of less priviledged more fully.

Local party-political meetings. I won't name and shame the local Labour branches (one in N. London, one in S. London) where I've experienced this in the last 12 months, but both times this was a tactic by new Labour loyalists to shut down discussion regarding reform. What was I doing at Labour meetings? Homework. I wanted to see how involved branches were in forwarding the Corbyn agenda, and what I saw from my small sample was a bunch of established members exerting privilege over newer members by using identitypolitics to shut them down.

To be honest, that's not exactly a new tactic. I saw exactly the same thing in Lambeth from a small minority of people way back in the '80s - "your view is invalid because you're not queer"; "your view is invalid because you're not black"; "your view is invalid because you're not visibly disabled" etc. The cause of such utterances were ALWAYS the same: Someone building a power base, or attempting to preserve a power base, wanting to close down alternative thought. It's why I have little time for some of the politicians and activists produced by that era - I remember them pulling this shit then, and then going on to act in a totally different way when they got a sniff of power beyond local govt. Oh how biddable Paul Boateng became, and how quickly he dropped his boss and mentor Rudy Narayan when he became a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate!!

 

[BigTom]

I agree with the parts emboldened. I do have and am more privileged than other people around me/globally, just as there are many for x, y, z reason that are more privileged than me...I am not scared of reflecting on and unpacking that... My hope is that others can do that also as I feel these discussions and any attempts at 'revolution/solidarity' will never lead to any real learning or change if as individuals we don't do the 'personal' work.

In which contexts have you met idpolitickers of the kind you are referring to? I can't say I ever have. The expression 'check your priviledge' is completely an online thing for me as, in person, IME people are much more forthcoming in discussing contextual inequalities and the reasons why some of us are more of less priviledged more fully.

Some of the (then) students that I did anti-cuts activism with grew into IDpolitics (most of them I think really) and I did hear this in real life from some of them, although i would agree that it's waaaay more prevalent online.

 

[snadge]

really? whats this unchanging definition then?

Workers under salaried supervision. Has been for a long time.

 

[andysays]

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

Yes.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is hopefully possible in our discussions here to avoid gross oversimplification of the sort which is parodied (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) as simply "it's capitalism's fault, innit?"

The issue which I was trying to get an understanding from a Marxist perspective of how the social/sexual norms of the nuclear family, including "traditional" gender roles, which were established and achieved dominance because they were appropriate or necessary to the material conditions of early capitalism still endure today when those material conditions have hugely changed and are arguably no longer appropriate or necessary.

And thanks to BigTom's recalling what Marx said about the choices of the dead lying like a nightmare on the brain of the living, I feel I have now got a better, albeit not perfect understanding.

This may not be the thread to continue this discussion, or certainly not the bit about whether material conditions have changed so much that traditional gender roles are necessary to the continuance of capitalism, so unless anyone else desperately wants to carry on with it, I'm happy to leave it there.

 

[Red Cat]

I almost agree with you. I think that people should consider whether they're speaking from a position of privilege, but I don't think that - as has been the case with a majority of identitypolitickers I've met up until now - it should be the primary focus of whether your contribution to a debate or an organisation is "valid". I think "privilege" should be a matter of individual reflection, not a template that is pasted to us so that contributions can be invalidated or silenced.

But the categories you find yourself placed in are only part of your experience; that you're a white man doesn't tell me much about you at all does it?

So this idea of privilege then, in recognising multiple structural inequalities, we ought to consider how we benefit from this - is this in the sense that as a white woman I don't encounter racism, it's something I can take for granted if I'm not consciously encouraging myself to be aware of my possible conscious and unconscious racism in imagining my life is the human norm, so I have an advantage there, and ought to be mindful of that (and of course I am ) or that I actually benefit from racism, that because I am white I benefit directly in terms of having more of the pie as a consequence of some people having less due to racism, my racism.

Is this where ID politics and class politics differs? Racism and sexism would be seen as benefiting capital, divide and rule benefits them but it is not seen to benefit the working class. ID politics suggest we are all implicated, responsible for these oppressions.

 

[Athos]

In which contexts have you met idpolitickers of the kind you are referring to? I can't say I ever have. The expression 'check your priviledge' is completely an online thing for me as, in person, IME people are much more forthcoming in discussing contextual inequalities and the reasons why some of us are more of less priviledged more fully.

It happens here, a lot. The ID pol crowd try to shut down discussion by reference to the 'identity' of the poster. Not always thorough an explicit call to "check your privilege", but in other ways, including much of the egregious behaviour I mentioned earlier.

 

[Athos]

Yes, it is hopefully possible in our discussions here to avoid gross oversimplification of the sort which is parodied (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) as simply "it's capitalism's fault, innit?"

The issue which I was trying to get an understanding from a Marxist perspective of how the social/sexual norms of the nuclear family, including "traditional" gender roles, which were established and achieved dominance because they were appropriate or necessary to the material conditions of early capitalism still endure today when those material conditions have hugely changed and are arguably no longer appropriate or necessary.

But isn't your framing of the issue an oversimplification, too? To me, it implies a crude, deterministic, one-way, linear and lag-free relationship in time.

To do the subject justice, you're probably right that it can't be dealt with on this thread.

 

[andysays]

But isn't your framing of the issue an oversimplification, too? To me, it implies a crude, deterministic, one-way, linear and lag-free relationship in time.

To do the subject justice, you're probably right that it can't be dealt with on this thread.

I'm trying to avoid suggesting a crude, deterministic, one-way, linear and time lag-free relationship, but I'll happily accept that I've failed to convey that.

Still trying to work out a conception of the relationship in my own head, so my postings here are not in anyway intended as definitive. I hoped that others might be willing to help me in my working out, and your responses came across (at least to me) as dismissive rather than helpful, hence my reaction. Apologies if I was mistaken in that.

 

[Athos]

I'm trying to avoid suggesting a crude, deterministic, one-way, linear and time lag-free relationship, but I'll happily accept that I've failed to convey that.

Still trying to work out a conception of the relationship in my own head, so my postings here are not in anyway intended as definitive. I hoped that others might be willing to help me in my working out, and your responses came across (at least to me) as dismissive rather than helpful, hence my reaction. Apologies if I was mistaken in that.

I wasn't trying to dismiss your (or anyone's) opinions, but I was keen not to get too bogged down in that detail, on this thread. Which is why I over-simplified, and acknowledged that I was doing so, with passing reference to some of the subtleties.

 

[emanymton]

Yes.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is hopefully possible in our discussions here to avoid gross oversimplification of the sort which is parodied (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) as simply "it's capitalism's fault, innit?"

The issue which I was trying to get an understanding from a Marxist perspective of how the social/sexual norms of the nuclear family, including "traditional" gender roles, which were established and achieved dominance because they were appropriate or necessary to the material conditions of early capitalism still endure today when those material conditions have hugely changed and are arguably no longer appropriate or necessary.

And thanks to BigTom's recalling what Marx said about the choices of the dead lying like a nightmare on the brain of the living, I feel I have now got a better, albeit not perfect understanding.

This may not be the thread to continue this discussion, or certainly not the bit about whether material conditions have changed so much that traditional gender roles are necessary to the continuance of capitalism, so unless anyone else desperately wants to carry on with it, I'm happy to leave it there.

I don't completely disagree, I put a fairly long post up on the transgender thread, touching on some of this, but it is still a massive oversimplification. Partialy this is due to my very limited knowledge and understanding. But the ideas being discussed are complex, and I don't think any post of a few hundred words can be anything other than a bit of a simplification. Also at the risk of being pretentious, as a medium this place is focused on discussed. People's arguments and positions will be shaped by the discussion with others, they will grow and develop based on what others say in response. I don't think having a completely worked out position in advance is necessary. I'd post nothing if it was.

A few years ago I did some reading on the problem of functional explanations in historical materialism. Essentially the problem of saying something exists because of the function it performs. But without being able to really explain how it come about in the absence of a conscious actor.

I'm doing a course for work at the moment and have an exam in a couple of weeks. Once that is out of the way, I could revist some of the stuff I read and start a thread if anyone would be interested??

 

[andysays]

I don't completely disagree, I put a fairly long post up on the transgender thread, touching on some of this, but it is still a massive oversimplification. Partialy this is due to my very limited knowledge and understanding. But the ideas being discussed are complex, and I don't think any post of a few hundred words can be anything other than a bit of a simplification. Also at the risk of being pretentious, as a medium this place is focused on discussed. People's arguments and positions will be shaped by the discussion with others, they will grow and develop based on what others say in response. I don't think having a completely worked out position in advance is necessary. I'd post nothing if it was.

A few years ago I did some reading on the problem of functional explanations in historical materialism. Essentially the problem of saying something exists because of the function it performs. But without being able to really explain how it come about in the absence of a conscious actor.

I'm doing a course for work at the moment and have an exam in a couple of weeks. Once that is out of the way, I could revist some of the stuff I read and start a thread if anyone would be interested??

I agree that this place is or should be founded on discussion, though sometimes it can be difficult to unpick the useful discussion from all the other shit (and I'm as guilty of adding to the other shit as anyone).

Good luck with the exams; I for one would be interested in that discussion if you are interested in starting a thread when the time is right.

 

[Athos]

I agree that this place is or should be founded on discussion, though sometimes it can be difficult to unpick the useful discussion from all the other shit (and I'm as guilty of adding to the other shit as anyone).

Good luck with the exams; I for one would be interested in that discussion if you are interested in starting a thread when the time is right.

Me too, emanymton.

 

[emanymton]

I agree that this place is or should be founded on discussion, though sometimes it can be difficult to unpick the useful discussion from all the other shit (and I'm as guilty of adding to the other shit as anyone).

Good luck with the exams; I for one would be interested in that discussion if you are interested in starting a thread when the time is right.

Me too, emanymton.

Ok, it will have to wait a few weeks, but I will put something together to kick the discussion off.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

"your view is invalid because you're not queer"; "your view is invalid because you're not black"; "your view is invalid because you're not visibly disabled" etc. The cause of such utterances were ALWAYS the same: Someone building a power base, or attempting to preserve a power base, wanting to close down alternative thought.

not quite sure what you're saying here.

i agree that it's not constructive for anyone to say "your view is not valid" or to try and close down alternative thought

but that's just what seems to be happening too much - white straight cis males trying to tell minorities that their view isn't valid because their politics is somehow less sound.

for example i (as a white male) can be against racism, but i don't think i've got the right to tell black people what they should think, or to say that their experience of being on the receiving end of racism isn't valid...

 

[Treacle Toes]

I think this thread's gone a bit muddled as defining ID politics goal posts seem to be shifting. I don't like the US wheel of oppression stuff. But to answer your question.

not that I'm exactly politically active as such. But where issues of wider solidarity, general rights, workers rights, of course I'd like to see all sections of the working class cooperating.

In areas of specific points of discrimination, it's necessary and sensible for groups facing a particular oppression, to take the lead on combatting it; To be the prime voice directing efforts to combat said oppression. That just seems self evident, the experience of those facing racisms, sexism, disablism etc. Ideally though, with a recognition that the bedrock of power relations is often the class position.

Conflicts may arise between these 2 approaches, or attitudes. i.e. the old board room representation argument. I'm afraid I'm not going to waste much effort in arguing for better representation in board rooms but I'm not going to attack an a discriminated against individual fighting their corner in that arina either.

As thread is moved on. The blame Capitlism for everything thing tendancy. Risible.

Marx might be useful still. Certainly in terms of economic class relations. But cleaving to his words, looking at everything through a Marxian lense. Jam tomorrow if we could just destroy capitalism. What of fudelism and other systems. What and by whom' are these systems enforced. Power, hirearchies don't just disappear. Just as they didn't emerge in the 17th Century.

Thanks for this response xenon .

I asked you to expand more because you listed your own identity and life characteristics and said you don't think the class based approach offers much on a practical level...I really am interested in what approaches do seem or have been more effective to people in this regard.

from my own perspective, as a disabled person, allbeit be Working class. Discrimination, in the form of employment prospects, social attitudes, can't really be tackled by deferring to Marxion Analysis. Not on any practical level anyway.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But the categories you find yourself placed in are only part of your experience; that you're a white man doesn't tell me much about you at all does it?

So this idea of privilege then, in recognising multiple structural inequalities, we ought to consider how we benefit from this - is this in the sense that as a white woman I don't encounter racism, it's something I can take for granted if I'm not consciously encouraging myself to be aware of my possible conscious and unconscious racism in imagining my life is the human norm, so I have an advantage there, and ought to be mindful of that (and of course I am ) or that I actually benefit from racism, that because I am white I benefit directly in terms of having more of the pie as a consequence of some people having less due to racism, my racism.

I totally take your point, and of course other facets of our identity tell us as much or more about a person as their skin colour, but it's a historical truth in the west that white skin has most often been privileged over other shades. It's also the case that there has, since empire began been a case of indirect benefit derived from racism - not something you and I could actually do much - if anything - about, but it's another issue to consider.

This is where - again IMO - the use of intersectionality as an analytical tool, free from the claims of identitypolitics, comes in handy. We don't and shouldn't use the analysis as a way of "scoring" who is the most oppressed, but should use it to analyse how particular intersections of identities might suffer more structural racism/sexism/other-ism than others, to give us data to inform how we might alter the structures and/or ameliorate the problems caused.

Is this where ID politics and class politics differs? Racism and sexism would be seen as benefiting capital, divide and rule benefits them but it is not seen to benefit the working class. ID politics suggest we are all implicated, responsible for these oppressions.

Indirectly, we're implicated, through history. Are we responsible, though? No we're not. Those who committed the actual crimes and derived direct benefit/continue to derive direct benefit are responsible. Class politics, as an over-arching philosophy, tell us this.

 

[Red Cat]

I totally take your point, and of course other facets of our identity tell us as much or more about a person as their skin colour, but it's a historical truth in the west that white skin has most often been privileged over other shades. It's also the case that there has, since empire began been a case of indirect benefit derived from racism - not something you and I could actually do much - if anything - about, but it's another issue to consider.

This is where - again IMO - the use of intersectionality as an analytical tool, free from the claims of identitypolitics, comes in handy. We don't and shouldn't use the analysis as a way of "scoring" who is the most oppressed, but should use it to analyse how particular intersections of identities might suffer more structural racism/sexism/other-ism than others, to give us data to inform how we might alter the structures and/or ameliorate the problems caused.



Indirectly, we're implicated, through history. Are we responsible, though? No we're not. Those who committed the actual crimes and derived direct benefit/continue to derive direct benefit are responsible. Class politics, as an over-arching philosophy, tell us this.

I'm perfectly aware of why you or I are thought to be privileged in terms of some the categories in which we find ourselves and I've been clear I think that I try to be mindful of that.

But isn't there a question here about what we mean by structural racism/sexism/other-ism? If structural also means the interpersonal relationships between people on the level of the individual then does ID politics becomes the logical conclusion?

btw these are open questions, not just meant for you to respond to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm perfectly aware of why you or I are thought to be privileged in terms of some the categories in which we find ourselves and I've been clear I think that I try to be mindful of that.

But isn't there a question here about what we mean by structural racism/sexism/other-ism? If structural also means the interpersonal relationships between people on the level of the individual then does ID politics becomes the logical conclusion?

btw these are open questions, not just meant for you to respond to.

I know.

IME "structural" tends to mean those habits (of the ruling and bureaucratic classes) that have accumulated into institutions, and have become - although often not recognised as such - practices, as well as those practices imposed by capitalism that have the functional effect of dividing people into binary categories, with those practices having "real world" effects across and within populations.

While I'm convinced that structural effects can exert influence on interpersonal relationships - "no man is an island..." and all that - I'm not convinced that structure captures the world of interpersonal relationships. The very fact that interpersonal relationships are individual does put some distance between what are individual choices (albeit influenced by structure) to relate to and interact with others, and the nature of structure itself - accretions of practices shaped by the exercise of power.

I hope that makes sense.