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

[flypanam]

This Is Hell! | Beyond identity politics, and towards radical, collective action.

A very good interview with Asad Haider here.

 

[Sunset Tree]

flimsy as fuck, imo. Simple materialism v a straw man for five minutes, followed by ten minutes of irrelevance.

How is it a straw man if I have seen lots of people behave the way she is describing

I agree with belboid. Awful shallow waffly stuff and exactly what i hoped we weren't doing with this thread and wider critiques of identity politics. Its normalisation of alt-right term, it's ownership of them in fact is rank.

I've always hated the term SJW but I do think a lot of people use it as shorthand for liberal identity politics, without necessarily being alt-right.

 

[killer b]

they do, but it should still be resisted.

 

[elbows]

I've always hated the term SJW but I do think a lot of people use it as shorthand for liberal identity politics, without necessarily being alt-right.

On a note I consider to be strongly related, I would be interested in how, historically, people of the left were able to resist and critique liberalism without throwing a range of issues of social justice under the bus at the same time. Because I fear some of those lessons are being lost these days.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

This Is Hell! | Beyond identity politics, and towards radical, collective action.

A very good interview with Asad Haider here.

I'm listening to this. It is interesting, haven't got to the end yet.

 

[belboid]

"having no aims" is different to the issues they talk about (race sex disability) "not being important". I kind of agree that id-polers really do have no aims, other than to label everyone under an identity, and assign privilege points on that basis.

It certainly doesn't liberate anyone from anything.

I still don't know what end game they expect to happen because in practical terms it does nothing except alienate the vast majority of the population (and push them into the arms of the right.. cuz if you're not with us, you must be against us).

There is a part of the talk where she goes on about how capitalism doesn't need any of the other 'isms' (racism, sexism, etc), and that it would be just fine without them. And, while there is an abstract truth there, it doesn't tie in with reality very well. These ways of dividing the working class are too important to capital to be let go, so while she doesn't explicitly state these things are 'not important' she does diminish their importance.

 

[elbows]

Both the appropriation of alt-right language and transphobia are extremely dangerous poisons whose potential to do great harm are well beyond theoretical at this point. Apparently high levels of blindness towards transphobia have been keeping me up at night, sort it out or face terrible consequences in future.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

There is a part of the talk where she goes on about how capitalism doesn't need any of the other 'isms' (racism, sexism, etc), and that it would be just fine without them. And, while there is an abstract truth there, it doesn't tie in with reality very well. These ways of dividing the working class are too important to capital to be let go, so while she doesn't explicitly state these things are 'not important' she does diminish their importance.

Yeah and she also says that that part is "controversial" and she's talking theoretically. Theoretically, I think it's true, but also capitalism as you say, does divide the working class in this way and exploit them through sex/race/disablity etc.

That's not to say it doesn't matter or it's not important, I suppose it means that focusing solely on sex-race-disability whilst paying class lip service doesn't actually do much in defeating the structures.

 

[belboid]

How is it a straw man if I have seen lots of people behave the way she is describing

Because she lays out a very simplistic, lowest common denominator, version of identitarian politics. The one that's pretty easy to rebut. While I'm sure there are those who never go beyond that level, if we want a serious critique, we have to do so.

Would the argument she puts forward convince anyone who started from a position of disagreement? Unless they had never come across Marxism at all, I doubt there is anything there that would even make themselves question their beliefs in any way. It's a bit like rejecting socialism because you reject the practises of the SWP (for example).

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Angela Nagle goes on about the culture wars here:

This Is Hell! | The chaos of meaning is intentional: America's culture war logs on.

(from the same website flypanam posted)

It's very good.

And it does mention the crux of what is happening with modern id-pol.

Has Nagle been mentioned yet?

 

[Sunset Tree]

Well I did ask about Marx - ironically the one writer that waterstones never has in stock. Nevermind. I'll find Capital second hand somewhere buy it and then never read it.

You could try a reader first. Harvey's 'a companion to Marx's capital' and Cleaver's 'reading capital politically' are good. They present extracts and provide context, interpretation and explanation.

 

[Athos]

There is a part of the talk where she goes on about how capitalism doesn't need any of the other 'isms' (racism, sexism, etc), and that it would be just fine without them. And, while there is an abstract truth there, it doesn't tie in with reality very well. These ways of dividing the working class are too important to capital to be let go, so while she doesn't explicitly state these things are 'not important' she does diminish their importance.

That'd be my biggest criticism of it; baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Toast Rider]

You could try a reader first. Harvey's 'a companion to Marx's capital' and Cleaver's 'reading capital politically' are good. They present extracts and provide context, interpretation and explanation.

I've been watching Harvey's stuff (well the first video) but his class is really intended as a readalong - you'd need to read the text as well. Not just watch his videos instead

 

[Edie]

Angela Nagle goes on about the culture wars here:

This Is Hell! | The chaos of meaning is intentional: America's culture war logs on.

(from the same website flypanam posted)

It's very good.

And it does mention the crux of what is happening with modern id-pol.

Has Nagle been mentioned yet?

Wow, that’s fascinating

 

[Edie]

When people here are talking about IDpol, does that roughly map on to what the alt-right would call SJWs?

 

[belboid]

Angela Nagle goes on about the culture wars here:

This Is Hell! | The chaos of meaning is intentional: America's culture war logs on.

(from the same website flypanam posted)

It's very good.

And it does mention the crux of what is happening with modern id-pol.

Has Nagle been mentioned yet?

Somewhat dubious (to say the least) about her after the terrible quality of Kill All Normies.

For a critique of 'privilege checking' I think this piece works far better. It is actually materialist, and also recognises that the majority of people becoming involved in 'identity politics' are doing so for radical reasons, because they reject (at least one aspect of) bourgeois society and want to radically change it. The mechanisms they choose are unlikely to achieve their aims, but they still start from a position of wanting to change the world. Which we should encourage.

The politics of privilege-checking

(I was considering posting the article before, but I hoped I could catch some bugger out by dropping the Lenin quote in somewhere, unattributed, and so delayed doing so)

 

[belboid]

When people here are talking about IDpol, does that roughly map on to what the alt-right would call SJWs?

It means whatever the user wants it to mean. That's one of the bloody problems.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It means whatever the user wants it to mean. That's one of the bloody problems.

I’m not saying theory isn’t needed but you can be such a dismissive cunt at times. Dare I say you can learn as much from Edie as you can Gramsci. A genuine prole with their ear to the ground is worth a thousand stuffy lectures.
And it’s not as if these books are taking us anywhere fast in their own, is it?

 

[belboid]

I’m not saying theory isn’t needed but you can be such a dismissive cunt at times. Dare I say you can learn as much from Edie as you can Gramsci. A genuine prole with their ear to the ground is worth a thousand stuffy lectures.
And it’s not as if these books are taking us anywhere fast in their own, is it?

I’m not dismissing anything Edie said at all. ID politics is defined in umpteen different ways, various campaigns are or aren’t ID politics according to different campaigners. Which can easily lead to confusions and disagreements based on misunderstandings. Some of which seem quite deliberate.

 

[The39thStep]

Somewhat dubious (to say the least) about her after the terrible quality of Kill All Normies.

For a critique of 'privilege checking' I think this piece works far better. It is actually materialist, and also recognises that the majority of people becoming involved in 'identity politics' are doing so for radical reasons, because they reject (at least one aspect of) bourgeois society and want to radically change it. The mechanisms they choose are unlikely to achieve their aims, but they still start from a position of wanting to change the world. Which we should encourage.

The politics of privilege-checking

(I was considering posting the article before, but I hoped I could catch some bugger out by dropping the Lenin quote in somewhere, unattributed, and so delayed doing so)

I was going to buy that on Kindle this week. No good?

 

[Sunset Tree]

When people here are talking about IDpol, does that roughly map on to what the alt-right would call SJWs?

I think it does roughly. Some alt-right types will call anybody on the left an SJW. But I feel most of the SJW-hate online is directed at the most extreme idpol stereotypes.

So many alt-right tropes are based on characterising the left as SJW's who think all white people are evil/racist/privileged, who tally up oppression points based on identities, complain about cultural appropriation... it isn't class-based arguments getting mocked, it's idpol. Which they present as being what left-wing politics is all about

 

[Sunset Tree]

I was going to buy that on Kindle this week. No good?

I keep meaning to read this. A lot of people on twitter were annoyed that she treats both sides as part of the same phenomenon, rather than being clear that the alt-right are the bad guys.

 

[The39thStep]

I keep meaning to read this. A lot of people on twitter were annoyed that she treats both sides as part of the same phenomenon, rather than being clear that the alt-right are the bad guys.

I could live with that if its a useful read tbh. I have my own views.

 

[Sunset Tree]

Because she lays out a very simplistic, lowest common denominator, version of identitarian politics. The one that's pretty easy to rebut. While I'm sure there are those who never go beyond that level, if we want a serious critique, we have to do so.

Would the argument she puts forward convince anyone who started from a position of disagreement? Unless they had never come across Marxism at all, I doubt there is anything there that would even make themselves question their beliefs in any way. It's a bit like rejecting socialism because you reject the practises of the SWP (for example).

Meant to reply to this. What if that simplistic lowest common denominator version is what most people encounter? Her presentation of idpol is how I've seen it in the wild, often very crude privilege theory. I'm sure there are people out there practicing more nuanced and intelligent intersectional analysis but her video may appeal to people who've seen the really shit stuff and would welcome a rebuttal. The shit stuff is everywhere.

 

[Sunset Tree]

I could live with that if its a useful read tbh. I have my own views.

My thoughts also. Plan to read it when I get time.

 

[The39thStep]

My thoughts also. Plan to read it when I get time.

Ok, we can swap notes

 

[Edie]

Meant to reply to this. What if that simplistic lowest common denominator version is what most people encounter? Her presentation of idpol is how I've seen it in the wild, often very crude privilege theory. I'm sure there are people out there practicing more nuanced and intelligent intersectional analysis but her video may appeal to people who've seen the really shit stuff and would welcome a rebuttal. The shit stuff is everywhere.

I think there’s a lot in that. I appreciate what belboid is saying, and some of what she says isn’t nuanced and yeah, I get that it sounds like a badly edited teenager essay now it’s been pointed out.

But on the other hand it’s genuinely one of the first videos I’ve watched that tries to pull an argument together against this IDPol shit from a left perspective and not an alt-right one. So I don’t care if it’s wobbly or shonky at least it’s a start!

 

[Edie]

Sunset Tree why can’t I PM you?

 

[Edie]

I think a lot of what Nagle said in that radio show made sense and linked into what she was saying too. That the IDpol/SJW "movement with no name" is really annoying, the way that virtue-signalling is used, the bullying that results from that, the shaming of people who haven't come across the ideas before, or misuse the language, is a kind of elitism. Elitist language, elitist ideas. You see it here about the trans stuff, people genuinely not knowing if trans woman is one word or two and getting told/shamed that they are a bigot if they get it wrong ffs. And there seems to me something shifty about the leverage of that kind of thinking to gain "identity points", like that Pips Bunce character.

Its no wonder the alt-right revel in taking it down with irony and humour and rage. It needs opposing just not from those cunts. But I think Nagle is right when she says that the rise of the right in the young can be seen (and easily missed if your not in that bubble) in the alt-right stuff online. And some way of challenging that needs to be found cos it IS difficult to get passed the irony as a weapon, joking-not-joking stuff.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

I was going to buy that on Kindle this week. No good?

All books are worth reading. Fwiw it describes what I saw play out online when hanging on those circles pretty closely.