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

[redsquirrel]

I don't want this to become a "just seen this on XXX" thread but I really couldn't let this pass without comment

'If it was Lehman Sisters, it would be a different world' – Christine Lagarde

Lagarde called the collapse of Lehman Brothers a “sobering lesson in groupthink” that many economists had failed to spot coming. In this context, she said a key ingredient of reform would be more female leadership in finance.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of the regressive nature of identity politics.

 

[likesfish]

Trying to destroy the nuclear family is an utterly unachievable goal getting the army not to kick Gays out achievable and happened.


You can be as radical and righteous as you like but if you don't actually achieve anything what's the point?

Greenham common big marches lots of noise but the missiles were removed because Reagan and Goby decided mutually limit the number of intermediate nuclear weapons. Which was a way better plan than unilateral disarmament.

 

[kabbes]

Trying to destroy the nuclear family is an utterly unachievable goal getting the army not to kick Gays out achievable and happened.


You can be as radical and righteous as you like but if you don't actually achieve anything what's the point?

Greenham common big marches lots of noise but the missiles were removed because Reagan and Goby decided mutually limit the number of intermediate nuclear weapons. Which was a way better plan than unilateral disarmament.

You think politicians would have cared about mutual disarmament had there not been lots of marches and noise?

 

[belboid]

Trying to destroy the nuclear family is an utterly unachievable goal getting the army not to kick Gays out achievable and happened.

It's already being destroyed by modern capitalism. It's only been around a couple of hundred years, so there's no reason at all as to why it won't disappear.

You can be as radical and righteous as you like but if you don't actually achieve anything what's the point?

Greenham common big marches lots of noise but the missiles were removed because Reagan and Goby decided mutually limit the number of intermediate nuclear weapons. Which was a way better plan than unilateral disarmament.

as kabbes points out, their decision came partly due to pressure from protestors. It's not an either/or situation

 

[likesfish]

The Soviets didn't gulag for you if you complained

 

[DotCommunist]

need a vital comma there.

 

[danny la rouge]

need a vital comma there.

Better still: a colon.

 

[Shechemite]

The Soviets didn't gulag for you if you complained

Bastards made you gulag yourself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Better still: a colon.

Or even the lesser-spotted semi-... I'd do a Hemmingway and make it a full stop. Short. Pithy.

On reflection... given the author... screaming at us through scattered thoughts... maybe an ellipsis...

 

[kabbes]

The Soviets didn't gulag for you if you complained

And that’s why the Soviet empire still exists to this day.

 

[mojo pixy]

'If it was Lehman Sisters, it would be a different world' – Christine Lagarde

Saw this and thought of that

 

[Sunset Tree]

 

[butchersapron]

This cunt cheers on the regime barrel bombing and chemical attacks on working class syrians. He is part of the problem.

Still got your account on here eddie?

 

[Sunset Tree]

This cunt cheers on the regime barrel bombing and chemical attacks on working class syrians. He is part of the problem.

Still got your account on here eddie?

Tbh I didn't know who that guy is, someone on my TL retweeted it, linking tweet was just quickest way to share the comic

 

[belboid]

Tbh I didn't know who that guy is, someone on my TL retweeted it, linking tweet was just quickest way to share the comic

Why? It's still a shit cartoon by an idiot.

 

[Sunset Tree]

Why? It's still a shit cartoon by an idiot.

I've read your posts on the terf thread so will take this with a pinch of salt since you've gone down the idpol rabbit hole yourself

 

[belboid]

I've read your posts on the terf thread so will take this with a pinch of salt since you've gone down the idpol rabbit hole yourself

Why? You are the buffoon buying the right wing false dichotomy. The nonsense polarisation between identity politics and 'the working class' is the poison. Bigotry has always been used to split the working class, and you are buying into it.

 

[Sunset Tree]

Why? You are the buffoon buying the right wing false dichotomy. The nonsense polarisation between identity politics and 'the working class' is the poison. Bigotry has always been used to split the working class, and you are buying into it.

Yes anyone disagreeing with you are buffoons taken in by right wing propaganda, nice insight into your mindset

 

[belboid]

no, anyone who says 'IdPol,' quotes shit cartoons from arseholes, and poses a false dichotomy between liberation politics and working class politics is a buffoon.

 

[Sunset Tree]

false dichotomy between liberation politics and working class politics is a buffoon.

Given the thread you are posting on, you must think a lot of people are buffoons

 

[belboid]

Given the thread you are posting on, you must think a lot of people are buffoons

No, most participants have developed an argument. I'm afraid I don't believe you have. You're not the only one, but you are the latest.

 

[Sunset Tree]

No, most participants have developed an argument. I'm afraid I don't believe you have. You're not the only one, but you are the latest.

I've made loads of posts on this thread where I've developed an argument. Your argument, that the divisions on the left around idpol are based on a false dichotomy posed by buffoons fooled by right-wing propaganda, is weak and elitist.

 

[Sunset Tree]

Same shtick on the terf thread too. Everyone has been duped by terf propaganda, nobody can think for themselves but me.

 

[belboid]

Same shtick on the terf thread too. Everyone has been duped by terf propaganda, nobody can think for themselves but me.

Duped? No. Just wrong. imo.

Your cartoon was/is shit. Identity politics isn't a development of neo-liberalism, it is a development of capitalism (as is the working class). The two go hand in hand, to try to seperate them is false and leads down dangerous paths, that allow misogyny and other kinds of bigotry divide us.

 

[Sunset Tree]

Identity politics isn't a development of neo-liberalism

This is just wrong. And nobody is trying to separate neoliberalism from capitalism, how could you?

Going back to the OP:

“Roots of this can be found in neoliberalism and its agenda of dissolving society into individuals and commodities. Of course, neoliberalism does not dissolve classes within production or the division of labour, but it dissolves the political potential of the working class through the individualisation of class. Which is why the left of today, in its inability to cope with the complete destruction of its historical counterpart through the 20th century, has decided to turn towards ideology and strategies of the far right, with its emphasis on the individual, its identity, ethnic romanticism and defence of culture and has replaced the class with it. The class interest of the working class is not what drives the left politics of today as the working class is viewed mainly as one of the ‘underdog’ identities.”

This is what I am talking about with identity politics and neoliberalism. In your view there should be no polarisation between working class politics and identity politics, as this is just 'buying into a right-wing false dichotomy' and 'anyone who poses this false dichotomy is a buffoon'. I disagree although I won't drop to your level of superiority and name-calling.

 

[belboid]

This is just wrong. And nobody is trying to separate neoliberalism from capitalism, how could you?

Going back to the OP:



This is what I am talking about with identity politics and neoliberalism. In your view there should be no polarisation between working class politics and identity politics, as this is just 'buying into a right-wing false dichotomy' and 'anyone who poses this false dichotomy is a buffoon'. I disagree although I won't drop to your level of superiority and name-calling.

Except you did, but hey ho.

Capitalism predates neo-liberalism, which is why it is far more accurate to say capitalism created ID politics, than it is to claim neo-liberalism created ID politics.

As to the OP. It's wrong. Or, at least, ahistorical and overly simplistic. The rugged individualism of capitalism isn't a recent creation, it is one of the bedrocks of bourgeois philosophy. Revolutionary socialism is about ending oppression as well as exploitation, we can't do that if we don't recognise how sexism and racism are inbuilt into the system, an inherent part of it that cannot be separated.

 

[Sunset Tree]

Revolutionary socialism is about ending oppression as well as exploitation, we can't do that if we don't recognise how sexism and racism are inbuilt into the system

And I don't think identity politics does this, not as I've seen it manifest, hence why it is incompatible with socialist thinking. You're denying a conflict exists despite the fact this conflict is constantly playing out on the left just now.

 

[belboid]

And I don't think identity politics does this, not as I've seen it manifest, hence why it is incompatible with socialist thinking. You're denying a conflict exists despite the fact this conflict is constantly playing out on the left just now.

Does what? You're not really saying much. There are some shit 'identity politics' movements and individuals, same as their are some shit 'socialist' movements and individuals. So what?

 

[danny la rouge]

Kenan on point again:

FROM EQUAL RIGHTS TO STAYING IN YOUR LANE

 

[inva]

Kenan on point again:

FROM EQUAL RIGHTS TO STAYING IN YOUR LANE

one of his poorer articles imo
seems to be arguing that people taking an interest in family/social history is some sort of alien manifestation of identity politics. leaving aside (as Malik does) the question of whether this kind of dna testing actually works, you're left with him taking aim at someone who for example, based on the belief that they have native american ancestry, wants to learn more about it. they don't even claim to be native american in the quoted bit, as Malik attempts to imply. only that they're 26% native american, which although weirdly precise is a utterly commonplace way of talking about this stuff and was so even in the grand old days of enlightenment universalism.

very quickly the piece runs up against the limits of Malik's own politics, which is to oppose identity politics with his liberal vision of 'equal rights'. well maybe that politics too has its failings, gets co-opted (or doesn't even need to be), and can result in class disunity. Malik often writes well on how this turn emerges out of the collapse of prior movements but from what i've seen he doesn't go further and also tends towards flattening out those movements in retrospect. now we're seeing a renewal, however limited, of a social democratic ideology with an anti idpol wing that failing becomes more pronounced i think.

What makes blackness into an issue in America is job discrimination, voter disqualification, police brutality, mass incarceration

this covers the more active, visible stuff, but there's also a mass of factors that more passively shape the experience of racial difference and make it an issue and i think that is an important part of why holding up equal rights as the answer is not going to work, leaving aside whether it can even deal with the stuff quoted in the first place.