Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Fozzie Bear said:
The pamphlet I read is not just a string of criticisms.

I think it is clear from the title that has been discussed here at length that this is not the only statement that the ACG has ever, or will ever, make on the subject. Indeed you'd think that the nature of debate is that people make contributions at various points.

A small point I was going to make was about the section on supporting autonomous groups towards the end. Possibly what those might be (and at what point an autonomous groups stops being one and becomes a vehicle for identity politics) could have been made clearer. But I think it would be a pretty ungenerous reading of the pamphlet to suggest that the ACG has absolutely no truck whatsoever with BLM.
Click to expand...
As I said, there are only two mentions of it, both highly critical. There is no mention of anything positive at all. Are we meant to be mind readers? We can only go on what is actually said.
 
I think it's clear, that inasmuch as BLM is an autonomous movement that is pro-working class and anti-racist, that the ACG would support it.

I assume they would be critical of black nationalists and teary white liberals who use the BLM banner to further their own agendas.
 
‘Inasmuch as’ - but how much is that? There is no mention of it being any such thing. If I were a young person going on a BLM demo and picked up this pamphlet there, as my first interaction with the acg, i would only know what is written.

and I’m still waiting to find out when and where this mythical event occurred.
 
belboid said:
How does anyone know you agree with various points if you don’t actually say so?
Click to expand...
Is that a singular me or a collective us?

The ACG has a website with articles on a range of topics. Including BLM. You chose for some reason to discount those. But if you allow those, you’ll find out.

We also have social media accounts. And occasional statements on topics we consider we should have statements on are released on our website.

I think the issue here is that you’ve gone in with one view of what identity politics is, and have therefore been looking for us to fall foul of that. I do think that if you go in without those expectations you’ll find we’re quite clear about what are criticisms are of.
 
Fozzie Bear said:
A small point I was going to make was about the section on supporting autonomous groups towards the end. Possibly what those might be (and at what point an autonomous group stops being one and becomes a vehicle for identity politics) could have been made clearer.
Click to expand...
Indeed. We could possibly have expanded on that. Autonomous groups are included in our Aims and Principles. But maybe a future edition of the pamphlet (which isn’t imminent) should take that section further.

However, from memory I think we’re clear that an autonomous group within the working class is quite different from a cross class alliance (which will result in such “advances” as a better diversity ratio of oppressors).
 
danny la rouge said:
Is that a singular me or a collective us?
Click to expand...
The latter/either
danny la rouge said:
The ACG has a website with articles on a range of topics. Including BLM. You chose for some reason to discount those. But if you allow those, you’ll find out.

We also have social media accounts. And occasional statements on topics we consider we should have statements on are released on our website.
Click to expand...

I’m not discounting anything, although it would have been sensible to include some of those links in the pamphlet, or how is anyone to know? ‘It’s all on the website’ isn’t really a particularly useful answer.
danny la rouge said:
I think the issue here is that you’ve gone in with one view of what identity politics is, and have therefore been looking for us to fall foul of that. I do think that if you go in without those expectations you’ll find we’re quite clear about what are criticisms are of.
Click to expand...
Nope, I don’t think this is true. Of course I have a view of what ‘identity politics’ is. I don’t know whether it is the same as yours because you never really state it.

and even if that were true, it’s still no excuse for you barely citing any sources for your claims or the things which are just plain wrong.

who opposes opposing fgm? Which trans groups say trans people are better than cis people? etc etc
 
danny la rouge said:
Eg BBC News | UK POLITICS | MPs attack Greer on female circumcision

Do you have a page reference for that? I don’t remember the pamphlet making such a claim.

As for “etc etc”, that’s not particularly helpful.
Click to expand...
The Greer piece (from 22 years ago) has people saying her comments are ‘simplistic’. It says they are working with practitioners to stop it, providing practical ways for them to do something else. Simply outlawing it simply drives the practise underground and makes it more dangerous. Hence, what they are doing is using a different method to end fgm. The fact that it is embedded within certain cultures means you have to show awareness of those cultures or you won’t be effective. And effectiveness is what matters, not moral grandstanding. Now there may we’ll be practical issues with that approach, it may we’ll have underestimated how many people in those communities were already opposed to the practise. But it is not excusing fgm for cultural reasons and when people have tried that argument in court they’ve failed.

the quote as para 3, page 18.

and you don’t really want me list every uncited assertion, do you? There on virtually every page.
 
belboid said:
the quote as para 3, page 18.
Click to expand...
That’s a passage dealing with the fallacious assumption by some that being from an oppressed group necessitates one having good (non reactionary) politics. And before you ask “who says that?”, you know very well that one comes across the assumption all the time.
 
danny la rouge said:
That’s a passage dealing with the fallacious assumption by some that being from an oppressed group necessitates one having good (non reactionary) politics. And before you ask “who says that?”, you know very well that one comes across the assumption all the time.
Click to expand...
No I don’t. I don’t know anyone who’d make that assumption, especially not in the age of Pritti Patel. I’ve often come across the argument that being in an oppressed group makes one more amenable to progressive politics, because you’ve been thrown into conflict with the state and because people undertaking struggle generally are (ie, the same reasons as in the pamphlet). But necessarily? Never.

Giving social groups essen�al characteris�cs implies that individuals from oppressed groups are inherently be�er than those from other groups. So, if you are a woman or a person of colour you will be less likely to be an oppressor yourself. This also goes for the working class.

Again, there is nothing inherent in this. Not even if we ignore the moralistic term ‘better.’ That there is no automatic unity of the oppressed is pretty much axiomatic. Indeed it was a driver of intersectionality and modern ‘identity politics’.

I’m not sure why the working class is mentioned here. Is there really a train of thought that promotes the W-c because it is morally better?

Maybe it’s an anarchist thing, if socialists thought these things were automatic there’d be no need for a party to explain it all.
 
belboid said:
No I don’t. I don’t know anyone who’d make that assumption, especially not in the age of Pritti Patel.
Click to expand...
*How can Kanye say that about slavery when he’s African American?
How can Jewish people support Israeli apartheid given their history?*

You’ve never seen those kinds of arguments?
 
danny la rouge said:
*How can Kanye say that about slavery when he’s African American?
How can Jewish people support Israeli apartheid given their history?*

You’ve never seen those kinds of arguments?
Click to expand...
Seen and heard them as statements of exasperation, not as a serious statement of political position. At best, its 'some man in a pub said' stuff, not a general position of those within the IP 'movement.'

A movement which is no more monolithic than any 'community' is. Which debates many of the issues being raised here (as well as others of course, some of which I'm surprised haven't been touched on, such as the supposed conflict between trans and women's rights'. This is clearly one of the trickier questions to address, and shows up some of the shortcomings of a lot of identity based politics, as well as being so obviously topical so I am really surprised at its omission). By cherry picking examples from all over the shop it leaves it all too open to the (IP leaning) reader to dismiss it with a 'well that's not what I/we think at all).

I think this (and the majority of my criticisms) all flows from the lack of clear distinction between 'identity politics' and anti-oppression politics'.
 
belboid said:
Seen and heard them as statements of exasperation, not as a serious statement of political position. At best, its 'some man in a pub said' stuff, not a general position of those within the IP 'movement.'

A movement which is no more monolithic than any 'community' is. Which debates many of the issues being raised here (as well as others of course, some of which I'm surprised haven't been touched on, such as the supposed conflict between trans and women's rights'. This is clearly one of the trickier questions to address, and shows up some of the shortcomings of a lot of identity based politics, as well as being so obviously topical so I am really surprised at its omission).
Click to expand...
Tbh, as you mention above, terf stuff is one of the places where you can see pretty explicit examples of this logic - "the way this person acts proves that we're right to call them a man, no woman would behave like that". And more generally just "trans women must be kept out of women's spaces because they're really men and therefore inherently dangerous", etc.
 
Since it’s sort of come up, this is our most recent statement on trans rights:


Trans Rights Statement​

We, the ACG, reaffirm our support for trans and non-binary people. We recognise the oppression faced by the trans community. In our aims and principles we stress the importance of ending all oppressions as well as an end to capitalism and the State.

In an anarchist communist society there will continue to be differences between people, a flourishing of diversity as people are freed from the indoctrination and limitations of this society. However, these differences will not mean new hierarchies or inequalities. We fight today against all oppressions and inequality both because of the hardship and suffering it causes and because we need to unite as a class if we are to be effective in our struggles.

We fully recognise that the experience of transgender people has been one of inequality, discrimination and violence. The struggle for equality is difficult and needs to be supported.

The particular relationship between trans women and some other feminists has been fraught and has resulted in extreme polarisation, making it very difficult to unite against patriarchy, gender oppression and capitalism. Sensitivity and understanding of the oppression that different groups experience – those socialised as women, trans women, trans men, and non-binary people – is needed in order to move forward.

We believe that it is unhelpful to set up a false dichotomy, as has widely been done, between “feminism” and “trans rights”. These are not struggles inherently in opposition to each other, but which are worth fighting for together, while working towards a wider understanding of both the shared issues and the differences.

We must come together to end all oppression as well as to help create a united working class movement which can effectively challenge capitalism and hierarchical society.
 
Thinking about it, this text is possibly relevant:
itsgoingdown.org

George Floyd Solidarity in the Bay Area: Representation and Power

Cover Image from Split Cocoa with Permission A critique of weaponized identity politics used to silence rebels and gain political capital. Written by anarchist people of color and originally published to Indybay. “We must never forget that the insurrectionary project belongs to the masses alone...
itsgoingdown.org itsgoingdown.org

“Self-pronounced leaders in the Bay Area have tried to insinuate that anyone who desires conflict with the police after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis are “White people [who] DON’T get to use Black pain to justify living out riot fantasies.” As if the real white fantasy isn’t people of color policing their own behavior in order to save the white supremacist society from being destroyed. This is an old trick that is worth being exposed, again. Power operates through representation…


In movements it’s the leaders who pretend to represent us when saying it’s not time or it’s not safe for us to revolt, usually hiding behind the vulnerability and power of the uncontrollable youth of color. They mediate our rage in order to gain a seat at the table of power. They are aspiring politicians. This type of power, similar to state power, operates on false binaries. George W. Bush told us “you’re either with us, or with the terrorists” and the movement leaders tell us “you’re either peaceful or you’re a provocateur”, or in this case they weaponize identity politics for obedience to their ideology: “you do what we say or you’re white.””
 
hitmouse said:
Tbh, as you mention above, terf stuff is one of the places where you can see pretty explicit examples of this logic - "the way this person acts proves that we're right to call them a man, no woman would behave like that". And more generally just "trans women must be kept out of women's spaces because they're really men and therefore inherently dangerous", etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there was some of it about thirty/forty years ago. Nation of Islam stuff as well. But since then.......

Movements move on, analyses need to too
 
Serge Forward said:
Movements may move on but essentialism remains in one form or another. There's as much of this nonsense now as there was 30/40 years ago.
Click to expand...
'in one form or another'

Yes, forms change and so the way we respond to them changes - not fundamentally perhaps, but according to circumstance. That's the basis of a materialist analysis of society. If you want to take an idealist approach to dealing with the issue, go ahead, but it'll be weaker, cos its idealist. The arguments deployed change, they will sometimes have taken on previous criticism - bell hooks, for instance is mentioned in the pamphlet as being highly critical of many IdPol ideas. She is also absolutely central to the development of intersectionalism. Ignoring that is just,. well, ignorant. It undermines the author and their supposed knowledge of the subject.

It's also just fucking lazy.
 
belboid said:
I’m not sure why the working class is mentioned here. Is there really a train of thought that promotes the W-c because it is morally better?
Click to expand...
I'm genuinely surprised that someone who has been on U75 for so long, has seen the P&P forum move from a a place which class politics was a major (possibly a majority current) to the current situation where progressive politics has been prioritised could make such a statement.

OK few progressives would explicitly make such an argument but it is implicit behind their politics. Mason's construction of a progressive (morally good) working class of the socially liberal city dwellers that is to be supported, in contrast to the reactionary (white) working class leave voting home dwellers is absolutely on moral lines.

ETA: Also worth noting that in The Retreat from Class Ellen Meiksins Wood quotes this passage by Francis Mulhern
Creativity is a potential, not an achievement – true enough. But the potential itself is not determined by the moral and political vicissitudes of the labour movement
Click to expand...
Which only makes sense if Mulhern, and Meiksins Wood, believed that at some were connecting their politics to the morality of the wc.
 
Last edited:
redsquirrel said:
I'm genuinely surprised that someone who has been on U75 for so long, has seen the P&P forum move from a a place which class politics was a major (possibly a majority current) to the current situation where progressive politics has been prioritised could make such a statement.

OK few progressives would explicitly make such an argument but it is implicit behind their politics. Mason's construction of a progressive (morally good) working class of the socially liberal city dwellers that is to be supported, in contrast to the reactionary (white) working class leave voting home dwellers is absolutely on moral lines.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is, but if so quote it and show it, or we're just left to assumptions. It's certainly moralistic, but so is much of anarchism, including within these fair pages.

There has always been a 'socialism is a moral crusade or it is nothing' brigade, but even they don't generally elevate the class to being morally better per se. They often/usually thought they needed saving.
 
I think that’s ok. “Aliens” is basically the intergalactic version of “foreigners”.

Given our historic mission to unite with the interplanetary working class, the least we can do is not communicate with them in Earth-centric language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mation
The Lonely Theophilostory Post Thread
Replies
16
Views
763
T & P
T & P
ska invita
Secondary school syllabus on history/politics
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
MickiQ
MickiQ
ska invita
Politics around the big social media platforms
Replies
1
Views
348
ska invita
ska invita
Serene
Academics who need vetting before studying them, thread.
Replies
20
Views
1K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
dessiato
Can you identify this uniform?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
Back
Top Bottom