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

[BigTom]

Wow. I'd be interested to hear more about this (not asking you to name individuals or groups, obviously). When you say anarchists, are you talking about politically or lifestyle-wise?

I would agree with Tom A - lots of the students I did anti-cuts stuff with a few years back would (have) describe(d) themselves as anarchists and are into ID Pol. I would describe them mostly as Radical Liberals - a term I hadn't heard of before and was introduced to by another older anarchist around that time.
Anarchism being the individualist end of socialism fits more easily with liberalism than any other form of socialism imo, I think it's easier to cross over from a progressive left liberalism to anarchism than to the more collectivist/communist branches of socialism - and to go vice-versa of course.

 

[19force8]

In my experience the people deeply involved in IDpol that I have encountered in real life tend to identify as anarchists, and have some involvement with and support from anarchist groups in the area.

For me it largely depends on the age group with younger, student types leaning heavily to the anarchist side. In part, I suspect, because student anarchism tends to be more accommodating of ID politics. The older / long term ID politics people I see run the gamut from ultra-Blairite to socialist/anarchist/communist.

 

[Tom A]

Interesting. How was that id politics expressed.

As described in this previous post of mine.

 

[Athos]

Anarchism being the individualist end of socialism...

Not sure I agree with this.

 

[mojo pixy]

Anarchism is emphatically not an individualistic outlook.

Anarchism being conflated with lawlessness, so that controlling personalities can use "anarchism" as a pretext to do whatever they like, all the time with no empathy or compassion. I've seen enough of that.

 

[inva]

You're right to the extent that different people use the same terms to mean different things.

yeah a few weirdos like us continue to insist in the face of all the evidence that it means something more radical, no one else agrees apart from the odd right wing loon
all it is good for now is ideological cover.

 

[Athos]

As described in this previous post of mine.

Fucking hell. Depressing stuff. I guess it all goes to reinforce my point (albeit from a slightly different perspective) that Danny's clear fault lines are blurred by people's own understanding of where their politics sit. Would the people you mention who describe themselves as anarchists embrace (or even accept) that they were ID politckers? Did they acknowledge any tension between the two positions?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anarchism is emphatically not an individualistic outlook.

Anarchism being conflated with lawlessness, so that controlling personalities can use "anarchism" as a pretext to do whatever they like, all the time with no empathy or compassion. I've seen enough of that.

I think, and I've seen enough of this as well, some are attracted to anarchism through decidedly apolitical routes, such as the likes of Aleister Crowley and his 'do what though wilt' dictum.

 

[Tom A]

I would agree with Tom A - lots of the students I did anti-cuts stuff with a few years back would (have) describe(d) themselves as anarchists and are into ID Pol. I would describe them mostly as Radical Liberals - a term I hadn't heard of before and was introduced to by another older anarchist around that time.
Anarchism being the individualist end of socialism fits more easily with liberalism than any other form of socialism imo, I think it's easier to cross over from a progressive left liberalism to anarchism than to the more collectivist/communist branches of socialism - and to go vice-versa of course.

When I was a student I never really identified as an anarchist but had a strong affinity to anarchism nonetheless, considering it somewhat better than what the rest of the left of New Labour had to offer. I was quickly put off the SWP and other Trotskyist groups, which at the time seemed like the only other big game in town. It also helped that I was a student right when big protests against the G8, WTO and suchlike were fashionable, where anarchists played a very major role.
However at the end of my degree I got very fed up with all the nonsense that I was enduring (student politics has never been a very enlightening place), and walked away for a while. Later when doing my master's I focused on more mainstream stuff, mostly People & Planet and environmentalist campaigning, and became sympathetic to the Green Party, whilst still rubbing shoulders with more radically-minded people. After that politics went on the back burner as I sorted my life out and finally adjusted to life off campus, and pretty much abandoned "revolutionary" politics for good. After that I got re-radicalised as the Tories took power, as explained in post 387, but today I am focused on mainly trying to work to better my local community, and working with people with varied ideologies. At present I am very much behind Corbyn and friends in trying to get the Labour Party turned leftwards, and getting people with socialist, or at least social democratic ideas into power.

 

[mojo pixy]

I think, and I've seen enough of this as well, some are attracted to anarchism through decidedly apolitical routes, such as the likes of Aleister Crowley and his 'do what though wilt' dictum.

Though tbf that particular line ends "love is the law, love under will"

That bit doesn't get quoted as often as the first bit.

 

[DotCommunist]

'an it harm none'

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Also because of Marxism often being conflated with authoritarianism.

Communism = Marxism = Marxist Leninism = Stalinism.

 

[Tom A]

For me it largely depends on the age group with younger, student types leaning heavily to the anarchist side. In part, I suspect, because student anarchism tends to be more accommodating of ID politics. The older / long term ID politics people I see run the gamut from ultra-Blairite to socialist/anarchist/communist.

It's on campus where ID politics tends to be at its most toxic - particularly in the US but the UK has its issues, especially in London universities.

Would the people you mention who describe themselves as anarchists embrace (or even accept) that they were ID politckers? Did they acknowledge any tension between the two positions?

I would confidently guess that the mere mention of "identity politics" to them would be a dogwhistle that results in them accusing you of not checking your privilege and furthering their oppression, making assumption that the phrase "identity politics" was being used to dismiss their arguments and erase their experiences. In fact I recall seeings something along those lines on one of these people's Twitter pages some time ago.

Anarchism is emphatically not an individualistic outlook.
Anarchism being conflated with lawlessness, so that controlling personalities can use "anarchism" as a pretext to do whatever they like, all the time with no empathy or compassion. I've seen enough of that.

I know friends who have have had first-hand experience of some of the worst of those "controlling personalities". They tend to be highly dogmatic, and very prone to embarking in screaming rows.

On a different subject, you have the massive can of worms that is the mention of anarcho-capitalism...

'an it harm none'

That's more Gerald Gardner and Wicca, although he of course borrowed heavily from Crowley.

 

[danny la rouge]

Fucking hell. Depressing stuff. I guess it all goes to reinforce my point (albeit from a slightly different perspective) that Danny's clear fault lines are blurred by people's own understanding of where their politics sit. Would the people you mention who describe themselves as anarchists embrace (or even accept) that they were ID politckers? Did they acknowledge any tension between the two positions?

To be fair, I've seen self-proclaimed anarchists defending ID-politics on social media.

(Also to inva - I don't always agree with everything Malik says. For one, I get the impression he supports Parliamentary Democracy. But he does offer one of the clearest perspectives on top down multiculturalism, and was one of the first to do so. That doesn't mean I'm accepting everything 100%. I'm interested in ideas, not heroes).

 

[BigTom]

Not sure I agree with this.

Anarchism is emphatically not an individualistic outlook.

Anarchism being conflated with lawlessness, so that controlling personalities can use "anarchism" as a pretext to do whatever they like, all the time with no empathy or compassion. I've seen enough of that.

Probably not the thread to continue this but to clarify, I don't see anarchism as an individualist philosophy - it definitely isn't and one of the (many) reasons why right wing libertarianism isn't anarchism.
All socialism are collective philosophies, it's a massive split with liberalism (and why I can't agree with inva that socialism is just the left end of liberalism) but anarchism is more individualist than other socialist traditions, there's no democratic centralism or anything like that within anarchism afaik.
I suppose autonomism is more individualist but I'm not sure that's a socialist philosophy really, though I know very little about the original autonomists tbf.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Also because of Marxism often being conflated with authoritarianism.

Communism = Marxism = Marxist Leninism = Stalinism.

That aside there’s Stalinists that spout Id pol. A heady mix.

 

[inva]

To be fair, I've seen self-proclaimed anarchists defending ID-politics on social media.

(Also to inva - I don't always agree with everything Malik says. For one, I get the impression he supports Parliamentary Democracy. But he does offer one of the clearest perspectives on top down multiculturalism, and was one of the first to do so. That doesn't mean I'm accepting everything 100%. I'm interested in ideas, not heroes).

yeah i know that! wasn't attacking you, just trying to think in my clumsy way about the limits of Malik's analysis and where a class perspective could take it further
maybe unsuccessfully

 

[danny la rouge]

yeah i know that! wasn't attacking you, just trying to think in my clumsy way about the limits of Malik's analysis and where a class perspective could take it further
maybe unsuccessfully

It's cool. I pretty much agreed with your interjection anyway.

 

[Athos]

To be fair, I've seen self-proclaimed anarchists defending ID-politics on social media.

Explicitly? They defend ID politics by name, and use the term to mean what you did in the OP?

 

[Athos]

I would confidently guess that the mere mention of "identity politics" to them would be a dogwhistle that results in them accusing you of not checking your privilege and furthering their oppression, making assumption that the phrase "identity politics" was being used to dismiss their arguments and erase their experiences.

Much like some on here, then!

 

[danny la rouge]

Explicitly? They defend ID politics by name, and use the term to mean what you did in the OP?

I think so, yes.

 

[Athos]

I think so, yes.

And they see not tension between the two? Or resolve it somehow?

 

[Tom A]

It's nonsense like this which eventually put me off anarchism, that and I never saw any anarchists involved in the grassroots campaigns I was working to build. In fact most people I know though campaigning in the past three years since I cut off ties with the ID politics lot in post 387 tend to be from different left groups (although now mostly Labour Party since Corbyn became leader) or of no political alignment. Although that could be because I am mainly involved in things like the Unite Community branch and the People's Assembly, not groups that I feel anarchists would have much time for, on account of being too "bureaucratic"/"hierarchical" /"ineffective"/all of the above.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Loads of anarchists have joined the Labour Party though.

 

[Tom A]

Loads of anarchists have joined the Labour Party though.

I thought support of, let alone membership of, a political party instantly disqualified you from anarchism. (Although having said that, Class War did stand in elections prior to Corbyn becoming Labour leader.)

But that aside, I don't doubt that some of the more sensible people that call themselves "anarchists" have concluded that Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party and the movement that has resulted from it is the best hope their class has had to make progress for decades.

 

[19force8]

The most extreme end of ID politics I see is online and based around a kind of survivor fetish. Where someone's status as a survivor (usually of sexual assault) trumps all other views and entitles their "allies" to pile in on anyone disagreeing with the survivor. See this piece How about don't "boycott Novara"? | Richard Seymour on Patreon for which Seymour was roundly denounced. Ironic considering his own "survivorhood."

I'm not sure if this is a model anyone else recognises. Is it even viable in real world activism, beyond the seemingly psychotic ghettos Tom A describes?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The most extreme end of ID politics I see is online and based around a kind of survivor fetish. Where someone's status as a survivor (usually of sexual assault) trumps all other views and entitles their "allies" to pile in on anyone disagreeing with the survivor. See this piece How about don't "boycott Novara"? | Richard Seymour on Patreon for which Seymour was roundly denounced. Ironic considering his own "survivorhood."

I'm not sure if this is a model anyone else recognises. Is it even viable in real world activism, beyond the seemingly psychotic ghettos Tom A describes?

This is the Safer Spaces end of the market. Something that started as a means of giving everyone a voice in meetings turned into something hideously authoritarian. Plan C wrote an interesting piece on it a few years back.

For your safety and security… | We are Plan C

 

[Tom A]

The most extreme end of ID politics I see is online and based around a kind of survivor fetish. Where someone's status as a survivor (usually of sexual assault) trumps all other views and entitles their "allies" to pile in on anyone disagreeing with the survivor.

I've encountered that too, indeed been one of those "allies", until I did something the survivor disagreed with, and then became one of their ever increasing list of enemies. Something else that started me on the path away from identity politics.

I'm not sure if this is a model anyone else recognises. Is it even viable in real world activism, beyond the seemingly psychotic ghettos @Tom A describes?

I wouldn't say they were psychotic - although one wonders if you spend enough time on "social justice" Tumblr pages. Narcissistic, maybe.

 

[Tom A]

I am also now in the unfortunate position of agreeing with what Richard Seymour has to say - unfortunate because I have not had much time for him for since his odious attack on Falklands War survivor Simon Weston. I don't really have much time for Novara, but their persecution for thoughtcrime is typical of what online mobs do to prominent people who they consider guilty of wrongthink.

 

[19force8]

I am also now in the unfortunate position of agreeing with what Richard Seymour has to say - unfortunate because I have not had much time for him for since his odious attack on Falklands War survivor Simon Weston. I don't really have much time for Novara, but their persecution for thoughtcrime is typical of what online mobs do to prominent people who they consider guilty of wrongthink.

If it's a choice between Seymour and Coates I'd go with Seymour every time.

Also, it wasn't so much an attack as a stupid remark: LENIN'S TOMB: Something I Said.