Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I wonder if this will end - as so many of your interventions have in the past - with you apologising for getting things wrong.
Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...
- Thread starter chilango
- Start date
Treacle Toes
Time
What like you have accused me of here which hasn't actually happened but you'll say it anyway? Wow.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yeah, like that. Just like that.
bimble
floofy
Who can skry the utterances of the Magus, I wouldn't dare, so no idea what that post means. It looks a bit like "'whatever she said she said it cos she's black" but that can't be right.
You're spot on re the wheedling though; I do care deeply what you and Rutita1 think of me because I like to imagine that, if I win you over, one day, we'll go for a picnic together, the 3 of us, and eat boiled eggs on a cliff.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
So to have a pop at a post you can't fathom you post up a load of bollocks which is meaningless. Way to go.
Treacle Toes
Time
You and Athos have done exactly that on this thread ffs.
Athos
Well-Known Member
So, if you pronounce someone a racist (albeit you usually don't have the front to do it outright - prefering snidey insinuations), they must accept that they are. If they say that you have wrongly smeared them, then that's a tactic to silence you because you're a person of colour - making them a racist?
More dishonest bullshit. Identity politics top trumps bullshit, to shut others down as a cover for your complete lack of any meaningful politics.
You've been found out, again.
Them lot if it doesn't include you. Do you spend your time making very mean personal comments at other posters and engaging in feuds?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
As it happens, I don't believe that I do...but neither would I distinguish myself from fellow forum members by using the collective "you lot".
Then you must feel very righteous. There are many posters on this forum that feel the need to engage in such personal feuds. Most of them have a number of people on ignore. I regard them as "them lot". They seem to be very mean to each other.
Last edited:
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
BIG on projecting feelings, aren't you?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Anyway, back to the topic.
Kenan Malik has reworked the essay I posted a link to (and excerpts from) here a few days ago for the Observer. I happen to think the previous version was a stronger essay, but he nevertheless makes good points.
He writes:
"Politically, the sense of the collective has been expressed in two broad forms: the politics of identity and the politics of solidarity. The former stresses attachment to common identities based on such categories as race, nation, gender or culture. The difference between leftwing and rightwing forms of identity politics derives, in part, from the categories of identity that are deemed particularly important. The politics of solidarity draws people into a collective not because of a given identity but to further a political or social goal. Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as the left has declined. For many, the only form of collective politics left is that rooted in identity. Hence the rise of identity-based populist movements." (my bold).
That's the point being made.
Some people seem to be misunderstanding that, thinking that in analysing reasons for the flight to the populist right the analyst is excusing racism.
"Having lost their traditional means through which to vent disaffection, and in an age in which class politics has little meaning, many working class voters have come to express themselves through the language of identity politics; not the identity politics of the left, but that of the right, the politics of nationalism and xenophobia, that provides the fuel for many populist movements."
The "left" has descended into a politics of division rather than solidarity. When the mainstream left (i.e. The Labour Party in the U.K.) adopted a strategy of managerialism, of being 'good stewards' of capitalism, it abandoned solidarity and ceased to even try to represent the working class, and in its place came the myriad of vying identities.
At the same time as the working class came to see that Labour did not represent it, the liberal chattering class also demonstrated that identity politics were in the ascendancy. A politics of division and confusion, dissipating collective endeavour. A politics where high paid Guardian columnists can imply that they are more oppressed than an unemployed white working class man, because they are women, for example. It's this politics of division that has pushed people into the hands of the reactionary right.
Kenan Malik has reworked the essay I posted a link to (and excerpts from) here a few days ago for the Observer. I happen to think the previous version was a stronger essay, but he nevertheless makes good points.
He writes:
"Politically, the sense of the collective has been expressed in two broad forms: the politics of identity and the politics of solidarity. The former stresses attachment to common identities based on such categories as race, nation, gender or culture. The difference between leftwing and rightwing forms of identity politics derives, in part, from the categories of identity that are deemed particularly important. The politics of solidarity draws people into a collective not because of a given identity but to further a political or social goal. Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as the left has declined. For many, the only form of collective politics left is that rooted in identity. Hence the rise of identity-based populist movements." (my bold).
That's the point being made.
Some people seem to be misunderstanding that, thinking that in analysing reasons for the flight to the populist right the analyst is excusing racism.
"Having lost their traditional means through which to vent disaffection, and in an age in which class politics has little meaning, many working class voters have come to express themselves through the language of identity politics; not the identity politics of the left, but that of the right, the politics of nationalism and xenophobia, that provides the fuel for many populist movements."
The "left" has descended into a politics of division rather than solidarity. When the mainstream left (i.e. The Labour Party in the U.K.) adopted a strategy of managerialism, of being 'good stewards' of capitalism, it abandoned solidarity and ceased to even try to represent the working class, and in its place came the myriad of vying identities.
At the same time as the working class came to see that Labour did not represent it, the liberal chattering class also demonstrated that identity politics were in the ascendancy. A politics of division and confusion, dissipating collective endeavour. A politics where high paid Guardian columnists can imply that they are more oppressed than an unemployed white working class man, because they are women, for example. It's this politics of division that has pushed people into the hands of the reactionary right.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
Good stuff. But not all 'Guardian' women's writing is reactionary. There is plenty of feminist writing that is class based and internationalist. The reactionary stuff sadly leads to a bonfire of the lot.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Didn't seek to imply that it was.
Treacle Toes
Time
What a disgusting little man you are.
That's what we've found out, again.
The depths that you will plumb to get some attention. The shitty, dishonest tactics you will use.
The accusations you will make.
The cover up story you will attempt.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
On the topic of non-reactionary feminist writing, there's an excellent collection of writing in a book I have called Women Against Fundamentalism, showing how solidarity can be forged at the same time as, for example, criticising misogyny within Muslim cultures.
There's an interview with contributors here: 25 years: women working against fundamentalism in the UK
There's an interview with contributors here: 25 years: women working against fundamentalism in the UK
Athos
Well-Known Member
Rage on. Because it's all there, for anyone to see.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Well done for trying danny la rouge ; I did try yesterday...but...
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
In my experience, people who scream "identity politics" at others are the ones trying to shut down debate.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
For me the anti-humanism that has become so prevalent (I don't know about anyone else but I hear stuff like "most people are idiots" quite commonly) is a major reason for this crumbling of solidarity. We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause).
If most people are idiots, many racists, people naturally selfish, humankind only capable causing damage then the individualism of neoliberalism becomes a rational choice.
Last edited:
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Good post.
"We surely have to start from a point that recognises the universal values of humankind and the positive impacts that human society produces (while not ignoring the damage that humans can cause)."
That absolutely must be the starting point.
You are the author?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'Screaming' at identity politics is not the same as denying that there are issues to do with women's rights, racism, LGBT discrimination, etc. It is merely wishing to place those issues into the wider structural context, as the writers in dlr's link in post 1095 are doing. That's not shutting down debate; it is opening the debate up.
I'm absolutely with dlr on that - neglecting that context means you miss vital points and destroy solidarity, reducing society to vertical strips of identities in a way that ultimately only serves those in power. The ridiculous Women's Equality Party is a perfect example of this, stripping the issues of any of the context the writers dlr is linking to rightly insist upon, and ending up little more than a group of extremely privileged people acting, probably unconsciously, on behalf of their privileged class - We must have more female CEOs. At best, they are ineffectual. At worst, they hijack issues in a way that throws those with fewer privileges than them under the bus.
Similar threads
