[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)

[Magnus McGinty]

And yet, you do nothing but repeat the words 'class analysis'

The whole argument on the other thread was about whether the group of people who are 'trans women' are 'allowed' into the group of people called 'women' - it is precisely about group rights, not individual rights. So, according to your previous definition, it is 'femisnism' not 'identity politics'

Class politics, as I’m sure you know, is how workers are oppressed by capital for their labour. Women have a worse deal by being socialised into doing unpaid work such as caring for elderly relatives, child rearing etc. The struggle of women is a class one.
Where feminism becomes identity politics is when it says the struggle of all women are the same. It totally ignores the fact that women can be bosses, landlords and the such and in fact argues that the solution to inequality would be to have more women bosses and landlords, as equal to landlord and bosses who are men.
Now, where does trans fit into all this? I’ve said I no longer wish to discuss it so I’ll leave you to think of the implications by yourself.

 

[belboid]

Class politics, as I’m sure you know, is how workers are oppressed by capital for their labour. Women have a worse deal by being socialised into doing unpaid work such as caring for elderly relatives, child rearing etc. The struggle of women is a class one.
Where feminism becomes identity politics is when it says the struggle of all women are the same. It totally ignores the fact that women can be bosses, landlords and the such and in fact argues that the solution to inequality would be to have more women bosses and landlords, as equal to landlord and bosses who are men.
Now, where does trans fit into all this? I’ve said I no longer wish to discuss it so I’ll leave you to think of the implications by yourself.

I dont know anyone, not even themost bourgeois feminist, who argues that 'all women are the same.' So this is another straw person argument. This is also a different definition to your previous one. Maybe you should go away and think about that.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I dont know anyone, not even themost bourgeois feminist, who argues that 'all women are the same.' So this is another straw person argument. This is also a different definition to your previous one. Maybe you should go away and think about that.

Well I know plenty of people who understand that very basic point but I suspect I mix with brighter company than yourself.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well I know plenty of people who understand that very basic point but I suspect I mix with brighter company than yourself.

as i believe you work in lighting that comes as no surprise.

 

[belboid]

Well I know plenty of people who understand that very basic point but I suspect I mix with brighter company than yourself.

I understood your point, I was arguing with its veracity.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I understood your point, I was arguing with its veracity.

You said you “don’t know anyone including the most bourgeois feminist” who would make that argument. Well that’s settled then, feminism as identity politics doesn’t exist. Even though you see all feminism as identity politics. And all those liberal feminists such as the one’s in the Women’s Equality Party who argue for “equal representation in politics and in business” must be a figment of my imagination.

 

[Pickman's model]

You said you “don’t know anyone including the most bourgeois feminist” who would make that argument. Well that’s settled then, feminism as identity politics doesn’t exist. Even though you see all feminism as identity politics. And all those liberal feminists such as the one’s in the Women’s Equality Party who argue for “equal representation in politics and in business” must be a figment of my imagination.

it's a pity to bring this down to a question of the size of belboid's social circle.

 

[belboid]

You said you “don’t know anyone including the most bourgeois feminist” who would make that argument. Well that’s settled then, feminism as identity politics doesn’t exist. Even though you see all feminism as identity politics. And all those liberal feminists such as the one’s in the Women’s Equality Party who argue for “equal representation in politics and in business” must be a figment of my imagination.

I dont know who you think you are arguing with, or why you wish to put words into my mouth, none of the above has anything to do with my proposition. Of course there is a socialist-feminism and a bourgeois feminism - although even bourgeois feminists dont tend to argue that 'all women are the same' (as you put it). There was long before the advent of neo-liberalism and 'identity politics.' That's why I believe that arguing the two terms are wholly different things is a misnomer.

And I pointed out that your disctinction beween feminism and identity politics was inconsistent. If you want to defend your argument, defend your argument, dont make mine up instead.

 

[Red Cat]

There used to be distinctions made between feminism and other theories of women's oppression but I'm not convinced that a theory of patriarchy can be reduced to ID politics.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

There used to be distinctions made between feminism and other theories of women's oppression but I'm not convinced that a theory of patriarchy can be reduced to ID politics.

You’d have to ask Belboid why he thinks feminism is identity politics. I don’t, I merely said it sometimes is.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I dont know who you think you are arguing with, or why you wish to put words into my mouth, none of the above has anything to do with my proposition. Of course there is a socialist-feminism and a bourgeois feminism - although even bourgeois feminists dont tend to argue that 'all women are the same' (as you put it). There was long before the advent of neo-liberalism and 'identity politics.' That's why I believe that arguing the two terms are wholly different things is a misnomer.

I was busy at work but I meant when people organise around an identity as having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity. That’s my understanding of what is meant by identity politics (or bourgeois as you seem to call it).

 

[TopCat]

I dont know anyone, not even themost bourgeois feminist, who argues that 'all women are the same.' So this is another straw person argument. This is also a different definition to your previous one. Maybe you should go away and think about that.

Given you are not an anarchist and don't attend the bookfair may I suggest you and all of a similar vein fuck off from this thread?

 

[Wilf]

I'm really struggling with this deckchair, can anyone help me put it up?

 

[belboid]

Given you are not an anarchist and don't attend the bookfair may I suggest you and all of a similar vein fuck off from this thread?

I have attended the bookfair, and know several of the people involved. So, fuck you

 

[belboid]

I was busy at work but I meant when people organise around an identity as having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity. That’s my understanding of what is meant by identity politics (or bourgeois as you seem to call it).

It's not really an understanding, though, is it? As I said, I dont know of any group who believe (any particular set of) oppressed people have exactly the same set of interests - that is one of the main points of intersectionality, which is, surely, a bedrock of 'identity politics.'

My argument is that there have always been individualist versions of anti-oppression movements, and collective versions of anti-oppression movements. To say one is identity politics and other other...whatever else you want to call it, is misleading, and I dont see how it helps any kind of struggle.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It's not really an understanding, though, is it? As I said, I dont know of any group who believe (any particular set of) oppressed people have exactly the same set of interests - that is one of the main points of intersectionality, which is, surely, a bedrock of 'identity politics.'

But no group of “oppressed people” are oppressed to the same degree because of their identity. Some are in the oppressor class. And all intersectionality does is add new identities to show who is more oppressed whilst ignoring the above point.

 

[belboid]

But no group of “oppressed people” are oppressed to the same degree because of their identity. Some are in the oppressor class. And all intersectionality does is add new identities to show who is more oppressed whilst ignoring the above point.

ffs. Yes, dear, I know that. That was the point I was making. And that is why your distinction based upon - in your words - 'having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity' is false, and contradictory.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

ffs. Yes, dear, I know that. That was the point I was making. And that is why your distinction based upon - in your words - 'having the same interests as each other by virtue of sharing that identity' is false, and contradictory.

Which means nobody organises along those lines or encourages others to do so? In fact, don’t answer. This is a thread about the bookfair so not the place to be splitting hairs with a liberal about things they already understand yet claim doesn’t happen.

 

[Sea Star]

Can I suggest that as youre not trans you stick to the thread subject and stop talking bullshit about trans people.

Given you are not an anarchist and don't attend the bookfair may I suggest you and all of a similar vein fuck off from this thread?

By the way, I have attended the book fair but don't let that stop you...

 

[belboid]

Which means nobody organises along those lines or encourages others to do so? In fact, don’t answer. This is a thread about the bookfair so not the place to be splitting hairs with a liberal about things they already understand yet claim doesn’t happen.

I have repeatedly agreed that there is a bourgeois version of anti-oppression movements, from feminism to irish nationalism. But that is not a definition you are applying consistently when you use the term 'identity politics.' Sl;ag bourgeois movements off for being bourgeois, there's no need to invent a new term for them.

 

[Athos]

belboid is your point that all feminism is 'identity politics' (regardless of whether it as "socialist" or "bourgeois")?

Magnus McGinty is your point that not all feminism is 'identity politics' (albeit that some can be)?

Because I get the impression you're using the term 'identity politics' differently. Broadly speaking: belboid to mean any politics that is organised (at least in part) upon a facet of identity (in this case, gender); and, Magnus McGinty to mean any politics where identity is the only (or at least primary) concern (to the extent that class is overlooked).

Such that, presumably, belboid would be critical of 'identity politics' as defined by Magnus McGinty, whereas Magnus McGinty would be less critical of 'identity politics' as defined by belboid?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I think you’re right, Athos although belboid will probably just say I’m using the term incorrectly.

 

[belboid]

belboid is your point that all feminism is 'identity politics' (regardless of whether it as "socialist" or "bourgeois")?

Magnus McGinty is your point that not all feminism is 'identity politics' (albeit that some can be)?

Because I get the impression you're using the term 'identity politics' differently. Broadly speaking: belboid to mean any politics that is organised (at least in part) upon a facet of identity (in this case, gender); and, Magnus McGinty to mean any politics where identity is the only (or at least primary) concern (to the extent that class is overlooked).

Such that, presumably, belboid would be critical of 'identity politics' as defined by Magnus McGinty, whereas Magnus McGinty would be less critical of 'identity politics' as defined by belboid?

we clearly are. I dont think the term is useful, except as a catch all for the womens/trans/black/etc movements. And, more to the point, I dont think the majority of those activists who use the phrase, particularly those likely to be attending the bookfair, use it in the way you are ascribing to magnus. I am fairly sure they would explicitly reject such a definition. Furthermore, the differences between your two versions of the terms meaning go back to wy before the term was even invented, so it certainly isn't an example of neo-liberalism colonising politics. And, finally, my argument has been that magnus has used the term inconsistently, often applying it to people who aren't being bourgeois, they're just being dickheads.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Who even says bourgeois anymore?
Just because a definition pre-exists my use of it doesn’t therefore inform the way I’m using it. Tbh I assumed everyone defined it how I am.

 

[belboid]

Who even says bourgeois anymore?
Just because a definition pre-exists my use of it doesn’t therefore inform the way I’m using it. Tbh I assumed everyone defined it how I am.

inconsistently? With athos' definition, that's at least the third way of using it you've tried.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

inconsistently? With athos' definition, that's at least the third way of using it you've tried.

I haven’t used it inconsistently at all.

 

[Athos]

I dont think the majority of those activists who use the phrase, particularly those likely to be attending the bookfair, use it in the way you are ascribing to magnus. I am fairly sure they would explicitly reject such a definition.

I think you're wrong about that.

Furthermore, the differences between your two versions of the terms meaning go back to wy before the term was even invented, so it certainly isn't an example of neo-liberalism colonising politics.

Yes, but anyone involved in any real-world politics on the left can't unaware of the relatively recent upsurge in a very different kind of approach, that's not just typified by ideas, but also tactics/ways of working. I think that's a part of what a lot of people mean by 'identity politics'.

And, finally, my argument has been that magnus has used the term inconsistently, often applying it to people who aren't being bourgeois, they're just being dickheads.

I think there's an element of truth in that. But, see my last point.

 

[belboid]

I haven’t used it inconsistently at all.

well, if we fall back on my intial version of your definition - just the bits of feminism/etc you dont like - then i guess not

 

[belboid]

Yes, but anyone involved in any real-world politics on the left can't unaware of the relatively recent upsurge in a very different kind of approach, that's not just typified by ideas, but also tactics/ways of working. I think that's a part of what a lot of people mean by 'identity politics'.

well, here's (probably) the crux. But now we are back to 'some people being dickheads.' 'No platforming' terf's is hardly 'Identity Politics' by the definition you ascribe to Magnus, it's just pretty crap politics. Attacking 'identity politics' will be of no value in undermimng that kind of behaviour. Which is surely the point.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Identity politics and crap politics aren’t mutually exclusive.