shit MANarchists say

[cesare]

I think that the impact of this sort of rhetoric in US radical circles has been important enough that you'd end up giving a fuck quite quickly if it becomes established in these parts. It's less about what the person using the argument thinks and more the effect that such arguments have on debate in a wider milieu.

So what are you suggesting? Oppose it? Undermine it?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

So what are you suggesting? Oppose it? Undermine it?

I'm in favour of taking a pretty hard line on it while it's still weak. I do not mean by that being a rude dick to people who've just encountered this stuff on the internet and are thinking about radical politics for the first time. But I do mean opposing it in a thoughtful way within left wing organisations and milieus here and not making political concessions to it.

An important part of that is not to confuse the importance of the issues "privilege theory" and associated arguments touch upon and describe with the validity of that particular theoretical framework. If it becomes an argument between advocates of "privilege theory" and people who either don't care about racism/sexism/etc or who give the impression that they have nothing of interest to say about those issues, "privilege theory" will make very big inroads to ultimately destructive effect.

 

[Vintage Paw]

What would 'taking a hard line on it' look like in practice?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What would 'taking a hard line on it' look like in practice?

Arguing against it. Not making political concessions to it. Not glossing over the problems inherent to it because at least it gets people talking about important issues (and lets be clear, sometimes it does do that). Not trying to reconcile it with more radical politics.

And if that doesn't work an escalating campaign of violence, starting with baseball bats and eventually culminating in the dropping of the Workers Bomb on Oberlin College.

 

[sihhi]

I'm in favour of taking a pretty hard line on it while it's still weak.

On "still weak": it's fairly strong in attitude in real life. Elect someone from your team and they'll look after you - it's there in lots of minority groups.
It was there in the Respect saga (back when the SWP was full tilt behind it, seems like a century ago) in Galloway's assertion in 2005 that Tower Hamlets needed a Bangladeshi MP, so he would only stay for one term.
It was there in Labour selecting David Lammy over Bernie Grant's wife in 2000. (Labour felt a non-black candidate would be outdone by a black opponent
It was certainly stronger in "the left" in the 1980s when separate lesbian, separate gay, separate minority organisations were funded by the GLC on the basis that these "liaison bodies" would ensure that the 'privilege' within GLC's activities would be 'checked'. Different language was used at the time but similar manifestation.

 

[8115]

I don't know if this has been gone over (not keeping up properly to be honest) but something that I think is being missed is that having something of an identity politics take on things doesn't mean turning up, rejecting all existing values and ways of being, and rewriting things exactly how you want them from scratch. A value can still be put on experience.

 

[cesare]

Sihhi/Nigel - this goes back to what I was saying about privilege theory potentially being used as a vehicle (an "acceptable" face) for identity politics. To that extent, I think privilege theory in and of itself is a bit of a red herring. For example, I've seen far more unpleasant stuff written around radfem politics than anything AFED's women's caucus has floated.

 

[Delroy Booth]

sihhi, can I just mention that in my own experience I've seen how some very unprincipled I knew in real life have done similiar things to those mentioned above especially within LGBT Labour. There's a lot of craven right-wing blairite types quite happy to appropriate this rhetoric to pursue a right-wing political project in that mileu.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

On "still weak": it's fairly strong in attitude in real life.

I'm talking about "privilege theory" in particular here, rather than identity politics in general. Although I do think that widespread adoption of the language and assumptions of "privilege" will give a big spur to identity politics in a broader sense, at least relative to other left wing ideas and it will give advocates of identity politics a very useful set of weapons to beat their opponents with.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

For example, I've seen far more unpleasant stuff written around radfem politics than anything AFED's women's caucus has floated.

Sure, although it has to be said that AFED thing is very much the acceptable face of this stuff. It's a misguided attempt by class struggle activists to absorb an irreconcilable set of theories into their own world view and so it involves a winnowing out of some of the more outre stuff. The arguments can get a bit more hair raising where "privilege" is entrenched and even dominant in vaguely radical circles.

I think you and Sihhi are right to place "privilege" in a wider identity politics context, but it's important to emphasise that in the US, it has heralded a rebirth of identity politics in their most liberal form and immeasurably strengthened those politics within the US left. Everyone else now has to engage on their terms in a huge range of contexts.

(Of course, various forms of identity politics have generally been stronger in the US).

 

[sihhi]

sihhi, can I just mention that in my own experience I've seen how some very unprincipled I knew in real life have done similiar things to those mentioned above especially within LGBT Labour. There's a lot of craven right-wing blairite types quite happy to appropriate this rhetoric to pursue a right-wing political project in that mileu.

I don't know the details but an old/retired Labour member explained that Lammy's team urged Bernie Grant's wife Sharon (white and long-time Labour member activist) not to stand because when other parties selected black candidates they would lose their vote strength, and this might affect councillors.
It had a half-grain of truth but that was all that Labour were/as of today still are going to win in Tottenham, in spite of any low turnouts.

 

[8115]

relative to other left wing ideas

What left wing ideas would identity politics be in competition with/ opposition to?

 

[8115]

I don't know. Maybe it's just better not to make a fuss about things.

Someone is wrong on the internet

 

[Vintage Paw]

What left wing ideas would identity politics be in competition with/ opposition to?

I suspect the answer would be: that class isn't the only oppression that matters.

 

[8115]

I suspect the answer would be: that class isn't the only oppression that matters.

Do you mean, that class is the only oppression that matters?

Actually I do get that. There was some discussion earlier on the thread about why class is different to other kinds of oppression.

 

[sihhi]

I think you and Sihhi are right to place "privilege" in a wider identity politics context, but it's important to emphasise that in the US, it has heralded a rebirth of identity politics in their most liberal form and immeasurably strengthened those politics within the US left. Everyone else now has to engage on their terms in a huge range of contexts.

OK but if the privilege people are using the internet, then so can we here are some pissed off people, perhaps the people commenting are all idiots I don't know but there is a sense of anger at people using 'privilege' for their own ends

The “privilege” discourse has a few good insights, but it has developed into an ideology and political movement which are objectively counterrevolutionary. I would actually argue that Privilege Theory itself, as practiced by many white activists, is often racist because it elevates the politics and action of *certain* (liberal, usually middle-class, reformist) activists as the only legitimate expression of resistance by POC, while ignoring not only the history of revolutionary movements led and built by POC, but also the more revolutionary POC organizations and initiatives of today. And fuck Tim Wise and every other “professional” antiracist, seriously. What greater privilege could there be than to get yourself a full-time job in the movement while the rest of us schmucks actually work for a living in shitty conditions. Privilege theory has turned into yet another way for white activists to exempt themselves from the class struggle and still feel good about themselves.

Over the last year we saw an amazing amount of revolutionary activity around the world, a real awakening where a lot of people who had been complacent and content to “go along to get along” finally came around to seeing a lot of things our way. Did we take advantage of this? Did we fuck. Instead of figuring out ways we could really support those people and offer our help, we mostly sat around playing these privilege games with ourselves, alienating the exact people who would have been most receptive to what we had to say. Put yourself in the place of one of those newly-minted activists, of any race, gender, sexual orientation or ability, and consider whether you’d rush to be part of a movement where everyone was constantly policing your speech and denouncing you for a slip of the tongue or a behavior that you weren’t even aware of. Sound like something you’d want to be a part of?

“creating a politics of guilt by birth” is a great phrase and a good statement of how a lot of this stuff has felt to me when I’ve encountered it. I’ve also run into people making a lot of assumptions based on what people look like. In my experience with regard to privilege-talk among white radicals I feel like it often amounts to white people talking with white people about their whiteness. That has a place I guess but it’s pretty limited, and I feel like it often involves people saying “we” in ways that make me deeply uncomfortable. I’m from an inter-racial family and have had a lot of experiences that are really emotionally charged regarding race, and there’s some longstanding unresolved issues in my family in general. The privilege stuff I’ve run into has felt really inadequate to my and my family’s experiences. The emotional nature of all that has made me mostly just clam up, because I haven’t wanted to get into any of that personal stuff with people within the vocabulary and concepts that the privilege conversations felt like they were operating with. And to be frank at least some of the time the privilege thing has felt partly like a way for activists to play one-upsmanship games. Not that it’s always and only that, I think a lot of people are sincere in reaching for those ideas, but a lot of the uses of that stuff have been counterproductive, as your article gets into.

Also, I’d add that I agree with Nate’s “often amounts to white people talking with white people about their whiteness” — and that if there are concerns about organizing people of color, there are few things more alienating.

One thing I will say about Occupy Wall Street is that it switched the script: instead of arguing over who has the “right to represent” — the movement demanded participation. Don’t say someone else is saying it wrong, speak motherfucker! Act. Organize. Fight. Watching the various leftists and movement pros try to make themselves necessary, some dragged out this same series of “critiques” in order to shut the movement down.

The decolonize/occupy debate was a perfect example. How dare people challenge the ruling class! Change your vocabulary or you are a white supremacist (whether you are white or not). Etc. Some even claimed the very use of the term “occupy” was racist, ignoring the AIM occupation of Alcatraz (and Pine Ridge) or the Young Lords occupation of a Harlem hospital as key events in the development of revolutionary movements among people of color in the US.

When a radical movement of participation and solidarity challenges the ruling class frontally — it is reduced (by tired activists trying to justify their own existence) into an exercise in “white supremacy” for the simple fact that many of the people involved are white. GET REAL.

This country has 200 million some-odd white people. That millions have responded to Occupy with enthusiasm broke the racist tide of the Tea Party. You know, the actual white supremacists…

Of course there are privileged people. But to put the onus on the individuals trying to do something is a recipe for paralysis and the continuation of stifled activist “communities”.

I have dealt with some SERIOUSLY entitled people in the course of Occupy. So what. They aren’t the boss of me. And I won’t make them my better by pretending to be too crippled to engage the movement on better terms and BUILD the kind of movement we need. I won’t turn other activists into “objects” in which to make a “general” point.

A lot of people outside the movement are a hell of a lot more advanced on this shit than the professional activists. I’ll tell you that.

Anyways, can we try turning the lens toward gaps within non-groups? For those of us who want to break up white supremacy as a component of the fight for dictatorship of the proletariat as a whole, we should concern ourselves with building up solidarity amongst non-whites because that where the power lies. Gaps between blacks and latinos for example, contribute to the weakness of of-color-anti-racism. Its telling that whites are possibly the most represented racial group at these hoodie/skittle actions other than blacks. You don’t see hundreds of Asian youth out there for example. We are focusing too much on what whites should and should not do, and too little on what latinos, blacks and other non-whites should do. I think this is one of the main efforts that “Notes on Privilege Theory” makes. Unfortunately, responses reproduce the problem that Will is calling out…

On breaking up white solidarity: it was suggested that efforts at turning this Trayvon marches toward white working class areas. This is a good idea. However, if the tone of the march assumes white racism and thus support by whites for the murder of this innocent black youth, it would run the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyway, in any major city, there are hundreds of thousands of working class whites, but they are generally politically liberal and don’t tend to have their own exclusively white neighborhoods. In Oakland for example, white neighborhoods = rich neighborhoods, although many working class whites live dispersed amongst black and browns. Those whites would 100% convinced already of the racial injustice the murder of Trayvon represents, so its not much of a battle there. Im sure in the suburban and rural areas the whites are less sympathetic, but the problem of exporting a protest from its urban base to outlying areas is logistically a barrier.

 

[cesare]

What left wing ideas would identity politics be in competition with/ opposition to?

This is a really good question, and I hope you get a lot of replies to it which will probably illustrate my in a nutshell "a lot, but from different perspectives".

My own take on it is this:

Left politics are socialist. The underlying principle is working towards a fairer society. When you look at this closely, you see that a fairer society means that the people who have too much should give it to the people who have too little. That's in economic terms, but it also applies to fairness in how people live their lives i.e. not to be oppressed by the people who have the power. This means that power should be redistributed as well.

When you look at who is advantaged by wealth and power, it's defined by our class system. It's concentrated in the ruling class (aristocracy, upper class, corporate heads of business, magnates etc) and filters down through the professional/middle class until it gets to the working class and then the impoverished. There's a whole mass of ways that wealth and power are distributed and exercised within all that, but that's the general idea.

Where do the ruling and middle classes get their wealth and power from? Some of it's inherited and passed down through the generations "old money". Most of it is gained from elsewhere in society. Our entire capitalist system is set up to extract as much wealth as possible from the people that produce things of worth that make a profit, and for that profit to be redirected to the already wealthy and powerful. So there's loads of us working very hard to keep a roof over our heads, and provide for our families in the full knowledge that all that effort earns the least wages they can get away with but that produces a huge amount of profit for the people in charge. This affects everyone whether able/willing to work or not. So not very fair. People on the left want to change that and so are anti-capitalist. I tend to think of anti-capitalism as a force being exerted upwards against the capital force being exerted downwards.

But power is distributed in another way too, because the capitalist system is also patriarchal. Our society is structured in such a way that it favours male dominance. So people on the left challenge that as well, because the converse of dominance is oppression which does not make for a fair society. Other ways that patriarchal power is used to dominate/oppress is by way of dominating anything "other" e.g. race, colour, culture, disability, orientation, gender, age etc (in no particular order). People on the left want to change that and so are anti-patriarchy. I tend to think of anti-patriarchy as a force being exerted around and up against the patriarchal force being exerted around and down.

Where it gets tricky is where anti-patriarchy is concentrated on to the exclusion of anti-capitalism, and this is known as identity politics. Not all identity politics are left, simply because that really wouldn't suit some of the rich and powerful identities whose economic and power interests it wouldn't serve. Identity politics don't make for a fairer society because they only aim for anti-patriarchal fairness which only looks at part of the picture. They are also divisive and result in segregation, with sharp lines being drawn between "us" and "them".

A bit simplistic, just a bit of an overview. There's loads of different flavours of "left" too.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

How do anarchists balance the right of women to autonomously self-organise with decrying identity politics?

I'm not an anarchist and not all of them would agree with the following; however my understanding is (and I agree with it) that any section of working class people that feel their situation within class society requires they organise with people who identify as being in the same situation in order to push their radically progressive emancipatory ideas within the wider working class movement and beyond.

Now in relation to this some tiresome people would say "ah but what about straight white males?"

Well the fact that no straight white males have ever afaik felt the need to self organise as straight whitle males to push their radically progressive and emancipatory ideas within the wider working class movement and beyond proves that it is not an issue.

it's not about seperatism or identity politics it's about real working class self organisation. Including working class women's self organisation etc

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I also think it's interesting that there seems to be cross class opposition to self organisation from straight white males... I might be wrong but they seem to be the source of the overwhelming majority of denial of the need for it.

 

[cesare]

I also think it's interesting that there seems to be cross class opposition to self organisation from straight white males... I might be wrong but they seem to be the source of the overwhelming majority of denial of the need for it.

Do you mean self organisation from straight white males, or self organisation by self identified groups from straight white males? (I think you mean the latter but just checking).

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Do you mean self organisation from straight white males, or self organisation by self identified groups from straight white males? (I think you mean the latter but just checking).

yes the latter

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The discussion on this over on libcom is generally pretty good too, although it seems to me to provide evidence that this stuff has seeped quite a bit further into the British anarchist "scene" than I'd have thought. Not all of the people arguing for privilege stuff are Yanks, for instance.

 

[cesare]

The discussion on this over on libcom is generally pretty good too, although it seems to me to provide evidence that this stuff has seeped quite a bit further into the British anarchist "scene" than I'd have thought. Not all of the people arguing for privilege stuff are Yanks, for instance.

Which discussion did you read? There's a couple.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The one called "Afed and Privilege Theory as a Starting Point" that's currently ongoing. There are some interesting posts in it, but the sociological aspect (ie the number of apparently British Anarchos showing softness on this stuff) is at least as interesting in itself.

 

[cesare]

The one called "Afed and Privilege Theory as a Starting Point" that's currently ongoing. There are some interesting posts in it, but the sociological aspect (ie the number of apparently British Anarchos showing softness on this stuff) is at least as interesting in itself.

I've read the one with the same title as this. And another one on privilege theory, although I can't remember the title, I'll see if I still have the tab open ...

Edit:here it is http://libcom.org/library/privilege-politics-reformism

I've just realised that it starts with the same Black Orchid piece that Sihhi linked to earlier in the thread.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It occurs to me that Anarchists can serve much the same canary in a cage purpose that the old IMG used to. They are particularly attuned to the first vapors of poisonous gas when it comes to fashionable lefty nonsense.

 

[cesare]

It occurs to me that Anarchists can serve much the same canary in a cage purpose that the old IMG used to. They are particularly attuned to the first vapors of poisonous gas when it comes to fashionable lefty nonsense.

I'd say that there's more evidence of it in student land judging from what das uberdog's been posting.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It's not anarchism per se but the amorphous activist scene in which many anarchists are immersed

 

[cesare]

It's not anarchism per se but the amorphous activist scene in which many anarchists are immersed

Aye. I'm thinking Occupy rather then <example specific anarcho org> sort of thing, if that's what you mean?

 

[butchersapron]

Bit of fucking discipline and responsibility is what's needed for these people.