shit MANarchists say

[el-ahrairah]

Yebbut ... I think it's counter productive to do much of it, especially when class doesn't seem to enter the equation here.

perhaps. we don;t want to be self-flagatting (booo hooo i was born a white man etc) but my recent experiences with activists on occupy led me to believe that there are a lot of white men who have never learnt about the privileged voice and believe that all people's societal experiences and influences should be weighted the same. "if they've got a problem with me talking why don't they say so in the open where we can discuss it?"

 

[revol68]

That thisiswhiteprivilege.tmblr is just embarrassing.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Oh and that image i posted isnt an isolated thing, my ex used to show me masses of ONTD threads that were absolutely fixated on similar notions of identity.

I think this rise identity politics is in part a response to the break down in social solidarity and rise of individualised consumption since the eighties. The hipster obsession with authenticity could also be understood in this way, not to mention it acting as a form of accumulating cultural capital as a response to large swathes of the middle class being proletarianised.

actually, i agree with this to a certain extent. identity politics are going to come from a world in which we are all demographics to be sold something. but identity is important to people's experience of their lives. we need to recognise without reducing all activism from solidarity and class.

 

[el-ahrairah]

That thisiswhiteprivilege.tmblr is just embarrassing.

i reckon we could all find examples that fit with our experiences.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Thing is, there is quite a bit about class out there when people are talking about privilege, just that it's not being used as the main issue, but one of many. The link isn't being made to the actual system of capitalism as helping perpetuate all of these various inequalities and 'privileges,' but nevertheless, when you look at the individual (and yes, that they are all individual accounts is a problem here) accounts of people 'recognising privilege' and talking about how it affects them, class plays a part in that.

Well, yes, and it tends to be through the lense of "classism", which is an actively misleading way of looking at class.

It stems from the flattening effect of "privilege theory", it's complete inability to deal with the specificity of different forms of oppression in different places and different times. It's particularly jarring when they try to fit class into the model, but the crudeness of the one size fits all approach also does damage to an understanding of sexism, racism etc.

 

[Das Uberdog]

i don't think that 'white male privilege' does exist, certainly not in the internalised pathological sense that the current 'left' seem to think. socialisation between different demographic groups obviously varies, and yeah some blokes still would expect their woman to fetch the sandwich or SHUT THE HELL UP WHEN I'M TALKING TO THE GUYS but broadly i don't think problems of 'patriarchy' should be individualised and blamed on someone's sex - they might just be an arsehole irrespective of that.

i think the response to someone expecting what you might call their 'privilege' should be to deny it to them. if there's some mouth in a meeting spouting off and not listening to anything anyone else then call them out for that, don't start going off on one about them 'checking their privilege' or such bollocks... the manarchist and new identity politics view treats sexism like a pyschological disorder, inherent in all 'cis males', and represented not by their actual conscious views or opinions but more betrayed through their body language, the use of certain 'banned words' (or failure to keep up with the latest politically correct lingo) or whether or not, as a self-identified victim of some sort, the accuser feels in any general way 'uncomfortable' in their presence.

part of the other problem with linking personal behaviours with sex is that you end up chucking out the baby with the bathwater. a lot of the complaints you hear on the 'scene' about 'manarchists' and 'brocialists' are related to things which should be aspired towards, like being assertive and confident - arguing strongly and, sometimes, even aggressively for your point of view, etc. all essential traits if you take your politics seriously.

and not least to mention that, almost universally, the most avid proponents of this form of politics are charlatans, who've never suffered in their lives and just enjoy having an oppression stick to beat people who disagree with them. identity politics serves to maintain this brattish clique of victim-Royalty in a pampered state of emotional indulgence through fear of being declared unsympathetic to their awful middle-class life predicaments.

 

[Lo Siento.]

But that's what Marxist feminism and Marxist anti-racism can do. Privilege analysis fails to make any meaningful explanations.
Instead we get a litany of racist things and sexist things - large and small - dumped together perpetuated by a groups defined solely by their white-ness and man-ness - with virtually zero explanation.

Here's one example

http://thisiswhiteprivilege.tumblr.com/

Things there are entirely worthy of observation and opposition. Agreed. We could call it 'stop racism' or 'examples of everyday racism' instead by calling it white privilege, it works only to confuse those who are white and at ask risk of having their kids centres shut down and job cuts etc who think straight away 'My family is white, I'm not privileged. WTF. What a load of bull'.

That's the only application I can see it having in the real world. I don't see it as a non-white project trying to motivate other foreign non-white people to stand together and fight white racism.

Exhibit A on why this shit is dumb:

White privilege is when the same people who said 4 years ago that we must “respect the president” are the ones most disrespectful to a black president.

Yes, because when one criticises the most powerful man in the world, the head of a global empire and the world's biggest economy, a Harvard-university educated lawyer and son of an academic, you speak from a position of privilege, on account of the enhanced status you get from being a white person, regardless of your actual role in society.

 

[Vintage Paw]

actually, i agree with this to a certain extent. identity politics are going to come from a world in which we are all demographics to be sold something. but identity is important to people's experience of their lives. we need to recognise without reducing all activism from solidarity and class.

I think that's an important point. The ways in which people as individuals encounter the world are very much influenced by the various identities they are told they possess (or feel they possess). These identities might often be false constructs, but nevertheless they are how people experience the world. That can't be ignored. So the problem is how to allow for people to challenge how they are marginalised and oppressed in terms of these various identities, within the framework of a class/capital analysis as well. Someone mentioned that there already exists Marxist feminism, and so on. But it's clearly not something that has made itself accessible to people who are looking for a way to stop being treated like shit. And it seems like it can be something that's sidelined while the business of 'real' Marxism (or whatever) goes on, practiced by those who don't need to worry about the feminist side of it (i.e. the men). There needs to be space (yes yes) for feminism, anti-racism, etc., to be practiced within the normal business of Marxism, as a part of it, rather than a sideline affair, and I think that might be why privilege becomes a buzzword or buzz-concept - as a way of trying to get people to think about all the things at the same time. Not saying it works as intended, mind. Just that that might be part of why it's there.

 

[Das Uberdog]

i think the emphasis should be placed on being right rather than appealing to people in some personal need of political salvation... most of the identity politics recruits i've seen are definitely not in it for the long term. not high quality...

 

[Fez909]

'cis males'

 

[Vintage Paw]

i think the emphasis should be placed on being right rather than appealing to people in some personal need of political salvation... most of the identity politics recruits i've seen are definitely not in it for the long term. not high quality...

Shouldn't the emphasis be on helping people become 'high quality' as you call it, rather than declaring 'these people are not worthy of practicing any kind of politics?'

 

[cesare]

perhaps. we don;t want to be self-flagatting (booo hooo i was born a white man etc) but my recent experiences with activists on occupy led me to believe that there are a lot of white men who have never learnt about the privileged voice and believe that all people's societal experiences and influences should be weighted the same. "if they've got a problem with me talking why don't they say so in the open where we can discuss it?"

Do you think that the activists on occupy are a representative sample of left wing political activists?

 

[cesare]

http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org/1588929.html

 

[Das Uberdog]

Shouldn't the emphasis be on helping people become 'high quality' as you call it, rather than declaring 'these people are not worthy of practicing any kind of politics?'

i'd never declare anyone not worthy, what i was trying to say is that i wouldn't see the explosion of identity politics as any symptom of increasing politicisation amongst the young... i really think it's paper thin, and it works because it indulges certain people rather than that it helps them or challenges them in a productive way at all

 

[Fez909]

http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org/1588929.html

OK, I understand the reasons behind it. But shouldn't this argument be switched? Rather than assign labels to those who do not current have them, we should remove them from those that have.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Do you think that the activists on occupy are a representative sample of left wing political activists?

is there such thing? most of them would describe themselves as left-wing.

 

[Vintage Paw]

i'd never declare anyone not worthy, what i was trying to say is that i wouldn't see the explosion of identity politics as any symptom of increasing politicisation amongst the young... i really think it's paper thin, and it works because it indulges certain people rather than that it helps them or challenges them in a productive way at all

I'd accept that. But moving on from there, isn't it better to try to bring them into the fold, than ensure they never engage in a meaningful way in the future? I'm not suggesting it should be the entire workload of the left, trying to 're-educate' the world's privileged (heh) identity-politickers, but that when encountering them, rather than always giving them short shrift and consigning them to the good old dustbin of history, encouraging them to not be quite so useless. They're not all just kids indulging themselves. And even when they are, giving up on any hope that they might be able to become politicised kind of makes a mockery of the idea of ever hoping to change anything in a worthwhile fashion. A small but committed vanguard aren't going to be able to change our economic and political system. People have got to be on board too, right?

 

[8ball]

http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org/1588929.html

Yes, at first it doesn't seem to reek with privilege, but notice how autistic cyborgs have been completely written out of existence.

Very insidious piece of crypto-fascism if you ask me.

 

[cesare]

is there such thing? most of them would describe themselves as left-wing.

Is there such a thing as a representative sample? Hopefully. I'm asking whether Occupy provided it.

 

[cesare]

OK, I understand the reasons behind it. But shouldn't this argument be switched? Rather than assign labels to those who do not current have them, we should remove them from those that have.

Ideally. But how are you going to do that bar banning labels?

 

[sihhi]

On 'cultural appropriation' - it happens all the time.
The question is, does it further a specific agenda. (On native Americans, the type of parties that white university fraternities and sororities do is often racist Cowboys and Indians, Militia and Indians - and should be opposed), but native American dress itself doesn't do that.

For instance at Bristol Vegfest, a doner kebab was made out of Western meat substitute, making it go all soggy and slop downwards (see picture). Taking an authentically Anatolian dish and making it a superior vegetarian (Western), healthy non-fat non-foreign version.

Should the Lebanese and Turks unite in declaring:



No. No one gives a. No one should. It doesn't matter.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Whether they should or not, people look for something to identify with. I'm not sure how you go about dealing with that. While people are treated like shit for being one thing or another, it's obvious some of them will flock to others like them, who experience the same things. Clearly it can end up being a self-perpetuating circle jerk that stops engaging with anything else outside of itself, though. But how do you deal with the fact that people like to identify with something, and will form groups around areas of their lives they encounter discrimination through?

 

[cesare]

Yes, at first it doesn't seem to reek with privilege, but notice how autistic cyborgs have been completely written out of existence.

Very insidious piece of crypto-fascism if you ask me.

*handwave*

 

[Fez909]

Ideally. But how are you going to do that bar banning labels?

By making them irrelevant. Why should I have to self-identify as cis? If I slept with a man once, should I then have to revise my label? It's pointless.

 

[cesare]

By making them irrelevant. Why should I have to self-identify as cis? If I slept with a man once, should I then have to revise my label? It's pointless.

OK ... how are you going to make them irrelevant?

 

[Das Uberdog]

I'd accept that. But moving on from there, isn't it better to try to bring them into the fold, than ensure they never engage in a meaningful way in the future? I'm not suggesting it should be the entire workload of the left, trying to 're-educate' the world's privileged (heh) identity-politickers, but that when encountering them, rather than always giving them short shrift and consigning them to the good old dustbin of history, encouraging them to not be quite so useless. They're not all just kids indulging themselves. And even when they are, giving up on any hope that they might be able to become politicised kind of makes a mockery of the idea of ever hoping to change anything in a worthwhile fashion. A small but committed vanguard aren't going to be able to change our economic and political system. People have got to be on board too, right?

best that you can bring any individual into the fold! but i wouldn't even have a marginal tactical bias towards them, personally... i think that working class culture in this country is, broadly, tolerant and friendly and actually far further to the left than many in these groups, often with a far simpler and more progressive understanding of equality (i.e. actual equality rather than a complicated web of competing 'oppressions' with variegated privileges). i think the whole idea leads people off down completely the wrong path

 

[cesare]

best that you can bring any individual into the fold! but i wouldn't even have a marginal tactical bias towards them, personally... i think that working class culture in this country is, broadly, tolerant and friendly and actually far further to the left than many in these groups, often with a far simpler and more progressive understanding of equality (i.e. actual equality rather than a complicated web of competing 'oppressions' with variegated privileges). i think the whole idea leads people off down completely the wrong path

So are these groups mainly middle-class, d'ya reckon?

 

[Vintage Paw]

Further to my last post, if left groups, Marxism, whatever, doesn't seem to be addressing things like racism or feminism, and in fact sometimes actually don't challenge them when they occur in their own ranks, why would you expect someone to not go off and find their own group of people who will address it?

I'm not saying they should. What should happen is racism and feminism etc. should be a part of a Marxist analysis as par for the course, and not as some kind of special adjunct to it. Identity politics as they are configured currently are a product of capitalism, and without systematically analysing the various ways in which people are marginalised, and then linking it to a broader (or more detailed, whichever way you want to look at it) understanding of class and capital relations, you end up ignoring a very real reality (tautology, apols) that exists for so many people. And while that happens, they'll just go elsewhere.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Clearly it can end up being a self-perpetuating circle jerk that stops engaging with anything else outside of itself, though.

worse than that is when it does engage with the outside world, and imposes its mad and often vindictive ideas on people who have nothing to do with it... not to bring it up again but they are in charge of NUS these days as the GG controversy shows

 

[8ball]

*handwave*

*jazz hands*