The Poverty of Identity Politics

685 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 25 2018 14:26

Fuck me that piece is all over the shop. I don't think I've seen a better example of the incoherence of most "anti-IDPol" arguments, right down to the bit where you decide - about halfway through suggesting that we cease engaging with "Identity politics" - to segue into defending "radical feminism" against aggressive trans people. Thus taking an overt partisan position on the single biggest moan about "IDPol" arguments to have emerged in the last few years*. For goodness' sake this is your opening manifesto and you can't even stick to your one and only major demand!

------------------
*A position which requires you to totally ignore the utter bullshit which "gender critical" activists have repeatedly tried on against trans people, not to mention the anti-semitism, homphobia, and anti-class approaches taken by some of their most prominent members. When you're uncritically siding with or ignoring "George Soros is paying trans activists" and "it's a Big Pharma conspiracy" merchants who routinely smear trans people as paedophiles and rapists you should take a long hard look at yourself, imo.

LeninistGirl's picture
LeninistGirl
Offline
Joined: 27-04-18
Nov 25 2018 15:31

The text seems to have a very odd view of the idea of exclusivity, it seems to go beyond academia and focuses instead on the mere idea that we would care about a group that faces a very specific form of oppression not faced by "white cis men". Should we abandon the theoretical and practical gains of people like Selma James or Mariosa Della Costa who further understood the way women are exploited under capitalism and therefore make up a class because that is to exclusive?

I also love that this texts mentions absolutely zero actual people or organizations, it comes of as a typical polemic against ghosts. Whatever a "Unquestionably Oppressed" is I don't think it exists because if there is something I've learned about the UK leftism is that it loves to question that status of oppressed people while stile garnering support, see the mayday group that crashed the london anarchist bookfair, or even how the CPGB-ML is going further into anti-LGBT thinking and tries to desperately keep up the dead facade of a culturally unified British working-class.

I am genuinely perplexed by the anglo political discourse, it just seems to devoid of reality, there is no doubt in my mind that Engels take on the fact that the british labor movement was crushed through the gains of colonialism and imperialism, "and the workers gaily share the feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies". Any anglo communist organisation that don't maintain an anti-imperialist line will remain as inbred and conservative as the politics of Angela Nagle.

The first sentence is the most correct one, but they are throwing rocks in glasshouses,

Quote:
Anarchism in the UK is a joke

R Totale's picture
R Totale
Offline
Joined: 15-02-18
Nov 25 2018 15:33
WokeAnarchists wrote:
Come back when you have something genuinely meaningful, subversive and dangerous to the status quo.

Mmmhmm, I was just thinking something very similar.

WokeAnarchists wrote:
So, it is ironic that we have allowed groups with little or no radical politics to enter our spaces...

Well, I'm glad we're agreed about the need to prevent weird transphobic liberals from being able to distribute stuff in anarchist spaces, anyway.
Bonus: just looked at the pdf and spotted that it starts with "Cops on Pride is collaboration." What's your opinion of the Glasgow folk who mobilised to challenge cops at Pride there?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Nov 25 2018 15:51

Are the Woke Anarchists African American? Woke is a specific term from AAVE, meaning a person who has become aware of the structures and mechanisms if white supremacy. Personally I find people using it out if that context a bit tone deaf and politically and historically illiterate. Of course it has been co-opted by the right to belittle anyone with slightly leftist opinions but I can only assume that the writers of this piece are not deliberately using it in such a racist way.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 25 2018 17:45
Quote:
Identity politics is not liberatory, but reformist. It is nothing but a breeding ground for aspiring middle class identity politicians. Their long-term vision is the full incorporation of traditionally oppressed groups into the hierarchical, competitive social system that is capitalism, rather than the destruction of that system.

Through the entire essay (manifesto?) you don't actually come up with a coherent working definition of ID politics. There's a few repeat signifiers of what you seem to think ID Pol comprises but for the most part these appear to be just groups or attitudes you dislike, rather than a recognisible whole. Here for example you take issue with ID-Pol as a middle class phenomenon. I'd actually agree that middle class people sometimes use "wokeness" as a way to attack working class people they don't like, but If "ID Pol is middle class" what does that make working class people who agree with an intersectional analysis of social hierarchies within working class politics? Dunces? Dupes? What analytical tools and political proposals specifically you disagree with? Not who, but what.

Quote:
A good example is ‘queer theory’ and how it has sold out to corporate masters .. little in the way of class critique

Of course queer theory had to be relevant in the first place to have been sold out. Again though, I agree that it (clearly) has been, London Pride is a celebration mainly of the power of the pink pound these days. But what you're talking about here is the process of capitalist co-option of social change and the rush of the bourgeois to embrace safe consumption of the ticklish edges of propriety once a former Out group has been brought In, it's got absolutely fuck all to do with anarchist "ID-Pol" and I doubt the vast majority of people exploiting it could even tell you what anarchism is. In fact quite the contrary, much of what little resistance has been rallied against that process has come from anarchist queers.

Quote:
We don’t want hear about the next DIY event, queer night or squatter fest that excludes all but those who have the right language, dress code, or social circles.

Lifestylism. You're talking about lifestylism. Murray Bookchin was going on about this decades before ID-pol was coined as a term, except he wasn't conflating it with a hodge-podge of other phenomena. If you want to complain about lifestylism then cool, I'm down with that. Bloody hippy students amirite? We should definitely all be wearing jeans and a T-shirt to Appeal to the Masses, because nothing says unity like uniformity, and no-one ever got recruited to the cause through enjoying a subculture before learning to be less of a d-bag about it later.

Quote:
While claiming to be about inclusivity, it is highly exclusionary, dividing the world into two broad groupings: the Unquestionably Oppressed and the Innately Privileged. There are few grey areas allowed in practice and conflict is continually stoked between these two groups.

You say, dividing the political world into a stark line of Real Anarchists and ID-Pol Dilettantes. Have you considered that maybe your homogenous "ID-pol" shibboleth may in fact consist of a broad spectrum of people and viewpoints ranging all the way from wanky privileged types pissing about before they join the Tories through to practical class strugglists who have incorporated elements of intersectional thinking into their praxis? No? Just going with the Us inclusivists vs Them exclusionary types? Righto.

Quote:
Identity politics is a tool of the middle classes. It is flagrantly used and abused by articulate, well-educated group representatives to entrench and maintain their own power through politicking, dogma and bullying.

Elements of the current political discussion around "identity" and socio-economic oppression are vulnerable to hijack by people with fundamentally reactionary politics, often from privileged backgrounds. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But those qualifiers are important, and nuance is important. This thing of just hefting anything you don't like into the ID-pol pit and playing as though it's all part of a middle class student destruction of pure anarchist politics is just sloppy.

Quote:
We see this in the ease with these individuals ‘call out’ other people at the slightest deviation from the code of practice ... Thus ignoring the reality of daily class struggle.

Yup, see it all the time. Often from working class anarchists who are telling me that if I'm not crusty and vegan I'm not doing it right. EF! and the squatting scene has had it for time - as someone who usually dresses like a "normal" cis white guy in jeans and a muted shirt I often find both scenes alienating and sometimes downright unwelcoming.

Oh sorry that's lifestylism again. Seriously though, what you're describing here is simple boundary policing of social cultures. And it's fine to talk about and encourage people to think about the ways in which they interact with folks who are outside their zone of social comfort, but this isn't particular to "identity politics" as a concept, it's how groups of people habitually interact. It's also much more noticeable online, where you've got a global reinforcement system rather than a local one and it's absurdly easy to exclude people who don't fit. That's a useful discussion to be having about our collective behaviour btw, both online and off.

Quote:
many in the Unquestionably Oppressed espouse liberal values rooted in capitalist ideology

Yes. Liberals. We all hate liberals. And?

Quote:
use of loaded terms intended to provoke an emotional response (‘triggering’, ‘feeling unsafe’, ‘Terf’, ‘fascist’);

OMG people play victim or call each other names online in arguments to try and provoke? Hold the presses! C'mon guys complaining about this is like complaining about the bloody weather. Yes it'd be lovely if we didn't have to deal with manipulative or trolling arseholes online. But we live in the really real world and people don't like to lose arguments, particularly ones which they think actually matter. You'll get headbangers doing this on both sides of any argument - and if you think you're immune to a bit of victim-playing or hyperbole I suggest you read back your own text. Carefully.

Quote:
those who aren’t members of specific groups being denied an opinion on the wider politics of these groups; the idea that members of the group should under no circumstances have to do any ‘labour’ of explaining their politics

This is a whole other conversation tbh, but the thing about it is that these phenomena are complex. Yes there are some groups which culturally exclude "non-members" from joining in with their opinions, but if some moron shows up on libcom talking about how great capitalism is what do you think happens to them in short order? Being excluded from a space is not going to kill you, and in terms of say, a space which involves black people talking about their experience of oppression it's really not that much of an imposition to ask that white people be quiet sometimes. It's not like we have no other places to talk about this stuff. If such a space has no class dimension to it then yes, of course it's going to be a reactionary one. But approach it on that level, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

On the "labour" of explaining politics, sometimes I get fucking tired just explaining anarchism over and over again to the sort of ignorant fuck who thinks antifa is a fascist group. I can't even imagine how tiring it must be to have to explain both that and how your experience of lifelong oppression impacts on your revolutionary praxis to people who are often wilfully trying to ignore you and sometimes are just outright bigots doing that "reasonable questions" bollocks. Yes of course explaining your case is important but give the poor bastards a break, if they lose their temper it's not the end of anarchism as we know it.

Quote:
it is used to disenfranchise rather than actually empower, as is claimed. It reinforces the idea that people are fragile victims rather than agents of change, and therefore need to accept leaders.

I'm all in favour of changing narratives to end the victimhood perspective wherever possible. I like switching from "X" victim to "X" survivor, for example, it's a useful change of emphasis. But how people en masse view what has happened/is happening to them is not up to me. And it's not up to you.

Quote:
we have allowed groups with little or no radical politics to enter our spaces and shut down debate, and claim that anything that disagrees with their viewpoint must be fascist.

If you have specific complaints and evidence to back your claims then name names. What groups? What actions have they undertaken? What politics have they shown? If you want something beyond just moaning to happen this technique of vague allusion is totally pointless.

Quote:
It is an embarrassment the way so much of what passes for anarchism in the UK today acts as apologists for those who want to avoid any challenge to their own sexism and patriarchy or even continue their oppressive religions, simply because reactionary conservatives treat them as scapegoats.

Wtf are you talking about? Anarchism has involved religious allies and members for as long as it's existed - Quakers, primitive Methodism, liberation theologists etc, hell the Anabaptists are sometimes pointed to as the first major libertarian break with the status quo to have taken place in Europe. SolFed, as a class-specific organisation founded well before IDPol became a term, has a specific clause that *priests* (or Imams, I suppose, as that seems to be what you're driving at with the "reactionary conservatives" bit) can't be members, but that's based on not allowing power holders, not because it blanket refuses to allow religious people to be involved.

Quote:
Anarchism is not just another identity as some like to claim.

Who has claimed this? Can you append it to any specific group or is this just another "argument I got into on Facebook" thing?

Quote:
Unlike the inherent, exclusive characteristics of identity politics with its in-groups and out-groups, anarchism is for us a set of ethics that guide how we understand and react to the world.

What modern golden age of anarchist purity are you describing here? Lifestyle anarchism has been around since at least the '60s, and people have been complaining about its subcultural aspects ever since. It's the same bullshit there's always been around young people getting tribal with their attitudes. And I should say, I think lifestyle anarchism is bollocks. But it's bollocks because it's lifestyle-centric tribalism, not inherently because people are fetishising identity more or less.

Quote:
One doesn’t need to know the word anarchy to feel it.

Speaking of which... anarchy is not a "feeling" at all. It's a set of principles based on a robust understanding of how class and society interact to create inequality. Part of gathering that understanding means getting your head out of your arse and listening to people when they say you're doing things wrong. You don't have to always agree, but dismissing everything you don't like under the banner of "ID-Pol" is as bad as that insufferable Oxbridge twonk who thinks oppression can be lessened by putting Hilary Clinton in the White House because "she".

Quote:
middle class identity politicians are doing an excellent job of alienating already disenfranchised cis white people

Of course they are, they're an annoying subset of middle class people telling working class people they're "privileged". A subset which, incidentally, we physically can't shut up because they're all online - though do please feel free to try. But the issue there is CLASS, not the gigantic umbrella you've constructed which seems to include anything and everything smacking of intersectional theory (which is at root a class theory). The existence of middle class liberals is not a catch-all excuse for silencing bits of reality which are messy and difficult to deal with, it's simply a reason to make class analysis a non-negotiable part of organising.

AnythingForProximity's picture
AnythingForProximity
Offline
Joined: 27-12-17
Nov 27 2018 03:07

Good critique overall; the parts about the goal of identity politics actually being a more efficient, more 'frictionless' capitalism, and about the similarity between identity politics and nationalism are particularly strong. In some places, though, the article doesn't go far enough and makes too many concessions to the very ideology it set out to criticize:

Woke Anarchists wrote:
A good example is ‘queer theory’ and how it has sold out to corporate masters. The concept of queer was not long ago something subversive [...]

How was it "subversive"? How can any sort of sexuality, no matter how undefinable, help subvert the capitalist mode of production and the State? It cannot, and it is a sad sign of the times that something so utterly obvious needs to be spelled out. Far from having been "sold out", by becoming commodified and fully incorporated into the prevailing bourgeois orthodoxy, the concept simply completed its natural life cycle. There was no alternative path to take by somehow injecting "class critique" into it, contrary to what the article seems to imply.

Rob Ray also makes a good point about the inherent weirdness of defending "radical feminists" against "trans rights activists" in what is ostensibly an anti-idpol polemic. The ICC had a much sounder analysis of the issue when they identified both groups simply as representatives of two different brands of identity politics, and concluded that one should not take sides when they clash but rather reject them both.

LeninistGirl wrote:
I also love that this texts mentions absolutely zero actual people or organizations, it comes of as a typical polemic against ghosts.

Judging from how defensive you got, it's probably safe to assume that you can indeed consider yourself one of the actual people they are polemicizing against.

Fleur wrote:
Are the Woke Anarchists African American? Woke is a specific term from AAVE, meaning a person who has become aware of the structures and mechanisms if white supremacy. Personally I find people using it out if that context a bit tone deaf and politically and historically illiterate. Of course it has been co-opted by the right to belittle anyone with slightly leftist opinions but I can only assume that the writers of this piece are not deliberately using it in such a racist way.

Yeah, right. Fuck the abolition of private property, that's so 19th century and out of touch with contemporary realities (as you once so eloquently declaimed, "Fuck Bakunin") – what we really need to do is extend private property to language itself, so that oppressed minorities can acquire exclusive ownership rights to the words they came up with. I would take it a bit further and suggest that in order not to be tone deaf, politically and historically illiterate and (of course) racist, the Woke Anarchists should be made to pay some sort of licensing fee for the word. That way everyone wins – as they always do in the realm of freedom, equality, property and Bentham.

LeninistGirl's picture
LeninistGirl
Offline
Joined: 27-04-18
Nov 25 2018 20:20
Quote:
Judging from how defensive you got, it's probably safe to assume that you can indeed consider yourself one of the actual people they are polemicizing against.

I'm neither an anarchist nor from the UK, I don't take part in any type of "anarchist" partying or DIY events, so I can probably walk free, but it it is still a very weird and British text. I can even agree on some parts on the over usage of the term "TERF" but this text is not really close to any type of feminist understanding anyway.

The ICC is also very British, no where else in the world would a communist organisation dedicate organisational labor to address debates on some internet forum to pwn the identity politics. You can all go off about how you are the ones who actually care about the interests of the class but you seem to have made your own sub-culture around attacking whatever "idpol" is, detached from any actual practice.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Nov 25 2018 22:26

Man AFP, your memory for something I said more than a year ago on a forum is pretty impressive. I was simply snarking on a group of people ( a person?) picking a word to describe themselves, while simultaneously shitting on the political school from whence it came. That's either ignorance of what it actually means or deliberate attempt to discredit a long tradition of anti-racist theory and praxis. Either way it doesn't really matter because that article is pretty much a mess of rants we've heard before.

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Nov 30 2018 19:42

[removed]

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Nov 30 2018 19:42

[removed]

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Nov 27 2018 21:23

Are you fucking serious right now?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 27 2018 21:30

He mostly seems to think he's being clever by pointing out that women can also be ruling-class reactionaries, which is about as mind-blowing a revelation on libcom as that time a bear shit in the woods.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Nov 27 2018 21:41

Still, could be fun placing them in order of how much you hate them? Then again maybe not - Hilary absolutely smashes it, I’m indifferent to the rest of em.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 27 2018 21:42

Here are some examples of exploited members of the working class.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Nov 27 2018 22:52

To my recollection Dalla Costa et al. never claimed that women were a separate class. They simply argued that struggles of non-waged proletarian women at the time are part and parcel of the broader class struggle (which I find hard to disagree with to be honest). They thought that because of the inner conflicts in the working class, it would be appropriate to organize autonomously, i.e., independently of the male-dominated workers organizations (who often had zero respect for those struggles). But they also put forward a demand (wages for housework) around which (they thought) women's struggles could unite as well as link up with struggles of waged workers. Whether this was/is a good strategy should be evaluated both in its historical context and with respect to the present (I don't think the two are necessarily the same). But the underlying analysis has nothing to do with the idea that women are a class.

AnythingForProximity's picture
AnythingForProximity
Offline
Joined: 27-12-17
Nov 27 2018 23:30

I love it when Mike Harman tries to prove to other people how wrong they are by the use of analogy. The combination of the eager, almost Pavlovian desire to set 'em right and his own total inability to construct a logical argument is just too funny.

As an example, let us examine post #585: what profound truth was he trying to convey in it? It seems reasonable to assume that he wanted his post to parallel Craftwork's, i.e., that he sees a parallel between Craftwork's argumentation and his own. Going off of that, there are two possible conclusions to draw. Perhaps he believes that the people in his photos really are members of the working class, and that it therefore really is possible for members of the working class not to be exploited. Under the Marxist definition of the working class, that's a contradiction in terms, so we are left to conclude that he has some other definition (1) which includes the people in the pictures he posted and (2) which he prefers over the Marxist one. Care to enlighten us, Mike?

The other option, of course, is that just like he doesn't actually consider the people in his pictures to be members of the working class... he doesn't consider Thatcher, Clinton, the Queen, May, and Merkel to be women. Strong stuff.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 28 2018 00:07

The existence of ruling class women doesn't disprove that gender has been a mechanism of working class stratification for a very long time (although this isn't the same as saying 'women are a class', but as jura points out that's not really Dalla Costa or Selma James' contention anyway). Similarly, class mobility doesn't disprove class in general at all.

Craftwork has long form for definitions so restrictive they don't even cover the things he's trying to restrict them to, such as this classic: https://libcom.org/forums/news/brazils-elections-current-political-situa... - and these kinds of hit and run responses where his obvious bullshitting is pointed out and he never corrects it, popping up on another thread elsewhere to make an equally pointless comment.

AnythingForProximity's picture
AnythingForProximity
Offline
Joined: 27-12-17
Nov 28 2018 04:38
Mike Harman wrote:
The existence of ruling class women doesn't disprove that gender has been a mechanism of working class stratification

No, but it does a great job of disproving that women are a class. Which is, you know, the only claim that Craftwork was actually addressing. How can I be so sure? See, he left us this cryptic hint in the form of the four-word plain-English sentence "Women aren't a class".

Normally, I would consider an attempt to twist someone's words into something you feel more comfortable arguing against to be dishonest and malicious. You do it so clumsily, though, that it's mostly just weird. Like, is it even deliberate, or is your reading comprehension really that bad?

Mike Harman wrote:
(although this isn't the same as saying 'women are a class', but as jura points out that's not really Dalla Costa or Selma James' contention anyway)

Perhaps, but that was the contention LeninistGirl was making – you know, the person that Craftwork actually quoted and directed his reply to.

Mike Harman wrote:
Similarly, class mobility doesn't disprove class in general at all.

Oh, so you never even attempted to make any sort of logical connection in the first place. You just really felt like saying some other, completely unrelated thing which is painfully obvious to absolutely everyone and which neither Craftwork nor anyone else on this thread has ever denied, but which seems kinda-sorta similar to you. Gotcha.

Mike Harman wrote:
and these kinds of hit and run responses where his obvious bullshitting is pointed out and he never corrects it, popping up on another thread elsewhere to make an equally pointless comment

Projecting much? You just had your own bullshit "logic" pointed out to you, and you responded by... quickly trying to divert attention to something someone else said some time ago on another thread about a completely different topic.

Still, I guess all of this is better than the response I was expecting, which was "Did you just assume my gender?!"

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Nov 28 2018 10:13

Those fucking feminists ruining anarchism again...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/7844205/claus-parad...

It’s political correctness gone mad I tell you!

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 28 2018 11:35
AnythingForProximity wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
The existence of ruling class women doesn't disprove that gender has been a mechanism of working class stratification

No, but it does a great job of disproving that women are a class. Which is, you know, the only claim that Craftwork was actually addressing. How can I be so sure? See, he left us this cryptic hint in the form of the four-word plain-English sentence "Women aren't a class".

Until 1870, after Marx had written Capital, married women had no right to own property in their own right in the UK. The fact that there was Queen Victoria and many upper class women does not counteract that women were excluded from large swathes of the ruling class and property relationships, or even wages for wage labour, which automatically became property of their husbands. Similarly that Thatcher and Clinton exist does not counteract the predominance of women in care work and other low status/paid jobs now.

So if we were to understand capitalism properly, then we'd take a serious look at how both gender and race have been used to structure labour within countries and internationally, something which Dalla Costa and Selma James have done. However craftwork says we should reject their work because of Hillary Clinton (or LeninistGirl's summary of it, or both), not critique it, just reject it out of hand.

AnythingForProximity wrote:
Still, I guess all of this is better than the response I was expecting, which was "Did you just assume my gender?!"

That's a 4chan alt-right meme, why are you expecting that response from a cis communist, unless you've actually taken that transphobic meme at its word and think it's what trans people do during normal conversation?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Nov 28 2018 12:40

The thing is Mike, that from his general comments earlier in the thread where he talks about bullshit lifestyle choices and his refusal to answer my asking if he included transitioning as one of those bullshit choices, I think it’s safe to assume AFP has some sort of anti-trans agenda or at least that he rejects trans issues as being legitimate.
It seems to naturally follow that he probably considers feminism to be bullshit too, so from my perspective his recent posts come as no surprise, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if he believes that women aren’t oppressed at all.

Now if he wants to answer my previous question I’m all ears and I truly hope that I’ve made wrong assumptions. Anyways, I spell it out one final time...

AFP, do you believe that transitioning is a bullshit lifestyle choice?
And while your at it, do you believe the oppression of women in particular has any relevance in class relations? Indeed, do you believe that women are oppressed in any way differently to men?

LeninistGirl's picture
LeninistGirl
Offline
Joined: 27-04-18
Nov 28 2018 15:48

To expand on the marxism-feminism thing though. My understanding is that the focal point of marxism-feminism was to understand how working women were also exploited in a different way then men are, not just oppressed. I.e the relation between reproductive labor such as house-work and production of surplus-value, reproduction of labor-power, etc.

Quote:
Still, I guess all of this is better than the response I was expecting, which was "Did you just assume my gender?!"

I love how powerful this forum is, the real anarchism is when you make off-hand alt-right jokes.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Nov 28 2018 13:24

I can't believe this thread is still going. There is no working definition for 'identity politics' here because it's not meant to be a specific thing one can hold up to analyze. It's entire utility as a phrase depends on it being a vague pejorative. It's 'stuff I don't like on the left' or 'stuff that upsets me about the online left'. There are definitely things to be said about the interplay of issues of identity and class and how they determine society and movements, etc., but I've seen little evidence that this conversation can happen constructively here.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 28 2018 19:59
Juan Conatz wrote:
I can't believe this thread is still going. .... There are definitely things to be said about the interplay of issues of identity and class and how they determine society and movements, etc., but I've seen little evidence that this conversation can happen constructively here.

Well one useful function it has is showing who's actually talking about/learning from/engaging in class struggle in its various forms, as opposed to those who are only talking about talking about class struggle. A few years ago I did not really understand or appreciate that distinction, but 2013 or so until now it's very stark.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 28 2018 22:50

What does that actually mean, Mike, aside from you thinking those you disagree with are merely "talking about talking". Good grief, your pomposity knows no bounds.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 28 2018 23:01

@Serge so one example not on this thread would be social democrats who constantly bang on about 'class', while trying to get career politicians elected, like Adolph Reed. Surely you've seen this phenomenon before? https://libcom.org/blog/identity-crisis-leftist-anti-wokeness-bullshit-2...

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 28 2018 23:39

Why should anyone care about social democrats banging on about 'class' and what does it have to do with anything? Are you somehow trying to compare people posting on this thread you disagree with with social democrats on some other thread for goodness sake? Still, at least nobody is pulling the "that's the same as what the alt right say" nonsense with people they disagree with... oh hang on a minute.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 28 2018 23:40

Double post.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 28 2018 23:45

Serge. Please read some history (of 2016 to 2018) before being so outraged about quite a straightforward observation. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/did-you-just-assume-my-gender

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 29 2018 01:30

Who said I'm outraged? There you go again. I do wish you'd stop falsely ascribing feelings or ideas to people. It's piss poor.