Charlie Hebdo and other attacks in Paris

468 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 19 2015 00:17
Quote:
As we live in Britain, our tendency is to underestimate the effects of hard Islamism beyond Britain's borders.

No, our media's tendency is not to care when it doesn't affect British interests - and I'd point out that my first link, the "white widow," is directly linked to Somalia, which kind of undermines your point. And in any case that's not what I'm doing - there is a difference between not caring, underestimating, and recognising there's not a lot to be done.

Quote:
The overall point is that British citizens are trying to causing chaos to the w/class across boundaries.

As opposed to say, the British state spending billions on foreign interventions every year. Or the far-right maintaining a significant European alliance both in the EU and via numerous international get-togethers. Or indeed the actions of every major British multinational going. Or the activities of British-led drug gangs or arms dealers or traffickers of whatever, all of which cause much more chaos, much more effectively. I don't see why a tiny minority of people getting sucked into a cult should be regarded as special here?

And they haven't made it "a thousand times worse," they've acted as a small contributor of manpower in a region which is already totally fucked - waay more so because of Western guns which have flooded the region than because a bunch of wannabes have shown up from Duncetown UK - and would remain so with or without their involvement. This is exactly the shit I mean when I suggest you're overstating the case, and frankly comes across as a bit Western-centric, as though these countries would be idyllic if only those surly British teenagers weren't around.

Quote:
If we label people who aren't racist (Charlie Hebdo's team of cartoonists) as racists then the self-confidence and victim narrative of Sunni Islamists only comes easier and powerful to them.

So having made this massive deal about Islam being a huge terror threat this appears to be your only actual suggestion? That we shouldn't make a big deal out of Charlie Hebdo being racist because it offers a victim card to fundamentalists? Well newsflash mate, that's exactly what's happened. And as a direct result:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914532/Anti-Charlie-Hedbo-prote...

Apparently supporting Hebdo isn't doing much to stop fundamentalists playing the victim card. Which is a bit "well duh" really - cults as a matter of course take whatever the non-believer's reaction might be and spin it to the crowd in a way that bolsters their position. So here's the thing - as someone in Britain, I have no ability to avoid that outcome whatsoever. And that's as true in Somalia as it is in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Quote:
Our only concern cannot be how Muslims feel from 'non-Muslims'. There are other minorities within Islam who feel pressure from Sunni Islamist-minded Muslims eg Kurds in Sparkbrook.

This kind of diverges from why you asked me the question in the first place and the reason for my answer, and comes across as quite disingenuous, but never mind. Again though, how is this different from any other cult, gang, or drug problem that has been dogging working class communities up and down the country over the last three decades? The problem is still "bunch of parasites exploit communities," and the solution is still "build up solidarity within communities to fend the bastards off," ie what we've been saying for god knows how long. It's not a new or special problem except in the dockets of media and political vultures who are looking to capitalise on building an atmosphere of fear.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 19 2015 00:10
ocelot wrote:
What's impressive about this "reply" is that not only does it not address a single thing I said in my post, but I am left with the inescapable impression that you would have written exactly the same thing no matter what I said. Dialogue presupposes a degree of engagement that is clearly lacking here.

Bit harsh there. I was referring to the post before your response to my post. In all your posts though, you continue to conflate islam and muslims while continuing to accuse others of conflating islam and islamism (even though no one has actually done this).

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 19 2015 11:21

Just as a backgrounder...

Interview with Mansoor Hekmat (the founder and intellectual authority of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran) - "Islam and De-Islamisation"

The blurb on the official www.m-hekmat.com website says "The above is an interview first published in Farsi by Negah publication, January 1999. It was first published in English in the Worker-communist Review 1, dated June 2004." Maryam Namazie was one of the translators, NB.

Quote:
Negah: The existence and conduct of Islamic groups and governments in the Middle East and North Africa in recent years have instigated disagreements over how to deal with religion and religious movements and governments. There are those who say that ‘we must differentiate between Islamic groups/governments and Islam’. They also claim that: ‘what takes place in these countries have nothing to do with Islam but are the result of a mis-interpretation of Islam’ and that ‘one mustn’t speak out against religion because it insults people’s beliefs and divides them’. What do you think about these statements?
.
Mansoor Hekmat: I realise that the interests of some require that they rescue Islam (as much as possible) from the wrath of those who have witnessed the indescribable atrocities of or been victimised by Islamists. I also realise that the extent of these atrocities and holocausts is such that even some Islamists themselves do not want to take responsibility for them. So it is natural that the debate on ‘true Islam’ vis-à-vis ‘practical Islam’ is broached over and over again. These justifications, however, are foolish from my point of view (that of a communist and atheist) and from the points of views of those of us who have seen or been the victims of Islam’s crimes. They are foolish for those of us who are living through a colossal social, political and intellectual struggle with this beast. The doctrinal and Koranic foundations of Islam, the development of Islam’s history, and the political identity and affiliation of Islam and Islamists in the battle between reaction and freedom in our era are too obvious to allow the debate on the various interpretations of Islam and the existence or likelihood of other interpretations to be taken seriously. Even if the debate were in the future and on other planets where the most basic rights and affections of humanity were not violated. In my opinion, it shows the utmost contempt for the science and social intelligence of our times if every excuse and justification that Islamists fling into society whilst retreating is scientifically analysed and dissected... In Islam, be it true or untrue, the individual has no rights or dignity. In Islam, the woman is a slave. In Islam, the child is on par with animals. In Islam, freethinking is a sin deserving of punishment. Music is corrupt. Sex without permission and religious certification, is the greatest of sins. This is the religion of death. In reality, all religions are such but most religions have been restrained by freethinking and freedom-loving humanity over hundreds of years. This one was never restrained or controlled. With every move, it brings abominations and misery.
[...]
Today, it is our movement – worker-communism – and the deep-seated hatred of Islam by the vast population at large in Iran, particularly women and youth, which is building the foundations of a serious anti-religious and de-Islamised development in Iran. If the people in Iran are to experience prosperity, this movement must become victorious. I am sure that along the way and with the people’s advancement, a section of freethinking intellectuals will join this front.

I think that pretty much answers the question of equating Islamism with Islam?

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jan 19 2015 12:13

there were btw. some conflicts in the “worker-communist milieu” about cooperating with bourgeois secularists which were to my knowledge one of the reasons why the group around Azar Majedi (Mansoor Hekmat’s widow) and others left the Worker-communist Party of Iran (where Maryam Namazie is a member) in 2007 to set up the Worker-communist Unity Party of Iran (which merged in 2012 with the Worker-Communist Party - Helmatist

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Jan 19 2015 14:20

So,

Equating Islam and Islamism; wrong.

Criticising Islam; okay.

Criticising Islamism; okay.

Cultutal differentialism; wrong.

That about right?

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 19 2015 17:38

Pretty much. Although I guess as usual the devil is in the detail - i.e. what forms of criticising Islam would constitute cultural differentialism (i.e. the idea that being a believing muslim is in some way fundamentally incompatible with living in a pluralist society in a way that being a believing Jew or Christian isn't). But anyway...

In other news...

FR24: Far-right leader says French govt afraid to use word 'Islamist'

Quote:
Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front (FN) party, has accused the French government of failing to tackle Islamic fundamentalists, in part by its reluctance to call them just that.[...]
In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Le Pen specifically targeted Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, but blamed the entire political establishment for allegedly not “looking the enemy in the eye” and for its lack of vigilance.
.
“It does our Muslim compatriots no favors to fuel suspicions and leave things unspoken. Islamist terrorism is a cancer on Islam, and Muslims themselves must fight it at our side,” she wrote in the op-ed published on Sunday.
[...]
Speaking on Europe 1 radio on January 11[...] Fabius explained:
.
“I don’t want to play the role of censor, but I think the word Islamist … is not the right one to use. I call them terrorists. Because as soon as you use the word Islam, you are promoting an idea of continuity between a Muslim – who practises his religion, which is a religion of peace – and something which is an interpretation of the Muslim religion.”
[...]

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 20 2015 11:59

EI: France begins jailing people for ironic comments

Quote:
[...]
Wave of arrests

“A string of at least 69 arrests in France this week on the vague charge of ‘defending terrorism’ (‘l’apologie du terrorisme’) risks violating freedom of expression,” Amnesty International said in an understated press release on Friday.
[...]
They include:
.
* A 14-year-old girl charged with “defending terrorism.” She allegedly shouted at a tram conductor: “We are the Kouachi sisters, we’re going to grab our Kalashnikovs.” Cherif and Said Kouachi are two French brothers authorities say carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack.
.
* A 21-year-old was caught without a ticket on a tram, and subsequently sentenced to ten months in prison for allegedly saying, “The Kouachi brothers is just the beginning; I should have been with them to kill more people,” according to Amnesty International.
.
* In the northern city of Lille, authorities suspended three school workers for allegedly refusing to observe a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the attacks, and then justifying their action. One is being charged with “defending terrorism.” The accused denies that he refused to respect the minute of silence, but said he did “debate it with colleagues outside work hours.”
.
* In Paris, one man who was drunk and another who suffers psychiatric problems were jailed for fourteen and three months respectively for “defending terrorism” for comments they made. A third was jailed for fifteen months and the court ordered that their sentences begin immediately.
.
* In Bordeaux, police carried out a traffic stop. A very drunk 18-year-old passenger in the car allegedly hurled abuse at the police and made comments sympathetic to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. She was charged with “defending terrorism” and sentenced to 210 hours of community service. Prosecutors had asked for a four-month jail term.
.
* In almost every case where a name is provided, those arrested would appear to be of North African ancestry – suggesting that France’s crackdown is quite targeted.
[...]
It may seem surprising that French authorities can charge and jail people so quickly. These summary trials and long custodial terms are the result of a change in the law last November in which the charge of “defending terrorism” became a criminal offense subject to fast-track trials.
[...]

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Jan 20 2015 17:19

Maryam Namazie talking about the Charlie Hebdo attack on Bread and Roses TV, which I think is basically a worker-communist youtube channel. I don't see anything earth shaking in her analysis, or much to object to either. I certainly don't see anything that could be seen as either racist or equating Islamism and Islam.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Jan 20 2015 21:15
Rob Ray wrote:
Agreed. But for me, the main worry isn't that fundamentalist Islam will trend towards more effectively killing people but that its adherents will provide a very useful scapegoat for far-right elements who have much more of a foothold in the general populace and much more opportunity to grow exponentially as working people's lives continue to deteriorate. Fundamentalist Islam simply doesn't have the reach to pose the same kind of long term threat to the general public, and unless British demographics change dramatically in the next couple of decades they never will. That's not to say they aren't a threat at all, but they aren't such a major one that the tiny anarchist movement needs to specifically prioritise and take time out to deal with it.

I don't think the point is that Islamism is a major threat to the general public in Britain (at least in the bigger scheme of things) but that it's a real threat in various ways to people from a muslim background who live here, whether they're believers or not. I don't think ex-muslims and others are asking the left to prioritise or take much time to deal with their issues. I expect they'd be happy with not having to face active opposition and accusations of racism, and maybe getting the occasional nod of support.

I've quoted this on ex-muslims and the left before but it's maybe worth putting up again: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=23368.0

Quote:

Reflections on Six Years of the Ex-Muslims Forum

In 2007, a group of people who met on websites sceptical of religion and Islam decided to create a forum specifically focussing on the many issues facing ex-Muslims in the modern world.

They felt uncomfortable with the atmosphere and attitudes of many existing forums which were critical of Islam. Too often these websites existed to service Christian proselytising, or a political agenda that fitted into wider far-right nationalism.

It was felt that there was a lack of a space sympathetic to the experiences of those whose free conscience rejected Islam, who wanted to express this rejection in the spirit of secularism, humanism, feminism, individual rights, atheism, science and rationalism.

In some ways, the need to create this space suggests the dilemma of those who reject Islam in liberal, secular non-Islamic countries. Despite having members from around the world, those who founded the forum were ex-Muslims from the West, and the general orientation of the forum originates from this experience.

To be critical of Islam, and to reject Islam in a society like Britain, is to be assailed by immense pressures and contradictions.

On the one hand, certain reactionary values and precepts of Islam, and the violent, often murderous hostility towards those who leave Islam can crush an individual. These pressures emanate from family, peers, and the wider Muslim community.

But another pressure exists externally, the pressures caused by those whose concern for Muslim apostates is rooted in an agenda that seeks to assert general hostility to Muslims collectively.

The rise of organisations like the EDL and other far-right xenophobic movements in Europe and America presents an extremism that mirrors the extremism of Islamist identity-politics. In so many ways these movements feed off each other, and ex Muslims are caught in a paralysing bind by these tendencies.

So navigating this landscape is difficult, and doing so presents moral dilemmas and inhibiting pressures that can be intimidating and silencing.

It is not surprising then that the voice of ex Muslims is so stifled, both by the theological and socially sanctioned hostility towards apostasy within Islam, and by the treacherous waters of modern multicultural politics.

Because one of the tragedies of the ex Muslim experience is that too often a section of the social tendency that should be their natural home is either tacitly or actively hostile towards them.

There is a sense that some parts of the Left would rather ex Muslims, and their criticism of Islam, did not exist. This is understandable in some ways.

Instinctively, the Left seeks to be inclusive and sympathetic to minorities, especially in the face of far-right activism.

But this means that sub-minorities, in this case dissenters and apostates from Islam, are neglected, and sometimes betrayed by those who should be their natural friends.

The values that should be fought for by the Left as inviolable; of secularism, the struggle against misogyny, free speech, free conscience, scepticism towards clerical power, are the values that ex Muslims are fighting for.

The rigidities of religious identity politics in a complex world all too often negate the religious dissenter and apostate.

And so it is that often even in societies like Britain, taboos against apostasy, and the open rejection and criticism of one particular religion, Islam, prevail.

[...]

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 20 2015 18:05

You might want to read the rest of the conversation Mark. Or even just my following post from that one you quoted.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Jan 20 2015 19:25

I had read the rest of the conversation. I take it this is the post you're referring to:

Rob Ray wrote:
Quote:
Ok maybe fundamentalist Islam doesn't have the reach to impact much on the 'general public', but in some specific places it really does have a lot of impact on peoples' lives

Well yeah, but I didn't claim otherwise. What I said was that it's not a major threat to free speech/Britain and isn't something that is particularly special, or of an order that requires the massive state resources being ploughed into it, let alone a specific political intervention from the anarchist movement (which has zero counter-reach and for the most part, no idea of who we would go to even just to show solidarity with progressive elements within affected areas).

Quote:
they are our neighbours and workmates and I think deserve our support

I think this is basically a different argument from the one I've been countering though, which was that Islamism is being presented a major ongoing threat to all. What you're talking about is basic support for people who are affected by parasitical entities, or whose friends/family are, which to my mind is a task no different from dealing with the impact of dodgy gangs on estates, or the Christian cult at the end of my street. It's a problem, but it's not a special problem outweighing other problems.

Quote:
your misapprehension is here again

It's not a misapprehension, it's a difference of viewpoint. Mine stems from the longstanding creed that you should only worry about the battles you can actually make a difference in. What happens in Syria is not something I have any ability to influence, and a few dozen people being unfortunate enough to believe the hype and head out there is not something I can do much about (are we supposed to be patrolling the internet here? Monitoring random teenagers' behaviour?) other than just continue to push anarchist viewpoints and generally be supportive of progressive thinking in the places where I actually live and have influence - ie. what we do and advocate already.

[...]

Whether you think fundamentalist Islam is anything special as a problem surely depends on where you're standing, just like a lot of other issues. No one here is arguing in favour of the state's responses to it, just for some kind of solidarity with the people directly affected. That isn't saying it has to be a major issue for you or whatever organisations you're involved in.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Jan 20 2015 20:12

Paris, 2015
http://www.the-utopian.org/post/108352129568/paris-2015

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 20 2015 21:20

I will try to put this simply:

1. Charlie Hebdo was not "equally" irreverent, dismissive, offensive, disrespectful to "all." Take a look at the covers "criticizing" Israel's actions in Gaza. They are downright mild and inoffensive, drawn as if by a cartoonist for the Jerusalem Post. No flies buzzing about the heads of the IDF soldiers; no rabbis fucking dead Palestinian children in order to save "40 euros" on a 9 year old prostitute. No hook noses. No fangs. Nothing. zero. Cartoons pleading, basically, for Netanyahu (or whomever) to be more precise in their attacks and spare the schools-- and that's about as harsh as it gets. Seriously. No surprise to me then that Netanyahu shows up at the funeral. "Good dog, Charlie. Good dog. I'm going to miss you."

2. CH wanted to provoke, and provoke it did; its provocations were indeed based on "shared values"-- shared republican values which are part and parcel and inseparable from, the colonial project, the colonial extension of the "mother" country . It isn't the irreverence that attracted "defenders" of CH. It isn't it's iconoclasm, because in truth CH was not iconoclastic-- as evidenced by its gentle treatment of Israel. Actual commitment to the "humanity" ? The"humanism" the so-called values that others attribute to CH? None of that is real. No, what attracts the Je suis Charlie-ers is the safety that CH provided, its affirmation of the underlying goodness to the colonial project.

3. Now given the actual military assaults in and by advanced capitalist countries against people in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Palestine; given the general disregard, and dismissal of Arabic people, and followers of Islam as ignorant, backward, subhuman; given the French state's attack on the head scarf; given the real terrorism that occurs sporadically, and sometimes regularly, against people looking like "Arabs" or "Moslems," -- with all that, and with CH's alleged "humanism" wouldn't it have been more "humanist" for CH to avoid feeding the flames even though it had every right to do so? Didn't that real danger to innocent people who "looked the part" kind of outweigh the need for CH to provoke? The answer of course for CH was "absolutely not." And that, that categorical refusal to consider the repercussion of its exercise of its "right" is what I call "colonists' entitlement."

The "others" don't count. The others haven't learned our ways yet; our "codes;" our idiosyncrasies/ So Charlie went ahead, believing that "republican values" were "protection."

4. CH as an embodiment of French humor? Sure thing, like Haiti is the embodiment of "republican values." We're not Charlie, or BHL, or any other of those house-broken, and house trained performing pooches. The murders at CH were a crime. The canonization of CH is a falsification.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 20 2015 21:23

^more "if you point out charlie hebdo's racism your supporting the attacks" bullshit?

ok then, everyone who sympathized with he dead are supporting french imperialism, it makes exactly as much sense and some of them actually are.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 20 2015 21:35

Noam Chomsky: Charlie Hebdo outrage demostrates West's double standard on terrorism

Quote:
[...]
To demonstrate, the linguist and political scientist compared two reports by the New York Times’ veteran correspondent Steven Erlanger — one following the Paris attacks and another from an April 1999 missile attack by NATO forces on Serbian state television headquarters.
,
Erlanger reported at the time that the U.S. and NATO defended the missile strike, which killed 16 journalists and knocked the station off the air, saying the TV station was a legitimate target because it helped promote the regime of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
,
“There were no demonstrations or cries of outrage, no chants of ‘We are RTV,’ no inquiries into the roots of the attack in Christian culture and history,” Chomsky said. “On the contrary, the attack on the press was lauded. The highly regarded U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke, then envoy to Yugoslavia, described the successful attack on RTV as ‘an enormously important and, I think, positive development,’ a sentiment echoed by others.”
[...]

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 20 2015 22:03

Well that's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

"subtlety, doubt, imagination, playfulness, and, yes, freedom." Not exactly what I think when I look at those CH cartoons.

Seriously. If anybody on this thread had been shown those cartoons a month ago and told "Look what the French National Front are printing in their magazine", you'd have gone, "That's fucking disgusting".

Too much double-think.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 21 2015 08:07
Mr. Jolly wrote:
Serge Forward wrote:
Possibly because the anglo-american left is infected with the virus of identity politics, intersectional cack and privilege political guff which causes them to view islamism as something to be supported or given the status of pet ideology. I suspect the non-anglo left hasn't been properly infected with this shite... yet.

But surely the heuristic toolbox of intersectionality should give them diamond tipped analysis to cut through the BS... :/

Damn straight. Islam has a patriarchy problem. Any attempt by women to emancipate themselves is dismissed as imported American ideology undermining their traditional dogma. Anarchism on the other hand has an intersectionality problem. These women are just importing American ideology and undermining everything our tradition stands for.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 21 2015 09:56

I see what you did there, Mr K grin

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Jan 21 2015 10:26
Joseph Kay wrote:
Anarchism on the other hand has an intersectionality problem..

Indeed it does, thats why large swathes of people have fucked it off over the past few years.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 21 2015 10:46
Mr. Jolly wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
Anarchism on the other hand has an intersectionality problem..

Indeed it does, thats why large swathes of people have fucked it off over the past few years.

Damn those pesky feminazis!

I can feel a CAMpaign for Real Anarchism coming on... (non-muslamic beards only, guys)

(*rolls eyes*)

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Jan 21 2015 10:53
ocelot wrote:
Mr. Jolly wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
Anarchism on the other hand has an intersectionality problem..

Damn those pesky feminazis!

Obnoxious shouty undergraduates does not equal feminism.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Jan 21 2015 11:05
Mr. Jolly wrote:
ocelot wrote:
Mr. Jolly wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
Anarchism on the other hand has an intersectionality problem..

Damn those pesky feminazis!

Obnoxious shouty undergraduates does not equal feminism.

Not very ladylike to be shouty and draw attention. Mulier taceat in ecclesia.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Jan 21 2015 11:11
no1 wrote:
Mr. Jolly wrote:
ocelot wrote:
Mr. Jolly wrote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
Anarchism on the other hand has an intersectionality problem..

Damn those pesky feminazis!

Obnoxious shouty undergraduates does not equal feminism.

Not very ladylike to be shouty and draw attention. Mulier taceat in ecclesia.

I really really dont care anymore.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Jan 21 2015 11:37

I'm sorry but criticising women for being educated and expressing political ideas sounds pretty bad and in tune with some very old traditions.
Of course intersectionalism can be liberal or it can be anarchist, but it strikes me as pretty useful for expressing an anarchist understanding of power relationships as they exist in our daily lives, so dismissing it out of hand in this way is quite odd.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Jan 21 2015 12:25
no1 wrote:
I'm sorry but criticising women for being educated and expressing political ideas sounds pretty bad and in tune with some very old traditions.
Of course intersectionalism can be liberal or it can be anarchist, but it strikes me as pretty useful for expressing an anarchist understanding of power relationships as they exist in our daily lives, so dismissing it out of hand in this way is quite odd.

Im sorry but where did I criticise women for being educated? Talk about putting words in my mouth.
The problem is is that you assume because people don't agree with parts of feminist theory they are misogynists old fashioned etc. I may be guilty stereotyping anarchism today as being nothing more than shouty undergraduate oddball politics, but to suggest I meant anything other than that is dishonest. But carry on if you want I don't really expect anything less.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 21 2015 12:46
no1 wrote:
so dismissing it out of hand in this way is quite odd.

I can assure you that some of us who dismiss it have given it a fair bit of thought. That's not to say that intersectional theory doesn't have its good points and can be learned from, but by and large, it's a negative element currently being imported into libertarian communist politics, a new spin on what used to be called 'right on politics' or, if you like, Identity Politics 2.0.

ocelot wrote:
Damn those pesky feminazis!

I can feel a CAMpaign for Real Anarchism coming on... (non-muslamic beards only, guys)

(*rolls eyes*)

This is one of the more depressing type of responses from those who support intersectionality or privilege theory, or aspects of such theories. Stereotyping those who are critical of intersectionality/PT as misogynists or in some way anti-muslim (or whatever other reactionary label you care to stick on them) is exactly one of the reasons intersectionality is having a negative effect on what stands for a libertarian communist or anarchist movement.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 21 2015 13:33

This is a derail. Let's just accept that we fundamentally disagree about what is meant by the term intersectionality and get back to information and opinions related to the Paris attacks.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 21 2015 14:41
ocelot wrote:
This is a derail. Let's just accept that we fundamentally disagree about what is meant by the term intersectionality and get back to information and opinions related to the Paris attacks.

Is it a derailment though? If we are talking about people's opinions, then whether or not someone is receptive to intersectionality theory will and must colour their analysis and opinions related to the Paris attacks and the various responses to those attacks, just as would their perception of, or attitude towards, class struggle, capitalism, the state, the far right, islamism, cultural relativism, etc.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 21 2015 15:02

By all means start a new thread on "Paris attacks and Intersectionality".

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 21 2015 15:34
no1 wrote:
I'm sorry but criticising women for being educated and expressing political ideas sounds pretty bad and in tune with some very old traditions.

oh fucking christ, not this