You must log in or register to comment.
- 19 hours
the latter cannot be chosen but is rather an inborn quality. Yet they also claim identity is a social construct.
This doesn’t sound correct though. Like race is a social construct but you also cannot choose which race you are born into. Both can be true.
- 19 hours
Well, it depends, I guess. A lot of people nowadays will say that race is a social construct but ethnicity isn’t. My opinion is that it’s an arbitrary divide.
- 19 hours
Either way I’ll just say I don’t agree with your take. Identity politics has some value. It’s not a binary but a lens that can be used along with class analysis. There is a term for when a communist flattens the society and makes class the only differentiator. I can’t recall it but it creates tendencies by which minorities like women etc. can be excluded. Identity politics helps against this.
I am no expert in this. I have only read the Combahee River Collective statement where the term was first used and their explanation for why they needed it made sense to me. The problem arises when identity politics is used without class analysis or without solidarity with other marginalised groups. The former creates the scenario where for example a woman CEO is celebrated regardless of it not substantially improving the standing of women at large. The latter can create exclusion. So it is a useful concept IMO.
- 19 hours
There is a term for when a communist flattens the society and makes class the only differentiator. I can’t recall it but it creates tendencies by which minorities like women etc. can be excluded. Identity politics helps against this.
My point is to go beyond that by universalizing human beings. I don’t believe class is the only differentiator. My argument is that identity politics must do exactly that: universalize human beings. I suggest going beyond class through class struggle. I firmly believe in the inexorable unity of the human race. I am replying to you only because some users here seem to accuse me of rejecting the struggles of vulnerable groups, which I do not.
Women aren’t even a minority. They make up half the world…
- 18 hours
Women aren’t even a minority. They make up half the world…
Confusion induced by overly literal interpretation of language is one reason I like to use the term “marginalized” instead of “minority”, though minority does have its place as a descriptor; it is more easily misunderstood out of context than in it. An example in context is that women tend to be a minority in certain kinds of jobs, or in positions of power, more so in some countries than others, while also being taken less seriously in these roles than their male counterparts.
Capitalists are a minority in the world by far, but that doesn’t make them any less of an oppressor; they are the majority in influence over power in regions ruled by capital, in spite of being a minority of people overall. OTOH, black people have long been a minority in the US and are oppressed as one.
- 18 hours
OTOH, black people have long been a minority in the US and are oppressed as one.
Obama is black and he is certainly not oppressed. When I speak of the aristocracy of wealth it includes people like him. Actually, now that I think about it, the fancy suits these people wear are an accurate manifestation of whiteness. Perhaps even some sort of measurement? 🤔
- 16 hours
Obama is black and he is certainly not oppressed.
But you do agree black people as a whole are an oppressed minority in the US surely? Because if not, you’re just a reactionary using fancy language to obscure your intentions.
Obama is “rainbow imperialism”. He is the exception to the rule, someone who is allowed to be part of the white empire’s power structure, provided that he furthers its goals - goals which include, but are not limited to, the exploitation of black people. This thing about “aristocracy of wealth” you keep talking about just seems like more vague terminology than what already exists to describe what is going on. What is to be gained from drawing attention away from the obvious racial component to use a more vague term like aristocracy instead? It’s a white supremacist system, let’s call it what it is. Obama getting to be part of it doesn’t make it less white supremacist, it’s just an example that what counts as “white” enough for inclusion is somewhat flexible; that if you’re willing to betray your own, they may let you be one of them. But importantly, flexible does not mean arbitrary. White supremacy is not whimsical and nebulous with constantly shifting goalposts. It has pretty overt designations, which adapt over time to reproduce exploitation.
If Bill Gates lost his wealth, he’d still be a white guy. If Obama lost his wealth, he’d treated by the system the same as every other black person, as lesser. There’s even a Key and Peele sketch that demonstrates this with macabre humor. Jordan Peele is playing Obama teaching his daughter to drive and they get pulled over by the cops. When the cop sees it’s Peele-Obama, suddenly he’s nicer, but then Peele-Obama says he wants his daughter to learn and doesn’t want special treatment. And suddenly he’s being treated roughly by the cop. It’s a fictional portrayal, but the core of it is real. The protections an Obama gets are highly conditional. He isn’t really a member of the white supremacist ruling class in the way that white-passing people are.
- 16 hours
But you do agree black people as a whole are an oppressed minority in the US surely?
Yes. That’s self evident. I didn’t bother reading the rest of your comment…
- 19 hours
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Though it is less disparate now than it was, for example, during the time of slavery, a black woman in the US faces harsher life prospects than a white man. This is not to be confused with a fixed deterministic description of all futures of everyone belonging to these categories: A white man can still end up living in a trailer park and a black woman can end up Beyonce, but this says nothing of how the system as a whole functions.
It is both a social construct (ex: historical Jim Crow laws) and it is something a person is born into (the people who Jim Crow laws applied to did not have a choice in their physical characteristics when born). For the majority of people, the framing applies and has insight into how things are functioning and why. The exceptions might feel left out, excluded, like their plight is being ignored, but that is not the intention of the categorizations. The purpose is not to say that a white man living in a trailer park is oppressing Beyonce, but that the system reproduces oppression based on a “superior” “white race” and inferior other races.
If we don’t understand this, it will seem senseless why historically marginalized groups were betrayed in past working class movements, instead of stood by in solidarity. When we understand it, we can try to work through it and end things like systemic racism. This does not mean doing the “rainbow imperialism” thing of saying that imperial administrators belonging to marginalized categories are good actually because of the categories they belong to, but neither does it mean saying “no war but class war” and pretending artificial racial hierarchy or gender hierarchy doesn’t exist.
- 19 hours
pretending artificial racial hierarchy or gender hierarchy doesn’t exist.
I don’t dispute this. They both exist. Why does this racial hierarchy exist, according to you? For me, it exists to solidify capitalism and was likewise created by it. Do you consider capitalism to be a social construct? I consider it to be a result of historical materialism. The white race is the result of the aristocracy of wealth. Wealth created the aristocracy of the white race. The racial hierarchy is a hierarchy of money, wealth, and/or capital. The bourgeoisie and the aristocracy are two different things, mind you. The former has mobile capital as its origin; the latter has nobility and immovable wealth, e.g., land. Failing to understand this you cannot even understand the political struggles of the 19th century.
- 19 hours
I’m struggling to understand how you go from that to a thread title like “against identity politics” with a line like:
The white man now becomes the ultimate target.
- 18 hours
“Target” as in “the lowest common denominator,” or the low-hanging fruit. I am not saying white men are the most oppressed; if anything, it’s the opposite… But it is only in appearance that “the lowest common denominator” happens. You should question why most people say “whiteness” rather than whiteness without quotes. What is whiteness? For me it’s the result of the aristocracy of wealth.
- 18 hours
I’m sure there are people who have studied the development of whiteness who could put it better than I can, but I don’t think describing it as “the result of aristocracy of wealth” is sufficient for getting at what makes it distinct as compared to other systems of rich and poor. My memory of what I have learned about it is not great for detail recall, but I have a memory about Benjamin Franklin being an early architect in describing the complexion of a white person. I also know that the Irish were not considered to be “white” at the offset and developed into being considered white over time, in part through betrayal of other non-white people from what I remember, such as through joining the police force.
It’s possible all of this is a misunderstanding of wording and we’re talking past each other somewhat, but if you do recognize systemic racism built on white supremacy and its ills, then I’m sure you can understand my caution about a thread that decries “identity politics”, which is often a cry made by reactionaries who are basically mad about racism or sexism being challenged. Or made by well-intentioned but conveniently white male “leftists” who of course will find it easier to deprioritize “identity politics” when they aren’t the ones being gunned down by cops for their skin color.
And I’m still not clear on what links your original post to this emphasis on whiteness being “the result of aristocracy of wealth”, or if these are supposed to be two entirely separate trains of thought.
- 18 hours
I also know that the Irish were not considered to be “white” at the offset and developed into being considered white over time, in part through betrayal of other non-white people from what I remember, such as through joining the police force.
Reading Gerald Horne taught me that it was religion, first, that separated peoples, and that because slavery needed to be solidified and secured in the American colonies, race then became primary. The Irish and their catholicism no longer mattered in the british colonies/USA as long as their white skin solidified slavery.
As for the rest of your comment, I might give you answers later.
- 20 hours
There is not and was not ever any such thing as ‘identity politics’. Its just a nonsense term reactionaries made up to smear anyone who rhetorically opposes their bigotry as a whiny child. It is no surprise that, having absorbed this stupid idea, you would go on to produce this incoherent screed.
Yeah I’ve only ever seen rightwingers and reactionaries talk about “identity politics” in those terms. There is almost no reason to address their grievances since doing so requires you to enter their frame to do so. Dialectics can grapple with the way society and it’s ideas intersect with peoples internal and external identities. Those we assign our ourselves and those society assigns us.
- 20 hours
I would have gladly argued with you, but you made no contribution whatsoever to further any discussion.
this incoherent screed
Uh… That’s because you’re an idiot. Your elitism is palpable by the way.
- 19 hours
Sorry I don’t LARP as an 18th century German esotericist when I speak. How elite of me.
- 19 hours
Already have asshole. Now watch as the quantity of stupid shit you’ve said transmutes into the quality of blockedness.
This reads like you’re trying to rationalize an individual reaction to a personal experience with heaps of abstraction. Maybe start by grounding your text by expressing what your personal experience was that motivated writing it. As is, it’s hard to understand what you’re talking about. You use familiar terms, but in a way that seems less and less connected to actual fault lines in the broader discourse or in the material struggle.
Identity politics posits that oppression stems from identity, and that the latter cannot be chosen but is rather an inborn quality. Yet they also claim identity is a social construct.
You’re starting point problem is already trivial to solve: it’s dialectics. Classes like workers and capitalists are also mere social constructs with real material implications. Gender is similarly constructed. And like class, it has a material base. Class is based in wage labor. Gender is based in reproductive labor. Deconstructing gender is class struggle and transgressing the gender lines set by the capitalist system is also class struggle. Fighting as and for trans and non-binary comrades is class struggle and raises consciousness. Without it, we would be class traitors, wether in the core or elsewhere.
It’s cool, that you’re attempting to approach a problem you encountered with materialism and Marxism. You could start by reading some existing queer Marxist theory.
You’re right about the core having a labor aristocracy and everything and yes, there was a class compromise, that also allowed for some personal freedom in the core in turn for shutting up about imperial wars. It’s not going to last. Imperial super-profits are drying up, the profit rate is falling anyway.
Also fed posting like in the last line will get you banned here. Actually, now that I think about it: New account, no other posts, trying to stir up trouble, fed posting… Makes me wonder
- 16 hours
Also fed posting like in the last line will get you banned here. Actually, now that I think about it: New account, no other posts, trying to stir up trouble, fed posting… Makes me wonder
Wonder no more… i deleted that part. Also, you’re from hexbear not lemmygrad.
