Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by danny la rouge, Sep 20, 2017.
I agree with you in sentiment here...reforms aren't enough when the whole system is fucked. I too am up for a complete transformation, how will that happen? Also, in the meantime, what to do? Not hammering at the glass ceiling, supporting lgbt rights, challenging racism, opposing the rise of fascism isn't an option because doing nothing maintains the status quo also.
Hence me saying that the group is important and it's not all about 'self', as you posted. There is no 'self' without a group/s to learn from, associate with, compare to, those in and out groups are pivotal in our development of 'self''. They don't just mirror us, we mirror them also.
Never mind, FoD, I have not really been any sort of activist since the 70s...but hey, I definitely remember 'rainbow coalitions' and such and a loose but enthusiastic aggregation of squatters, feminists, dykes, druggies, housing activists (me - my most consistent outrage), CND ...but fairly common to all was a gregarious, hands-on willingness to engage...so yep, while my involvement with feminist groups (Women's Aid, Rape Crisis) ended under a cloud (cos power relations), it is cycling backwards for me as poverty and exploitation requires a more active engagement than waffling on the interweb...and tbh, this thread, which I have faithfully followed, is also causing me to lose the will to live (but might also be feeling glum after the laborious knitted hat for daughter has somehow turned out massive). Off to surburban to whine.
Nobody (well hardly anyone) is saying 'do nothing'. Those things you mention can all be 'done' in a huge variety of ways. Some of which are politically problematic from a revolutionary anarchist/communist class struggle perspective and could be identity politics or could not be...
Hammering at the glass ceiling could mean voting for the Women's Equality party or it could me grassroots union organising for equal rights at work. Supporting LGBT rights could mean working for Stonewall or it could me disrupting Pride with the queer anarchist bloc. Challenging racism (even the Tory Party say they do this ffs) could mean voting for Sahiq Khan or it could mean picketing the Home Office to stop a deportation.
Doing those things is part of bringing the whole house down.
There’s a difference between acting as a group and defining oneself through membership of a group.
The name may not particularly matter but too say that the tactics and methods that you use to achieve your aims don't matter is crazy. Of course they matter.
Let's take what you call your core values
it's obviously a key factor as to whether you think that those aims are possible under capitalism or not. If you don't then the politics you follow is going to be very different to those who believe that it is.
Or to take a previous example - equal pay for women. Both liberals and socialists would argue against the pay differential between women and men but they would utterly disagree with how it should be tackled. Liberals would argue to the type of nonsense that the WEP do, something that socialists consider not just useless but actually counterproductive.
Yes I get it. I just am not seeing much in the way of suggestions and solutions being offered up. I am sick of the finger pointing and theorising. I am not saying that thinking and discussion isn't helpful...I am saying that criticism, review and misrepresenting (yes some do it for sport) also limits progress if it isn't coupled with suggestions or modelling how things could be done better.
FFS some poeple around here think telling me to 'keep raging' is some kind of cutting insult
Angry? of course I am! I'm apoplectic with rage... amongst other things it's what gets me out of bed in the morning and why i'm driven to do the work I do despite the impact it has on my emotional/psychological wellbeing. It's why I extend myself in terms of resources (time/skills/money/whatever) to support and empower others where and whenever possible, I can't remember ever not being that person...That rage is the belief in social justice, fairness, equality/equity... I don't need a badge claiming to be an a revolutionary anarchist/communist for example, to do that.
Where did I say there isn't? You don't need to define yourself as a member of a group to act with that group either...it's about the why one would do that or not surely?
It’s EXACTLY about the why one would do that. That’s the whole thing as to at what point it becomes identity politics — the politics of defending one’s identity, most particularly by reference to the dangers posed by out-groups.
Yes, that's what I just told you. You agree with me.
That's all we can do isn't it? Remind ourselves what our core values are and change/build on/mature them?
Have you started your new job yet?
Is there a active union in your new place?
If so, join, integrate, agitate!
The word theory is part of this subforums name so complaining about all the theorising seems a tad strange to me.
I don't really expect solutions to pressing issues on this thread, I expect to learn about id politics, criticisms of it, and the nature of the impasse. OK it would be nice to have a solution to the impasse, but it seems like that is continually out of reach on u75 for reasons I haven't fully got my head around yet.
Now it may be that discussion on this front always ends up in just as much of a dead end as the critics of id politics suggest id politics itself ends up in. And that any eventual decline of id politics will stem not from everyone realising its limitations and using that understanding to come up with a better successor, but from something more useful springing from a completely different direction. In which case never mind this quagmire. But until such a time arrives by other means, people are going to keep running into this impasse and we may as well struggle on with threads like these.
Personally I am a critic of id politics but I still have much to learn so don't have too much to say on this thread yet.
I don't think I was simply complaining...I was outlining what for me is a shortcoming and was clear about why/how I think such discussion would be more progressive.
If anyone fancies having a stab at describing the impasse that occurs in discussions such as this very one, as opposed to broader issues with id politics, I'm all ears. Coming to the thread this late means that even having read all of it, my memory can't take it all in and some of the disagreements and misunderstandings are very confusing.
I am looking for concise answers but that one is too short for me to catch your drift.
Personally, I often don't feel trusted. I often read posts here and feel people are imagining the absolute worst of me, people like me or who they perceive me to be. I also don't have trust in some others because of their behaviour towards me/others. I don't always trust that people are who they say they are because despite their criticisms of others, they never seem to share anything about who they are and what they actually do, nor offer up any useful suggestions about how things can be better. I suspect some are grandstanding. I also hold a few grudges that I am not ready to let go of. They are serving me well.
I observe similar dynamics with/between others here too.
What's the basis of that suspicion? Can you really not think why politically active people might be reluctant to reveal too much personal information on an internet forum?
Thanks for the explanation. Such dynamics are certainly not rare, or at least variations on the theme. And as someone who was rather impressed with the potential of the internet in regards to struggles to change things, its not been great fun to discover first-hand all the issues with things like Internet forums/messageboards over the last 17ish years. Nor am I immune from making an ugly mess on such fronts myself, although at present the small number of people I frequently butted heads with on u75 at times in the past, in ways that got personal, are either not here anymore or not in the threads I'm active in often.
I suppose with the theme of this thread in mind, it would ideally be useful if we could ascertain more about why some of your recurring conflicts happen in the territory of id politics, eg whether genuine 'ideological' disagreements are at the heart of it or whether the theme is more accidental, eg based on historical fallings out, trust issues etc rather than issues of substance regarding id politics. I'm not suggesting that is possible in this case right now or demanding that this be done, and your explanation at least allows me to be less confused about a bunch of moments in this thread.
I try to remember that Urban 75 posters are not the enemy. I sometimes feel posters take out anger here they've built up in real life because this is a far safer space than real life for venting anger and frustration. And at the end of the day whatever people here post about each other, unless they do actually know each other in real life it's all just guesswork, and guesswork reveals more about the guesser than the guessee.
It's all just chat, at the end of the day. I also feel that some posters enjoy playing devil's advocate and sometimes argue points they don't actually believe. IMO this is fine, and says nothing about their RL personal integrity.
Why do you believe that?
Because if I believed something else I'd post elsewhere.
That's not really an answer. You don't think there's some people here whose politics are actively opposed to yours, and harmful to your cause?
I’m most definitely the enemy, as a result of my current relationship to capital. In a few years, however, I hope to change this and maybe even become an ally. I will still be the same person, but in different circumstances. In its own way, this little story in and of itself reveals the limitations of identity politics.
what's with the activist-y checklisting?
If we don't meet the credentials are we automatically disqualified from having opinion becausee we approach things theoretically?
Separate names with a comma.