Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.

Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by danny la rouge, Sep 20, 2017.

  1. Magnus McGinty

    Magnus McGinty Wh♂️

    It’s noble of you to give up your Christmas (and money) to help those who’ve been thrown under a bus by the system you support.
    mojo pixy, NoXion and J Ed like this.
  2. TruXta

    TruXta tired

    When were Scandinavian countries ever socialist? :facepalm:
    chilango likes this.
  3. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    What a shit post from start to finish.
  4. killer b

    killer b No Hateration, No Holeration. in this Dancery

    Socialism isn't an identity, it's the hammer we use to crush our enemies.
  5. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Twat. The Scandinavian political systems aren't socialist (except to right-wing Americans), they're social-democratic, which is an entirely different thing, more akin to classic 20th-century liberalism.

    Probably at least a couple of million people outside of the privileged classes. My mate Andre, for example. My nan (rest her soul) for another. Both proper working class auto-didacts.

    What makes you think that many of us don't, you self-righteous prick?

    I do community work all year round, everything from helping neighbours with odd jobs, to helping them fill out forms, and chase up benefits claims. I also donate regularly (in goods) to the local foodbank, even though I'm disabled and my only income is from benefits and a (very small, as in less than £100 a month, Civil Service pension). I don't need some twat who IS blowing his own trumpet, making assumptions about people based on their politics. The fact is that if you're working class, you're more likely to engage in community and charitable work.
  6. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Quite. Any charity, however well-intentioned, is just a sticking plaster.
  7. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    At best.

    There’s arguments that charity fulfils a far more damaging function than that.

    But that’s for another thread.
  8. J Ed

    J Ed Follow Back Pro Expropriation

    I meant to post this earlier in the week. I second that it is well worth a listen.
  9. Magnus McGinty

    Magnus McGinty Wh♂️

    You identify as British and also a Christian don’t you?
  10. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Which is why I didn't try to make that particular argument. ;)
    chilango likes this.
  11. seventh bullet

    seventh bullet red mullet

    And Communism is not love.
    mojo pixy likes this.
  12. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

    This replacement for that post is definitely the smuggest thing I've seen here in a while, so well done indeed.
    I preferred the bit about doing christmas dinner for homeless people on christmas day.
  13. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    Your arrogance and your contempt for other people was clear in the original post. People who you knew nothing about and openly stated you couldn’t be bothered to find anything about.

    That’s why it was “wrong” to post what you did.

    The bible quote you chosen to replace it with is telling.

    It suggests that you are refraining from showing off your righteousness in fear of not receiving some reward. Motivation huh?

    Not for one second do you seem to be questioning your own righteousness however.

    I suggest that you spend some time reading around the boards and taking in just how much concrete “stuff is done” by so many others (many of whom would be considered “left” or socialists).

    Perhaps then an apology would be appropriate.
    yield, mather, Sunset Tree and 4 others like this.
  14. ska invita

    ska invita back on the other side

  15. Rutita1

    Rutita1 Scum with no integrity, apparently.

  16. Magnus McGinty

    Magnus McGinty Wh♂️

  17. Beats & Pieces

    Beats & Pieces 24601 / 9430 Banned

  18. J Ed

    J Ed Follow Back Pro Expropriation

    I think that what I like about it is that it encapsulates well what I think are critiques of a particular approach both to politics itself and the world, an approach which to be fair to Coates he is less guilty of than many. Like most people who have read him, I think that Coates is a really good writer. However what I do not like about his approach is the way in which, as West points out, power is warped. Anything that is worth happening politically happens in the upper echelons of society.

    Unlike most prominent political commenators Coates voted for Sanders. On the other hand, as West points out, like many successful American political commentators Coates appears agnostic on both US foreign policy and neoliberal economics. Quite frankly I am sick of this approach which is the dominant one in our country and theirs. No matter how sophisticated the writing or political analysis and in Coates' case both are very sophisticated indeed, it reduces politics to a series of good and bad celebrities which we can jeer and boo but at the end of the day cannot really hope to change too much. It is a narrowing perspective which forecloses any real hope of change.

    While it isn't mentioned in the article, or is only really mentioned in passing, I regard what Coates does on foreign policy as a mixture of tactical ignorance and sophistry. What he writes in defence of Israel is quite clever, and in turn I find the deployment of that sort of sophistry quite ugly given what it is defending. An example...

    The Negro Sings Of Zionism

    Beyond that, Coates does not mention Obama's murderous policies in the Middle-East and Latin America, both of which were a continuation of GWB's policies and are now being continued by Trump which is fitting since the Obama administration put Trump like figures in power in the Middle-East and Latin America whenever it was feasibly possible to do so. What sort of analysis which claims to explore oppression in anything other than the most narrow confines ignores that?

    I think that actually Obama's current trajectory calls for more not less analysis of this, since it seems to consist of being paid for services rendered by these people. These people being, for example, the people in parliament and their backers who jeered the social democrat President Dilma Roussef about being raped by police torturers while she was a resistance fighter against another US backed dictatorship in Brazil. They got the green light from the Obama admin, and now he is getting paid for that. Likewise, in 2009 there was a US backed coup in Honduras against a democratically elected government which was implementing social democratic reforms.

    The Obama administration ensured that the government could not return to contest elections and then in response to widespread police repression which specifically targeted women, liberals, social democrats, trade unionists, indigenous peoples and ecologists they rewarded the post-coup government with massive state aid and training of that same police. The police forces that now, with the support the of Trump admin, are shooting working-class people who are protesting another recently stolen election.

    Where does 'We were 8 years in power' fit into all this? For Coates it seemingly doesn't at all. This obviously frustrates West, and I share his frustration.
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  19. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Now a really interesting companion piece up from the rapidly collapsing other tradition: Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor on Recovering Identity Politics from Neoliberalism. Nicely outlines how the work of the combahee collective and crenshaw ended up turning into the identity politics monsters we see today - against the express intentions and politics of both - and how neo-liberalism now owns this stuff. They key being identified as the evacuation of class from the picture of social reality. Really good to see the tide turning from within this tradition.

    BTW coates gets another going over in this one - even pro-identity politics types can see what his stuff means. Best pieces i've read on him whilst i'm here are:

    The Birthmark of Damnation: Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Black Body
    Idylls of the Liberal: The American Dreams of Mark Lilla and Ta-Nehisi Coates
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  20. redsquirrel

    redsquirrel This Machine Kills Progressives

  21. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

    I decided to post this here, from the transgender thread because it makes a good point. In my experience too, identitypolitics can serve as a useful vehicle for quite un-oppressed people from relatively privileged backgrounds and with the benefit of a good education, to put themselves in an oppressed group whether they belong there or not.
  22. krtek a houby

    krtek a houby how's it going to end?

    This has me all :confused:

    Are you saying that some people are seeking to be oppressed?

    And what is the criteria for belonging? Who judges whether one belongs or not?

    Sorry if I've picked this up wrongly.
  23. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

    Not seeking to be oppressed, but seeking some kind of moral high ground IMO. Adopting an oppressed identity is a shortcut to a position of virtue.
  24. krtek a houby

    krtek a houby how's it going to end?

    Is this what's meant by "virtue signalling"? Another term I've only recently heard and usually by the right wing.

    Can a person "adopt" an oppressed identity if they have been the victim of physical/verbal/sexual abuse, regarldess of their class? Surely they are already oppressed?
  25. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    Note the use of belonging by krtek to describe an oppression derived identity.
  26. Sunset Tree

    Sunset Tree Well-Known Member

    I've seen enough digs at 'white males' coming from white women studying or working at elite universities to last a lifetime.

    Their online identity is one of a fierce lefty radical punching up against an oppressive class. Point out they are in a privileged class and get accused of class reductionism.
  27. Sunset Tree

    Sunset Tree Well-Known Member

    It was covered in some of the excellent articles posted in this thread. You are progressive (or oppressive) by virtue of your gender/race identity alone.

    There was a recent popular tweet about how we've let white men try at being politicians and they fucked it up, now it's time for women and POC to try. It's the type of people not the systems of wealth and power.
  28. krtek a houby

    krtek a houby how's it going to end?

    Aren't white males in the UK power system usually serving themselves, though? Not just in politics but the whole establishment?
  29. Sunset Tree

    Sunset Tree Well-Known Member

    There is an assumption that white women or POC would be more progressive. We've had plenty of women politicians and they weren't automatically more progressive (dare I invoke Thatcher). They are serving an economic system.

    Putting representatives of different identity groups into the establishment will not bring progressive change. It certainly couldn't be considered a 'left-wing' aim. Yet many identity politics proponents view themselves as being on the left.
  30. krtek a houby

    krtek a houby how's it going to end?

    Yes, that's possible but should the status quo remain in heavily weighted favor of white, upper/middle class males?

    If so, you just tend to get the same old same old... imho, natch.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice