Identity Politics

[Elect Marx]

I participated in a radio show addressing identity politics.
I would love to get some views on these issues, from the radical left.

Have a listen: LUNk Communiqué #6 (http://www.lunkradio.org/programs/Communique_2009-01-02_Identity_Politics.mp3)

Do identity politics play a large part in your life? What does that mean to you as a leftist?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's the kind of bourgeois politics that is most effective in hampering class politics, especially in these uncertain times.

[red eck]

I started a thread to begin a discussion on identity.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-identity-t100733/index.html

And during this thread, I found a relevant article by Eric Hobsbawm that talks about this very issue:

http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/articles/1996%20annual%20lecture.htm

Hobsbawm remarks that the old nation-state and class based politics have been weakened, and that identities have come to take a more prominent role in politics.

[apathy maybe]

It's the kind of bourgeois politics that is most effective in hampering class politics, especially in these uncertain times.

Wow, what a wonderful analysis, so full of clever argumentation and witty turns of phrases...

Perhaps an explanation though, of why you think that a., you think it is "bourgeois politics", and b., you think it is hampering class politics in these "uncertain times"?

Do you mean by "class politics" the politics of the under, working and lower classes against the upper classes?

---

As to the question in the OP. As a leftist, I find that I support equality for all, regardless of their identity. Certain "identity politics" I find unbecoming, but most I feel have no real (as opposed to perceived) negative impact on revolutionary politics.

Indeed, radical queer, women and "colour" politics can lead people away from "bourgeois politics". That is, away from the notion that the state and government can do anything for you that you can't do yourself.

Radical identity politics (in the main) is, I feel, a good thing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Radical identity politics (in the main) is, I feel, a good thing.

The legacy of the "New Left" suggests otherwise.

[apathy maybe]

The legacy of the "New Left" suggests otherwise.

That's wonderful. Except that I'm not entirely sure what the hell you actually mean...

Sometimes you post long walls of text that I can fight my way through, and now it seems you also sometimes post short notes like this which leave me grasping for more. "Why did he say that?" I think to myself.

Wikipedia says,

Criticism of the legacy
As many of those who supported the New Left in the 1960s are now in charge of the kinds of institutions they once opposed, conservative opponents argue that their assumptions - which are sometimes described as politically correct multiculturalism - are now the establishment orthodoxy. In what has been described as the culture wars, conservative critics of this orthodoxy such as Allan Bloom and Roger Scruton assert that New Left radical egalitarianism is motivated by anti-Western nihilism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left#Criticism_of_the_legacy

But actually, the entire article seems confused as to what the "New Left" actually was...

I'm struggling to find meaning here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ More or less, the emphasis by the "New Left" on identity politics over the "dogmatic" class politics is what pisses me off. I'd rather work with neo-Lassalleans, who may be socially conservative but don't have the guts to push forward a socially conservative agenda, diverting said guts to class struggle (a sure shock and horror for bourgeois feminists like a couple of posters on this board) than with "New Left" liberals.

[apathy maybe]

^^^ More or less, the emphasis by the "New Left" on identity politics over the "dogmatic" class politics is what pisses me off. I'd rather work with neo-Lassalleans, who may be socially conservative but don't have the guts to push forward a socially conservative agenda, diverting said guts to class struggle (a sure shock and horror for bourgeois feminists like a couple of posters on this board) than with "New Left" liberals.

Right, but there is a difference between liberals and radical and revolutionary folks. Right? Between using the state, and expecting the state to do stuff, and wanting to do away with the entire infrastructure of the state...

See, queer politics (for example), can be "liberal", e.g. gay marriage, yay..., or it can be radical, e.g. "the famous and everyday acts of queer resistance to police brutality (Stonewall Riots, Compton Cafeteria Riots, etc)" [1 (http://www.spike00.com/clubky/gayshame.htm)] and Bash Back.

[Janine Melnitz]

A focus on "identity" that ignores the broader social context and, crucially, class, can be non-productive at best; however I find that leftist dismissal of or hostility to what's called "identity politics" too often amounts to disregard for minority groups.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think you summarized my opinion better than I could. :)

[MarxSchmarx]

EM

I listened to this radio program.

Before I proceed, I want to clarify that I realize you guys are well-meaning. On some level I agree with the overall thrust of your argument that class takes precedence. I think you and your host do raise serious concerns held by more than a few leftists.

But I think the APPROACH your host and you have taken to go about this is extremely counter-productive at best and conveys the impression of being borderline reactionary at worst.

Indeed, I worry that many listeners will find this interview deeply offensive and problematic. At the end of the day you come across as being just as divisive as these imagined "identity politics" you all rail against.

Let's start with the gay marriage thing. Without massive financial support from the (White, wealthy) Mormon and (white, wealthy) knights of columbus, that thing would have gone down in flames. So stop blaming "evangelical reactionary blacks" that inhabit the scary inner cities and came out voting for Obama. It wasn't the black preachers of south central that ran those commercials about princes marrying princes.

But if the show stuck to this common misperception I guess I would have been annoyed but put up with the rest. Alas, it did not.

"Any oppressed group vying for status as the #1 oppressed group?" Can your all-male, all-well-educated and quite probably all middle class group give us one example of this? I won't go so far as to "accuse" you of being all-white, because I concede there are plenty of non-whites in North America who hold a deep antipathy to what they consider to be "identity politics". But whilst I knew the likes of Rush Limbaugh rant about "black-supremecists", "feminazis" and what have you, I am sorry to hear you guys in essence repeated the spirit, if not the words, of these accusations.

"Black people piling on against mexican immigrants?" What a joke. Thanks for speaking for all "black" people. Your host seemed to take this as a given. And exactly why?

And the platitudes about freedom for all are dead ends. As soon as you start talking about a "subconscious urge", you have betrayed your deeply reactionary premises. Indeed, listeners won't pay attention to the lofty quotes of MLK - no, they'll pay attention to the time of day your host gives to arguments put out by the most paranoid and bigoted fools on radio.

For example, what the hell organizations are you talking about when you talk of these tunnel-visioned groups? It seems you and the host know what you are talking about, but you need to name names if you are going to make such broadsided accusations.

More generally, both of you seem to miss the broader point that one man's symptom is another man's division of the working class. If I complain about racial profiling of say "Muslims are terrorists", that is a critique not only of bigoted views, but also of attempts to divide the working class by encouraging non-Muslims to come to the conclusion that "I'm not a Muslim, so I won't be affected by state repression, so what do I care?" Calling the ruling class on this, saying that discrimination against muslims is real and must be fought tooth and nail, would fall under the critique of "identity politics" your host pontificates about. To which I say, "shove it." Unless one has lived it, I'm sorry, but one has no serious understanding of how racial oppression survives most perniciously in even the most supposedly "progressive" environments.

Indeed, fighting racial profiling is more than an attack on bigotry. It is a necessary component of uniting the working class.

And look, going after Bono is a strawman. The sorry fact of the matter is this interview bought entirely into the sphere of leftist legitimacy the reactionary agenda against minority rights. I know there are a few liburul bleeding heart types who embrace bono. But trust me they are few and far between and otherwise irrelevant.

Perhaps my biggest problem, apart from the serious misgivings already mentioned, was that the interview lacked precisely any sort of serious, concrete alternatives and how to deal with the very real racist, bigoted concerns non-male, non-mainstream and less educated people put up with on a daily basis. Blanket appeals to class won't work when you are talking to people who have dealt with the bullshit of bigotry their entire lives, and who know that even well-meaning leftists cannot escape the cultural baggage with which they were raised. I think the interview would have benefited a lot from having a diverse set of voices on "identity politics" hash out what we should do going forward.

Indeed, let me bring it closer to home. During its most radical days, the ANC still managed to attract white members. These white members, when they would go to a clandestine meeting, had to deal with suspicion and distrust and an attitude of "there's something wrong with you unless you prove otherwise" from their comrades. Do you think that was easy on white ANC-ers? Do you think their concerns should have been trivialized as "identity politics"? Wouldn't your well-educated host, who would pass for a "respectable" citizen, expect to find himself viewed with suspicion in, say, an anarcha-feminist collective located in an all-black public housing project? And would your host find such an ingrained hostility, based solely on his background and "identity", to be excusable in the context of the broader class struggle? Of course not. Or, at least, I'd hope not.

Well, let me tell you something from having been involved in multiple leftist organizations. Whenever a racial minority (or for that matter a gay person or, Christ, a woman) joins an organization, they have to deal with suspicion and distrust and a "there's something wrong with you unless you prove otherwise" attitude. Imagine what it is like to hear middle-class, evidently well-educated men pontificate on how these concerns are bullshit.

The platitudes about the need for working class unity fall on deaf ears because the right's talking points on minority rights and tactics to divide the working class were swallowed hook line and sinker in that interview.

I do wish I could convey my concerns in a less caustic and more constructive fashion. However, I really worry that you and your host do not understand how damaging what you are saying really is. Again, I do think you guys have your hearts in the right place, but the way it comes across, it is really unacceptable and inconsiderate.

I'll post more details when I calm down. Suffice it to say I really hope this isn't a fair representation of what most comrades here feel.

[Melbourne Lefty]

It's the kind of bourgeois politics that is most effective in hampering class politics, especially in these uncertain times.

Damn right.

Identity politics has its place i Guess, but if fostering other identities harms class identification then it is against the interests of the working class.

I know a lot of people here disagree with this, but I ask them, if class analysis is not central to your view of the world how the hell can you call yourself a revolutionary leftist?:confused:

[black magick hustla]

i want all of it to burn, including nations and "identitities". all of it is gonna go down when we bring down civilization

[Elect Marx]

EM

I listened to this radio program.

Where to start... thank you for taking the time to listen and address your concerns.


But I think the APPROACH your host and you have taken to go about this is extremely counter-productive at best and conveys the impression of being borderline reactionary at worst.I have no idea where you get this view from. I thought about sharing this criticism with the group, but frankly, I am astonished and even offended.


Indeed, I worry that many listeners will find this interview deeply offensive and problematic. At the end of the day you come across as being just as divisive as these imagined "identity politics" you all rail against.Divisive in what way? Honestly, the main point we made was that oppressed people should form an alliance, not just segregate into identity based interest groups.


Let's start with the gay marriage thing. Without massive financial support from the (White, wealthy) Mormon and (white, wealthy) knights of columbus, that thing would have gone down in flames. So stop blaming "evangelical reactionary blacks" that inhabit the scary inner cities and came out voting for Obama. It wasn't the black preachers of south central that ran those commercials about princes marrying princes.

But if the show stuck to this common misperception I guess I would have been annoyed but put up with the rest. Alas, it did not.The point was that it isn't a black and white issue. People in the black religious community may hold deeply reactionary views. While I didn't bring this point up, I've heard it in person by someone raised in that community.


"Any oppressed group vying for status as the #1 oppressed group?" Can your all-male, all-well-educated and quite probably all middle class group give us one example of this? I won't go so far as to "accuse" you of being all-white, because I concede there are plenty of non-whites in North America who hold a deep antipathy to what they consider to be "identity politics". But whilst I knew the likes of Rush Limbaugh rant about "black-supremecists", "feminazis" and what have you, I am sorry to hear you guys in essence repeated the spirit, if not the words, of these accusations.A hit and many misses. While we are all predominately white, not one of us has the sort of formalized liberal arts education you speak of, and only one of us would claim to have been raised in the middle class. More commonalities are: All in our mid-20's, all atheists, all raised in Lincoln, NE.

Furthermore, I must disagree with your associating us with the reactionary right on two points (that and we are completely different). 1) We do not disagree with the need for such groups to empower themselves and 2) Our group stands in solidarity with all acknowledgment of human rights and social liberties.


"Black people piling on against mexican immigrants?" What a joke. Thanks for speaking for all "black" people. Your host seemed to take this as a given. And exactly why?That was not my statement, but the point was that people, being disadvantaged by racism, are not immune from racist views, that was not a blanket generalization as you seem to have taken it.


And the platitudes about freedom for all are dead ends. As soon as you start talking about a "subconscious urge", you have betrayed your deeply reactionary premises. Indeed, listeners won't pay attention to the lofty quotes of MLK - no, they'll pay attention to the time of day your host gives to arguments put out by the most paranoid and bigoted fools on radio.I do not even remember that as a talking point. We certainly didn't identify with rightist radio personalities, that is just absurd. Could you give some examples?


For example, what the hell organizations are you talking about when you talk of these tunnel-visioned groups? It seems you and the host know what you are talking about, but you need to name names if you are going to make such broadsided accusations.First off, "tunnel-vision" is not an accusation, but rather a criticism. Everyone at our table has nothing but respect for the progress these movements have made. This by no means, indicates that we see policies of reform or the interests of splintered minority groups, as directly addressing the roots of oppression.


More generally, both of you seem to miss the broader point that one man's symptom is another man's division of the working class. If I complain about racial profiling of say "Muslims are terrorists", that is a critique not only of bigoted views, but also of attempts to divide the working class by encouraging non-Muslims to come to the conclusion that "I'm not a Muslim, so I won't be affected by state repression, so what do I care?" Calling the ruling class on this, saying that discrimination against muslims is real and must be fought tooth and nail, would fall under the critique of "identity politics" your host pontificates about. To which I say, "shove it." Unless one has lived it, I'm sorry, but one has no serious understanding of how racial oppression survives most perniciously in even the most supposedly "progressive" environments.Where do we dismiss identity politics in such an absolute fashion? To the contrary, we overall made the point that IP simply did not go far enough.


Indeed, fighting racial profiling is more than an attack on bigotry. It is a necessary component of uniting the working class.You fail to address the fact that many groups see racism (or another oppressive construct) as THE fundamental social problem, and by this logic, there is NO other consciousness required. How is this not tunnel vision?


And look, going after Bono is a strawman. The sorry fact of the matter is this interview bought entirely into the sphere of leftist legitimacy the reactionary agenda against minority rights. I know there are a few liburul bleeding heart types who embrace bono. But trust me they are few and far between and otherwise irrelevant.How is that a strawman? You are just flat wrong, because we are FOR minority rights. If you don't believe liberal "bleeding hearts" exist, come to my city and I will show you the people nicely asking the government to stop killing in the Middle East. I have seen the "speak truth to lower" crowd coming to give thier sorry privilaged hour-per-week donation for over half a decade.


Perhaps my biggest problem, apart from the serious misgivings already mentioned, was that the interview lacked precisely any sort of serious, concrete alternatives and how to deal with the very real racist, bigoted concerns non-male, non-mainstream and less educated people put up with on a daily basis. Blanket appeals to class won't work when you are talking to people who have dealt with the bullshit of bigotry their entire lives, and who know that even well-meaning leftists cannot escape the cultural baggage with which they were raised. I think the interview would have benefited a lot from having a diverse set of voices on "identity politics" hash out what we should do going forward.I am all for diversity. Please send us a diverse pannel of activists, because we would love to talk to them and hear thier critisisms. You don't even seem to agree with our assesment of identity politics, so what good would giving you a solution do? We did in fact come to a solution though, and that is unity among all oppressed people. We apluaded the civil rights movement for wide coalition building, for example.


Indeed, let me bring it closer to home. During its most radical days, the ANC still managed to attract white members. These white members, when they would go to a clandestine meeting, had to deal with suspicion and distrust and an attitude of "there's something wrong with you unless you prove otherwise" from their comrades. Do you think that was easy on white ANC-ers? Do you think their concerns should have been trivialized as "identity politics"? Wouldn't your well-educated host, who would pass for a "respectable" citizen, expect to find himself viewed with suspicion in, say, an anarcha-feminist collective located in an all-black public housing project? And would your host find such an ingrained hostility, based solely on his background and "identity", to be excusable in the context of the broader class struggle? Of course not. Or, at least, I'd hope not.What does that even mean? Please point out where anyone in the show seriously suggested we should ignore the points rasised in identity politics.


Well, let me tell you something from having been involved in multiple leftist organizations. Whenever a racial minority (or for that matter a gay person or, Christ, a woman) joins an organization, they have to deal with suspicion and distrust and a "there's something wrong with you unless you prove otherwise" attitude. Imagine what it is like to hear middle-class, evidently well-educated men pontificate on how these concerns are bullshit.If that is what you took away from the show, you inserted your own predjudices into it. Of course people have to prove thier intentions to others, that is entirely fair. We certainly did not belittle the concerns of oppressed people.


The platitudes about the need for working class unity fall on deaf ears because the right's talking points on minority rights and tactics to divide the working class were swallowed hook line and sinker in that interview.Not only do I disagree, you are so vague as to make addressing your point impossible. What are you talking about?


I do wish I could convey my concerns in a less caustic and more constructive fashion. However, I really worry that you and your host do not understand how damaging what you are saying really is. Again, I do think you guys have your hearts in the right place, but the way it comes across, it is really unacceptable and inconsiderate.First point: obviously you DO NOT know where we are coming from. Your analisys comes from a number of assumptions, that as I pointed out, are mostly wrong. I hate to have to respond in such harsh terms as well, but it is rather ironic that you project so many misconceptions onto the panel and many of these judgements I find completely unfounded. I don't even know where you are getting the material for these points, it is as if you are listening to a different show, and I worry that as you listen to us, you make completely unjustified associations in your mind.


I'll post more details when I calm down. Suffice it to say I really hope this isn't a fair representation of what most comrades here feel.I hope you can help me to understand when you do calm down. I do doubt that most leftists support such universal struggle and in fact, I would say sectarianism is perhaps our greatest threat.

[Black Dagger]

It's the kind of bourgeois politics that is most effective in hampering class politics, especially in these uncertain times.

This is an untenable generalisation... worse it reeks of the kind of smug privilege that will alienate many oppressed people. Like you're saying basically identity politics is fine - just as long as it's 'class identity politics' and not those other identities that women have or black people have etc. That would be fine if only white hetero men were workers but that is obviously not the case. What that means is when working class women etc. raise issues that affect them directly they'll get ignored or belittled - the 'old left' has a very long history of doing just that. It's that attitude that alienates working people, not the one that says 'yes your struggle is important - it is a part of our struggle as a class - an injury to one is an injury to all'.

If you can't accomodate diversity amongst class issues (this means supporting the struggles of working class folks who aren't 'just workers', i.e. white etc.) then the working class has no future.

[Elect Marx]

As to the question in the OP. As a leftist, I find that I support equality for all, regardless of their identity. Certain "identity politics" I find unbecoming, but most I feel have no real (as opposed to perceived) negative impact on revolutionary politics.

Indeed, radical queer, women and "colour" politics can lead people away from "bourgeois politics". That is, away from the notion that the state and government can do anything for you that you can't do yourself.

Radical identity politics (in the main) is, I feel, a good thing.

I essentially agree with this position. I support action to liberate and actively understanding of the conditions oppressed people live under. However, when any oppressed group (or person even) attempts to advance a platform to hold their struggles above those of other oppressed people, I consider this reactionary and unacceptable. If you don't have solidarity with others in a movements, it is insular and inherently separatist.

I support class awareness, as fundamentally valuable to understanding the roots of oppression. I wouldn't insist that someone abandon their own battles to join mine though. To the contrary, I support people in all struggles for human rights. I will criticize identity politics that do not broadly consider other struggles, and the mechanisms of oppression, rather than just the symptoms. If I was not willing to criticize such activists, that would be rather patronizing and just as divisive as refusing to accept criticism myself.

[KC]

This is an untenable generalisation... worse it reeks of the kind of smug privilege that will alienate many oppressed people. Like you're saying basically identity politics is fine - just as long as it's 'class identity politics' and not those other identities that women have or black people have etc. That would be fine if only white hetero men were workers but that is obviously not the case. What that means is when working class women etc. raise issues that affect them directly they'll get ignored or belittled - the 'old left' has a very long history of doing just that. It's that attitude that alienates working people, not the one that says 'yes your struggle is important - it is a part of our struggle as a class - an injury to one is an injury to all'.

Yes, it is an unfortunate fact that a significant portion of the "old left" completely wrote off identity politics in favor of worker fetishism and a rigidly mechanistic application of Marxism. I think, however, that both the old left and the "radical new left" approach to identity politics are both flawed, and that the correct answer lies directly in the middle.

Identity politics, just like any other form of alienation/exploitation, are a starting point for the development of consciousness in many people and the development towards class consciousness as well. However, this development is not linear, and it is quite easy for one to fall into the pit of "new left" politics, which would completely halt such a development, as identity politics are looked at as an end in themselves and not as a means to further development.

Our role is not to completely dismiss such issues outright, but to explain and educate people on why such forms of alienation/exploitation have arisen, how they are linked to capitalism and the class struggle, and how we can do away with them (through revolution). In this way identity politics are important means of connecting with those they affect, but are at the same time in the end subordinated to the class struggle, the only means of resolving these issues.

A good example of this would be the Bund's involvement in the RSDLP and the events leading up to their leaving the organization.

[Elect Marx]

In this way identity politics are important means of connecting with those they affect, but are at the same time in the end subordinated to the class struggle, the only means of resolving these issues

While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, this borders on offensive and opportunist. To say that the struggles of oppressed groups are a good in for us, wreaks of elitism and a serious lack of solidarity in their personal struggles. Please forgive me if I read too much into your statement, but that was my impression.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is an untenable generalisation... worse it reeks of the kind of smug privilege that will alienate many oppressed people.

I also speak as a non-white ethnic minority. :)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/613/economism.htm


Marxism as a political position makes some very simple claims, which are very concisely expressed in the preamble to the 1880 Programme of the Parti Ouvrier, drafted by Marx:

“That the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of sex or race [...]"

[...]

Durand’s arguments, and in a certain sense those of Artous on ‘alliances’, suggest that the core claim of Marxism - that the struggle for socialism is the struggle for the emancipation of the working class and that the emancipation of the working class can only be achieved through the struggle for socialism - is false. Instead, the struggle for the emancipation of the working class is part only of the struggle for human liberation: “Relations of oppression or exploitation arising from patriarchy, humanity’s predatory conduct towards the rest of the biosphere, racism, the denial of political and individual freedom, choice of sexual orientation or minority cultures” are equally important and cannot be “mechanically transferred back to the resolution of the central economic conflict” (Durand).

[...]

The negative judgment is also demonstrated in a different way by the fact that the ‘social movements’ on which Artous and Durand place so much emphasis are themselves a broken reed. The ‘women’s movement’ in the US and Britain, where it began, has since the later 1970s been so divided by class, race, sexuality and politics as to be no more than an ideological expression. The same is true a fortiori of the ‘lesbian and gay movement’.

What began in the 1960s-70s as a common movement against racism has long splintered into a mass of much smaller ethnic and religious constituencies asserting individualised forms of identity politics. One group of elders, imams, etc are preferred interlocutors of the state; another layer has entered into the business and professional classes; neither represents the youth who periodically take to the streets.

[Janine Melnitz]

Yeah the idea that minority issues should be "subordinated" to those of class is extremely counterproductive and false -- class analysis, rather, is an indispensable tool in furthering the struggles of minorities.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah the idea that minority issues should be "subordinated" to those of class is extremely counterproductive and false -- class analysis, rather, is an indispensable tool in furthering the struggles of minorities.

You have a point. I quoted Marx because the correct type of class struggle is the one that furthers the struggles of minorities as a side benefit. One key example of this is none other than the acceptance of feminism in the pre-WWI SPD due to August Bebel's work. Another example is the Republican-Socialist take on national liberation in Ireland.

KC, even when correct about criticizing mere class-ism, is veering a bit into the Maoist "mass line" approach (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-transitional-t103951/index.html), though (which includes vulgar "anti-imperialism").

[KC]

While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, this borders on offensive and opportunist. To say that the struggles of oppressed groups are a good in for us, wreaks of elitism and a serious lack of solidarity in their personal struggles. Please forgive me if I read too much into your statement, but that was my impression.I can assure you that you did read into my statement too much; it is not simply an "in" for us, but it is a starting point on the path of development of consciousness in general. Our role is not simply to "take advantage of such an in", but to educate people on the reasons these issues have come up, why they continue to perpetuate themselves, and how to do away with them once and for all.


Yeah the idea that minority issues should be "subordinated" to those of class is extremely counterproductive and false -- class analysis, rather, is an indispensable tool in furthering the struggles of minorities.I was worried that word would be misconstrued. I actually agree with what you say here and think that you have said what I was trying to get across much better than my previous post.


KC, even when correct about criticizing mere class-ism, is veering a bit into the Maoist "mass line" approach (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-transitional-t103951/index.html), though (which includes vulgar "anti-imperialism").Not at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But isn't there still something wrong when identity politics and class politics are weighed equally?

[KC]

But isn't there still something wrong when identity politics and class politics are weighed equally?

Who is doing that?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You did:


I think, however, that both the old left and the "radical new left" approach to identity politics are both flawed, and that the correct answer lies directly in the middle.

"Directly" as opposed to "somewhere" implies "equally."

[Janine Melnitz]

Setting priorities like that ("class struggle comes first"; "minority struggle comes first") only makes sense if the two terms are considered to be in competition; the idea that they necessarily are, and that to settle this competition one term should be privileged over the other, is a sin of the "new left", but one inherited from the "old left" to which they were reacting.

[Janine Melnitz]

By the way I do realize that by "identity politics" you are probably not referring to minority struggles per se but to a mistaken or at best limited way of conceiving them; however, very few polemics against "identity politics" manage to avoid conflating these two things, implicitly or explicitly. Even when they do, in practical terms it's very hard to rail against "identity politics" without alienating those groups who didn't choose their identities but who nonetheless are caught up in the struggle to define and defend them. So I don't see any theoretical or practical utility in constantly resurrecting the bogeyman of "identity politics" -- it's better to focus on the struggles themselves and to offer the theoretical tools you think would best serve them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just read this in a Guardian blog:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/18/labour-jon-cruddas?commentpage=4


Working class culture isn't just conservative with a small 'c', its Conservatism minus the neo-liberal economics. It used to be social conservatism plus socialist economics. But not even Cruddas really believes in socialist economics anymore.

If you want to see what's left of working class culture read The Sun, it expresses it perfectly. There's a reason the BNP draw their support almost entirely from the working class, you know.

And I'll repost something that I said to another RevLeft poster elsewhere:


With identity politics like yours no wonder why centrist attitudes towards identity politics, as you've described sarcastically, are necessary: to put back emphasis on class struggle!

["Centrism": The organization is atheist, but is open to those who are privately religious. The organization supports homosexual rights, but is open to those who *personally* have issues with homosexuality. The organization supports abortion rights and other womens' rights, but is open to those who *personally* oppose abortion and have problems with feminist excesses. Ultimately, the organization advocates the end of the economic family as we know it, but is open to those who have families and exploit the labour of their female partners by means of chores.]

I'll also add that such a workers' party should be open to the possibility of vacillating in order to accommodate those who have a socially utilitarian disposition towards abortion (ban if underpopulated, and "one child policy" if overpopulated) and criminal punishment (corrective labour).

Trotsky's talk about "holiday speechifying" is better applied towards identity politics than towards class politics.

[Janine Melnitz]

Yeah. It's funny how when people criticize "identity politics" the "identities" in question are always minority ones. The accommodation of dominant groups' bigotries for "unity's" sake is not a moral failing but a practical one: minorities will see that your organization is overrun with this shit (regardless of whether it shows up in the official program) and turn to isolated, ineffectual struggles. If "identity politics" really does split the working class, it's the identity politics of the majority.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have a History thread on this (regarding the Second International) if you're interested. A comrade there raised the concern of populism, in which social conservatism can dominate class politics later on even while the initial skepticism towards social liberalism may be valid.


By the way I do realize that by "identity politics" you are probably not referring to minority struggles per se but to a mistaken or at best limited way of conceiving them; however, very few polemics against "identity politics" manage to avoid conflating these two things, implicitly or explicitly. Even when they do, in practical terms it's very hard to rail against "identity politics" without alienating those groups who didn't choose their identities but who nonetheless are caught up in the struggle to define and defend them. So I don't see any theoretical or practical utility in constantly resurrecting the bogeyman of "identity politics" -- it's better to focus on the struggles themselves and to offer the theoretical tools you think would best serve them.

I suppose there's a fine line in these polemics. Perhaps "identity fetishism" is a better term to use when railing against New Left crap. I may have to edit my programmatic work to refer to this and not just "identity politics."

[KC]

"Directly" as opposed to "somewhere" implies "equally."

I consider the New Left to put identity politics on an equal level as the class struggle, viewing class itself as an identity. Thus the solution is directly in the middle of this perspective and that of an "old left" perspective.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Then I stand corrected. [Your definition of "New Left" is different from mine.]

[Janine Melnitz]

It is a real phenomenon though, this figuring of class as identity, and I think it's more in need of ruthless criticism than the strategic essentialisms of minority groups; tell me this isn't disgusting. (http://www.classism.org/about_us.html)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for that disturbing stuff. :crying:

[Elect Marx]

Yeah. It's funny how when people criticize "identity politics" the "identities" in question are always minority ones. The accommodation of dominant groups' bigotries for "unity's" sake is not a moral failing but a practical one: minorities will see that your organization is overrun with this shit (regardless of whether it shows up in the official program) and turn to isolated, ineffectual struggles. If "identity politics" really does split the working class, it's the identity politics of the majority.

There is a good reason for this, though I disagree with you in a sense. First off, people among the left do greatly criticize the white male heterosexual role in oppression; or at least that has been the recent trend.

Majorities often have an identity assignment of normal. These normal people are simply looking at themselves as a default and do not self-conceptualize the way minority groups do. Much reactionary organization is subconscious, people acting out of perceived self-interest for immediate privilege.

Why would we criticize the privileged in the way we criticize our allies? People do not want to give up privilege. This is in fact part of my criticism of thinking in identity politic groupings.

Attacking privilege without context, makes no sense, because it is a symptom of the power structure. That does not mean we should not take people on the left to task or fight the general power structure. Recognizing privilege is different from making it the enemy. If you divide the workers on the lines of privilege, you are indeed playing into the hands of ruling class policymakers. Privilege to more humane subjugation is inherently different than the privilege to lord over other human beings. The intent of the ruling class, is to actively make groups of the working class complicit in oppression, by giving them a sense of domination.

Certain mechanisms actively assign privilege and maintain a standard of suppression. Obviously, fighting and abolishing legal and outright privilege is important, but as we have seen historically, that is just the start. These reforms can never get at the roots of social inequality. The most we can hope for in reforms, is to give workers equal rights as wage slaves. Rulers do not want this principally because it encourages solidarity. So the ruling class will simply employ further oppressive tactics through secret programs and para-military enforcement. Such reforms are there-by putting band-aids on gunshot wounds, and we need to include them in a more comprehensive solution. To look at this another way, identity politics need to be paired with a class analysis.

[MarxSchmarx]

EM and I have been continuing some of this conversation via PM. EM raised some good points during the conversation which we both felt it best to include in the thread.

Here's my first PM, responding to these points:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1391658&postcount=14

.....

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I have only so much time I'm willing to spend on RevLeft each day, so I don't make it to follow up on all my posts.

Anywho here's my response.
(^^ your's truly)
----------

I have no idea where you get this view from. I thought about sharing this criticism with the group, but frankly, I am astonished and even offended.
-----
Well as you guys sort of alluded in the piece, current groups tied with "identity politics" in many respects grew out of leftist politics (eg. Cesar Chavez's ufw and the Non-violent student action committee). And as such, they have a leftist pedigree that is more than historical and accidental - indeed, in some respects they come from the very leftist concept of self-determination. This was never really discussed in the show, but plenty of right-wing talking points, like the narrow self-interest of a few minorities in teh capitalist system, were belabored considerably.

-----

Divisive in what way? Honestly, the main point we made was that oppressed people should form an alliance, not just segregate into identity based interest groups.
----
LIke I said, I think you guys have your heart in the right place. But you can't compare groups that have their origins in the civil rights movement, to say Irish political machines in North America.
----


The point was that it isn't a black and white issue. People in the black religious community may hold deeply reactionary views. While I didn't bring this point up, I've heard it in person by someone raised in that community.
-----
I don't know which of the interviewees you were, but it IS a black and white issue when blacks are singled out as opposed to conservative white rural residents as THE "cause" for california's gay marriage ban. And you can't generalize about people in the "black religious community", doing so again strikes me as coming from a stand point of white privilege. One doesn't speak of the "white religious community", so why do people speak of the "black religious community"?
-----


A hit and many misses. While we are all predominately white, not one of us has the sort of formalized liberal arts education you speak of, and only one of us would claim to have been raised in the middle class. More commonalities are: All in our mid-20's, all atheists, all raised in Lincoln, NE.
-----
Fine; I hasten to add that I spoke of "educated" not "schooled". There is an important difference.

But the point, as I make later on, is that you people sound like the kind that could pass for "mainstream upper-middle class" White American, in short "acceptable" people. This is not a luxury minorities have, so to hear you guys disparge efforts by minority groups to address these concerns rubbed me the very wrong way.
-----

Furthermore, I must disagree with your associating us with the reactionary right on two points (that and we are completely different). 1) We do not disagree with the need for such groups to empower themselves and 2) Our group stands in solidarity with all acknowledgment of human rights and social liberties.
------
Well on the 2nd point I'd sure hope that is the case (if you didn't this conversation would be a dead end). So I don't doubt your group means well, it's just that you have to be careful about how you say things, that's all.

But on the first point, if so then why spend a whole 60 minutes disparging such ethnically or gender based groups? Those groups have their failings, every group does. Some are inherent in the nature of their activism (like environmental litigation groups), others are not. I think many of the ethnic, religious, or gender base groups fall in the latter category, perhaps you guys disagree. That's all.
-------

That was not my statement, but the point was that people, being disadvantaged by racism, are not immune from racist views, that was not a blanket generalization as you seem to have taken it.
----

Again I'm not attributing anything to you specifically, but it came up and it wasn't vociferously challenged. And sure there a bigots of every background, but so what? Why bring up one specific example all by itself, except to precisely make a blanket statement? What about Japanese hating Koreans or Hutu hating Tutsi or what have you? You guys tried to give the example of bi-phobia in the gay community, but this focus on a "black" reaction to hispanic immigration, as opposed to an "Asian" or "American Indian" response to hispanic immigration, isn't as neutral as you claim it to be.

----

I do not even remember that as a talking point. We certainly didn't identify with rightist radio personalities, that is just absurd. Could you give some examples?
-----

I never said you guys identify rightist radio personalities, only their arguments. Such as: gays dislike other sexual minorities, each minority wants to be the "most victimized group", many groups just wants a piece of the capitalist pie for themselves, etc... Tune in to right wing radio (I am sure there is more than enough of it in Lincoln) to hear this kind of crap.

-----


First off, "tunnel-vision" is not an accusation, but rather a criticism. Everyone at our table has nothing but respect for the progress these movements have made. This by no means, indicates that we see policies of reform or the interests of splintered minority groups, as directly addressing the roots of oppression.
--------

I guess I often don't see the value of such generalized critique. I think you need to give specific examples of policies advocated by specific groups. Otherwise it comes across as pontificating on vague impressions you all have for such groups.

--------

Where do we dismiss identity politics in such an absolute fashion? To the contrary, we overall made the point that IP simply did not go far enough.
------
You guys somewhere said IP addresses the symptoms, are bandaids to the gunshot etc... That strikes me as a dismissal, if you think otherwise well we're probably just arguing semantics.

------

You fail to address the fact that many groups see racism (or another oppressive construct) as THE fundamental social problem, and by this logic, there is NO other consciousness required. How is this not tunnel vision?
--------

Again, please name names. It's just that don't know of " many groups see racism (or another oppressive construct) as THE fundamental social problem". Maybe individuals do here and there, but they usually don't organize serious political movements with it.

So I'm left to conclude that you guys are just talking about broad impressions you get as people looking in from the outside. Again, you might be right, but I just don't know of many groups that fit the bill you're speaking of.

-------

How is that a strawman? You are just flat wrong, because we are FOR minority rights. If you don't believe liberal "bleeding hearts" exist, come to my city and I will show you the people nicely asking the government to stop killing in the Middle East. I have seen the "speak truth to lower" crowd coming to give thier sorry privilaged hour-per-week donation for over half a decade.
----------
Frankly, you guys made a comparison between what you guys call "identity politics", which to many is the struggle for minority rights, and the Bono types. If this wasn't what you meant, then surely you could have phrased it better.
----------

I am all for diversity. Please send us a diverse pannel of activists, because we would love to talk to them and hear thier critisisms. You don't even seem to agree with our assesment of identity politics, so what good would giving you a solution do? We did in fact come to a solution though, and that is unity among all oppressed people. We apluaded the civil rights movement for wide coalition building, for example.
------
Yes you did, but at the same time "unity among all oppressed people" come on how concrete is that? It's been repeated for 150 years. I'm not saying its the wrong solution, I'm just saying it's not very concrete nor is it very immediate for most people engaged in the groups I imagine you guys are thinking about (AIM, Hisabetsu, La Raza, NOW, hell even the Zapatistas). I'm sure many of these have local chapters even in Nebraska.
------

What does that even mean? Please point out where anyone in the show seriously suggested we should ignore the points rasised in identity politics.
----
It's not that you say they should be ignored, it's that you say they are unacceptable as essentially supporting "a place for me in the capitalist order". To be candid, I don't know which is worse.
----

If that is what you took away from the show, you inserted your own predjudices into it. Of course people have to prove thier intentions to others, that is entirely fair. We certainly did not belittle the concerns of oppressed people.
------
Yeah I'm guilty as charged about my prejudices. I am prejudiced and do take with a grain of salt what a group of white guys who, if they chose to, could be more "socially acceptable", have to say about the struggles of minorities.

It's not that such groups can't have valid criticisms, or that they can't make meaningful contributions. It's only that in a forum like the kind you had, where it is basically a one-sided conduit of information, it's hard for you guys to seem credible on this topic.

And of course I'm against tokenism, but, well, the best I can put it is that it gave me the impression of "You don't know the half of it, brother". I guess that makes me prejudiced, sure. But I can live with that.
------

Not only do I disagree, you are so vague as to make addressing your point impossible. What are you talking about?
------
See above about the talking points. Also, I felt that, as I say above, many of your solutions didn't seem concrete, which made them come across as half-hearted. That's all.

------

First point: obviously you DO NOT know where we are coming from. Your analisys comes from a number of assumptions, that as I pointed out, are mostly wrong. I hate to have to respond in such harsh terms as well, but it is rather ironic that you project so many misconceptions onto the panel and many of these judgements I find completely unfounded. I don't even know where you are getting the material for these points, it is as if you are listening to a different show, and I worry that as you listen to us, you make completely unjustified associations in your mind.
---------
Hopefully the above points have clarified where I'm coming from.
---------

I hope you can help me to understand when you do calm down. I do doubt that most leftists support such universal struggle and in fact, I would say sectarianism is perhaps our greatest threat.
----
Well on sectarianism I agree, that was certainly not my intent to be sectarian.

---------


EM I'll ask that you go ahead and post the follow up, which I'll respond to in the thread context. That should get us back on track.

MS

[Black Dagger]

MS, could you possibly reformat that post? Like maybe into quote tags? It's a bit hard/ugly to look at :blushing:

[Elect Marx]

I guess I often don't see the value of such generalized critique. I think you need to give specific examples of policies advocated by specific groups. Otherwise it comes across as pontificating on vague impressions you all have for such groups. You have to start somewhere, do you not? If we have a vague disapproval of the mechanisms often involved in identity politics, should we not examine that?


You guys somewhere said IP addresses the symptoms, are bandaids to the gunshot etc... That strikes me as a dismissal, if you think otherwise well we're probably just arguing semantics. Yes, I would say that is not a fair assumption. As you have pointed out, perhaps we do not have a fully developed criticism here, but then, that is the point of discussion. I continually have to point out to people that this is a dialog, not a lecture. We are not speaking authoritatively as leftists and I find it disheartening that I might need to point this out.


Yes you did, but at the same time "unity among all oppressed people" come on how concrete is that? It's been repeated for 150 years. I'm not saying its the wrong solution, I'm just saying it's not very concrete nor is it very immediate for most people engaged in the groups I imagine you guys are thinking about (AIM, Hisabetsu, La Raza, NOW, hell even the Zapatistas). I'm sure many of these have local chapters even in Nebraska. People of all sorts supporting the rights of one-another? That is about as concrete as it needs to be. The complexity of this issue, seems to be a matter of sectarian influences. I do not know of any of those groups being active here. I have been involved here for most of a decade and I would love to be involved with some of these groups.


But the point, as I make later on, is that you people sound like the kind that could pass for "mainstream upper-middle class" White American, in short "acceptable" people. This is not a luxury minorities have, so to hear you guys disparge efforts by minority groups to address these concerns rubbed me the very wrong way. Yes, if I changed the way I speak, the humanist values I propose, cut my hair, shaved, dressed in a polo-khakis outfit, removed all my jewelry, act like a prude and started sucking up to authorities, I could pass... maybe.
The truth however is that I can't do these things and wouldn't want to live like that even if I could. Reactionary socialization failed on me and I am not moving to the 'burbs anytime soon. The implication you make, is that I am not as invested in social justice as you are and I can't be trusted. The truth is, I have no escape from being who I am, short of killing myself. My struggle is ingrained in my person, as it is hopefully in you. I may fail, but I will never give up.

At least I have found that you have some reasons. To be entirely honest, your response came off as a completely detached rant. I am looking at these movements as an outsider and yes, perhaps I don't get the feelings and motivations 100% because of that. However, I see no reason why I cannot criticize such movements in a general sense. It would seem that for the shear fact that I am a while male heterosexual, you would say I shouldn't. To be clear, I am not here to speak for these oppressed groups, rather to point out my understanding of them and why many do fail for basic reasons.

You see a lot of generalizations where they don't exist. We were criticizing a specific aspect of identity politics and perhaps we framed it poorly. I understand the victim complex that people develop when they are constantly criticized without reason, but when you start to see all criticism as unreasonable, you destroy many chances for growth. We in fact weren't attacking anyone at in any over-aching sense.



If that is what you took away from the show, you inserted your own predjudices into it. Of course people have to prove thier intentions to others, that is entirely fair. We certainly did not belittle the concerns of oppressed people.Yeah I'm guilty as charged about my prejudices. I am prejudiced and do take with a grain of salt what a group of white guys who, if they chose to, could be more "socially acceptable", have to say about the struggles of minorities.

It's not that such groups can't have valid criticisms, or that they can't make meaningful contributions. It's only that in a forum like the kind you had, where it is basically a one-sided conduit of information, it's hard for you guys to seem credible on this topic.

And of course I'm against tokenism, but, well, the best I can put it is that it gave me the impression of "You don't know the half of it, brother". I guess that makes me prejudiced, sure. But I can live with that.I'm not here to shame you for your prejudices. I suggest though, that you give some serious thought to how these subconscious reactions might sabotage potential opportunities for solidarity and alliance between leftist groups. Honestly, I have more in common with a committed leftist anywhere, than my own brother.

There is often a separatist sentiment within these movements that holds that allies have no right to criticize or give input into their effort. In fact, there is no other place for an ally, that is what an ally does. Like so many organizations, it only takes a few people to speak for the majority. A small group of hostile sectarian individuals can do this. I understand it is difficult, but many people do give these sectarian elements lenience, because they are seen as having good intentions.

When you hold someone at such a distance, you can only preach, because they will never understand, and thus, must just sit and watch. When you hold an ally apart from active learning, you create a self-fulfilling prophesy. No one can understand your struggles without involvement and they cannot support you without understanding.

I could say that “you can never understand” what trying to be an ally to these oppressed groups is like, but that is offensive, and not wholly true. People don't like to be talked down to this way or told they are incapable, and neither do I.

Honestly, because of the hostility that a fraction of the membership in identity groups display, many possible alliances are lost and many joint efforts, sabotaged. How many people does it take to create widespread solidarity? How many does it take to destroy it?

Let's take Malcolm X for example, a man I truly respect, sadly cut down in the prime of his movement. He burned many bridges and ran off many allies while he was representing a separatist agenda. Then when he opened up the struggle to all of humanity (getting back to civil rights here), his efforts blossomed and perhaps not incidentally, he was shot. Malcolm X was a great leader in the civil rights movement because he stood up against the divides in the working class and I suspect that got him killed.

Speaking to you, it seems that I have gotten more to the root of the problem already. This underscores the value of diverse perspectives in a discussion. With all respect of course, if you had listened to the program without the admitted prejudices, you may have understood much of my position on your own. My worries are that your reaction is so common among oppressed people, as to make our concerns fall on deaf ears.

You are right that there is a commonality between us and the right-wing demagogues. Where they take a kernel of truth and attempt to plant vast social misconceptions, (that is what stereotypes are) we are trying to do the opposite. They see separatist attributes (even making them up) and make bigoted judgments, where we would simply ask that these movements mediate themselves and fight sectarian impulses.

We face limitations as allies. While we may see separatist aspects in movements, attacking them serves only to splinter the groups farther. This would only validate the fears of separatists, that we truly are all “the enemy.” Creating the resolve to become a part of a coalition is truly something members of an oppressed minority must do for themselves. My criticism is of people involved in identity politics that fail to do this. You truly do not have to support fractures within your movement, you can simply ignore them, and you become a part of collective failure. The people, united, will never be defeated.

In Solidarity,
EM

[MarxSchmarx]

You have to start somewhere, do you not? If we have a vague disapproval of the mechanisms often involved in identity politics, should we not examine that?

Yes of course. My problem is that when your entire analysis (well, unless there's a second hour we don't know about) is based on such vague sentiments, and you don't give a single concrete example, one wonders how seriously you entertained whether the fundamental premise, that such identity politics exist, is true, and hence whether the subsequent analysis is of real or imagined mechanisms.




You guys somewhere said IP addresses the symptoms, are bandaids to the gunshot etc... That strikes me as a dismissal, if you think otherwise well we're probably just arguing semantics.

Yes, I would say that is not a fair assumption. As you have pointed out, perhaps we do not have a fully developed criticism here, but then, that is the point of discussion. I continually have to point out to people that this is a dialog, not a lecture. We are not speaking authoritatively as leftists and I find it disheartening that I might need to point this out.


I'll try to express myself better. Although I'm not about to go back and find the exact quote about bandaids, when you have a 60 minute pre-recorded discussion among people who evidently share much in common politically, and such views about "band-aid politics" are taken seriously, and the retorts I would have used weren't brought up, it made me wonder how pluralistic the discussion on this point really was.




Yes you did, but at the same time "unity among all oppressed people" come on how concrete is that? It's been repeated for 150 years. I'm not saying its the wrong solution, I'm just saying it's not very concrete nor is it very immediate for most people engaged in the groups I imagine you guys are thinking about (AIM, Hisabetsu, La Raza, NOW, hell even the Zapatistas). I'm sure many of these have local chapters even in Nebraska.
People of all sorts supporting the rights of one-another? That is about as concrete as it needs to be. The complexity of this issue, seems to be a matter of sectarian influences. I do not know of any of those groups being active here. I have been involved here for most of a decade and I would love to be involved with some of these groups.

well obviously not the zapatista or hisabetsu but:
http://www.naacp.org/unitfinder/index.htm
http://www.nclr.org/content/affiliates/detail/1176/
and plenty of fine "identity" groups here:
http://www.unl.edu/womenssp/resources.shtml




But the point, as I make later on, is that you people sound like the kind that could pass for "mainstream upper-middle class" White American, in short "acceptable" people. This is not a luxury minorities have, so to hear you guys disparge efforts by minority groups to address these concerns rubbed me the very wrong way.
Yes, if I changed the way I speak, the humanist values I propose, cut my hair, shaved, dressed in a polo-khakis outfit, removed all my jewelry, act like a prude and started sucking up to authorities, I could pass... maybe.
The truth however is that I can't do these things and wouldn't want to live like that even if I could. Reactionary socialization failed on me and I am not moving to the 'burbs anytime soon. The implication you make, is that I am not as invested in social justice as you are and I can't be trusted. The truth is, I have no escape from being who I am, short of killing myself. My struggle is ingrained in my person, as it is hopefully in you. I may fail, but I will never give up.

At least I have found that you have some reasons. To be entirely honest, your response came off as a completely detached rant. I am looking at these movements as an outsider and yes, perhaps I don't get the feelings and motivations 100% because of that. However, I see no reason why I cannot criticize such movements in a general sense. It would seem that for the shear fact that I am a while male heterosexual, you would say I shouldn't. To be clear, I am not here to speak for these oppressed groups, rather to point out my understanding of them and why many do fail for basic reasons.


Well it was a rant but it wasn't detached.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Of course anyone can give valid critiques, and people should make valid and constructive criticism of social movements where they can. But when ALL you have is a group of relatively erudite white male heterosexuals for 60 minutes talking about the politics of minorities, well, I take it with a grain of salt. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, only that you have to put such conversations in their broader social and political contexts when you listen to them.

Nor am I saying you're a sell out or can't be trusted. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. To belabor the point: it's only that you need to be mindful of how it comes across to others when a bunch of plain spoken, relatively erudite white guys about whom we know nothing else, interpret and then go on to criticize the struggles of minorities.



You see a lot of generalizations where they don't exist. We were criticizing a specific aspect of identity politics and perhaps we framed it poorly. I understand the victim complex that people develop when they are constantly criticized without reason, but when you start to see all criticism as unreasonable, you destroy many chances for growth. We in fact weren't attacking anyone at in any over-aching sense.


Yeah but again I don't see any specific examples of specific policies of tunnel visioned strategies and objectives, much less examples of "identity politics". Well ok you went after the minute men but that's easier than shooting the proverbial barrel ichtene.




Yeah I'm guilty as charged about my prejudices. I am prejudiced and do take with a grain of salt what a group of white guys who, if they chose to, could be more "socially acceptable", have to say about the struggles of minorities.

It's not that such groups can't have valid criticisms, or that they can't make meaningful contributions. It's only that in a forum like the kind you had, where it is basically a one-sided conduit of information, it's hard for you guys to seem credible on this topic.

And of course I'm against tokenism, but, well, the best I can put it is that it gave me the impression of "You don't know the half of it, brother". I guess that makes me prejudiced, sure. But I can live with that.
I'm not here to shame you for your prejudices. I suggest though, that you give some serious thought to how these subconscious reactions might sabotage potential opportunities for solidarity and alliance between leftist groups. Honestly, I have more in common with a committed leftist anywhere, than my own brother.



I rather think a healthy skepticism of any assertion is preferable. Sure this makes alliance building difficult in practice, but it's all a matter of degree and the calculus is much different there.



There is often a separatist sentiment within these movements that holds that allies have no right to criticize or give input into their effort. In fact, there is no other place for an ally, that is what an ally does. Like so many organizations, it only takes a few people to speak for the majority. A small group of hostile sectarian individuals can do this. I understand it is difficult, but many people do give these sectarian elements lenience, because they are seen as having good intentions.

When you hold someone at such a distance, you can only preach, because they will never understand, and thus, must just sit and watch. When you hold an ally apart from active learning, you create a self-fulfilling prophesy. No one can understand your struggles without involvement and they cannot support you without understanding...
Honestly, because of the hostility that a fraction of the membership in identity groups display, many possible alliances are lost and many joint efforts, sabotaged. How many people does it take to create widespread solidarity? How many does it take to destroy it?
...
Let's take Malcolm X for example, a man I truly respect, sadly cut down in the prime of his movement. He burned many bridges and ran off many allies while he was representing a separatist agenda. Then when he opened up the struggle to all of humanity (getting back to civil rights here), his efforts blossomed and perhaps not incidentally, he was shot. Malcolm X was a great leader in the civil rights movement because he stood up against the divides in the working class and I suspect that got him killed.




Here's why I wish I knew which groups were were talking about, and what the broader context are for these opinions. Now we can discuss specifics instead of broader generalities.

Malcolm X was a arguably used by the nation of islam, a reactionary, cynical and manipulative and extremist organization not a whole lot better than Apple Computer or the National Alliance.

But I don't think you have to bring up the question of "identity politics" to go after the nation of islam, or Malcolm X at his worst. There are of course bigots of every color, creed, and gender. And sure these kinds of bigots divide the working class.

But a single swallow (or whatever) doesn't make a spring. I don't think the bridges Malcolm X burnt were due to anything about the "progressive identity politics" as you guys say in your intro. No, they were due to a reactionary agenda. The broader generalizations you seem to want to draw, again, strikes me as problematic.

But suffice it to say that yes I agree to the extent that it happens, such an approach is silly for the reasons you mention.



I could say that “you can never understand” what trying to be an ally to these oppressed groups is like, but that is offensive, and not wholly true. People don't like to be talked down to this way or told they are incapable, and neither do I.


No it won't be true, but if it were, I don't think it's talking down. I think it's stating a fact. I accept that I will never understand some things about being queer, or being from ethnic group X, for example. I don't think that's talking down, I agree I can still give my opinion about their tactics, but it's a simple fact that I don't share their experiences that affect them in so far as they are, for example, queers.



With all respect of course, if you had listened to the program without the admitted prejudices, you may have understood much of my position on your own. My worries are that your reaction is so common among oppressed people, as to make our concerns fall on deaf ears.


That may very well be. Perhaps it would help if you spoke to such people involved in such groups and sought to address their concerns directly and with them, especially when they reject alliances. Sure some of it's about your concerns, but building alliances is mostly about addressing the other parties' concerns.



You are right that there is a commonality between us and the right-wing demagogues. Where they take a kernel of truth and attempt to plant vast social misconceptions, (that is what stereotypes are) we are trying to do the opposite. They see separatist attributes (even making them up) and make bigoted judgments, where we would simply ask that these movements mediate themselves and fight sectarian impulses.


OK that's fair. One wonders, though, if the points will strike more to home if, for example in say a feminist group, that specific sectarian criticism came from a woman. Indeed, I think you would agree with this point as you note:



We face limitations as allies. While we may see separatist aspects in movements, attacking them serves only to splinter the groups farther. This would only validate the fears of separatists, that we truly are all “the enemy.” Creating the resolve to become a part of a coalition is truly something members of an oppressed minority must do for themselves. My criticism is of people involved in identity politics that fail to do this. You truly do not have to support fractures within your movement, you can simply ignore them, and you become a part of collective failure.
[quote]

By and large it may be that identity politics can be a vehicle for little lenins to gain control of movements and have their little fiefdom. Arguably this is what has happened to the United Farm Workers Union. As leftists we are well aware this is not unique to such groups, and I do appreciate the criticism of sectarianism wherever and whenever. The point, though, is that when you get into issues of personal identity, you also get into a whole host of life-experiences that are nebulous to outsiders. And I guess I just went on a long-about way of saying that that fact opens a whole new can worms.

[quote]
The people, united, will never be defeated.


Well amen to that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Um, what does sectarianism have to do with identity politics? :confused:

[Elect Marx]

Um, what does sectarianism have to do with identity politics? :confused:

What does it have to do with religion? Sectarianism is simply a divisive element here, attacking groupings with the same interests. When one person is attacking another for not conforming to some standard, and both are basically activists advocating human rights, that is a form of sectarianism.

[Revy]

A focus on "identity" that ignores the broader social context and, crucially, class, can be non-productive at best; however I find that leftist dismissal of or hostility to what's called "identity politics" too often amounts to disregard for minority groups.

Exactly. This puts it perfectly.

[Invincible Summer]

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole of all the responses, so this may/may not have been said:

Class and "identity politics" (issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) are intertwined. The way people experience class is directly affected by their identities, and vice versa.

But my question is - how should Communists take this into account? We constantly talk about class struggle and how capitalism must be smashed etc, but obviously "class" means different things to different people, and some people won't accept to be simply "another worker."

How do we incorporate identity into class struggle?

[Black Dagger]

It is a real phenomenon though, this figuring of class as identity, and I think it's more in need of ruthless criticism than the strategic essentialisms of minority groups; tell me this isn't disgusting. (http://www.classism.org/about_us.html)

Isn't it though? Not to suggest that it's 'just' an identity, i.e. that class is not a real social relationship in this society - but a person identifying as 'working class' or 'proletarian' or 'revolutionary' is adopting an identity on top of their material position in society. Most workers today do not regard themselves/identify as 'working class' (of course that doesn't mean they aren't)- and many workers who do do so as a byproduct of political identity, as trade unionists, communists, socialists etc.
Saying that class is an identity as well as a social relationship is not to suggest that anyone can be working class through self-identification, in the same way that saying race identity exists does not suggest anyone can be 'Black'. Nor am i suggesting that we should essentialise ourselves as workers or as a class (quite the contrary)- and this is something you have also argued against in the quote above. But whether you like it or not this is already a part of revolutionary politics, in our language and ideology.

'Class consciousness' can mean when an individual or class becomes cognisant of their position within society and take action in-line with the interests of their class - the fruit of which is class struggle. Black consciousness activists function in a similar manner, but along racial rather than necessarily class lines (though often the two are combined).

My main point is just that rallying against 'identity politics' is as you have suggested often a fight against so-called 'minorities' rather than their 'identities'; but moreover that this is hypocritical given the tendency of the same people to treat class as an identity (though they would never admit as much).
I.E. that people should identify as 'workers' not as 'black' or 'queer' or whatever - that we should all just be 'working class' - to me this is just white-washing of the class, and insulting given the vitriol dished out to other uses of 'identity' in politics. 'It's ok if we do it' - but black folks, women etc. can't? To me the oppression of one group of workers (not people who are 'just' workers, i.e. default humanity - white males etc.) is an injury to the whole class. That isssues effecting working class women are class issues etc. You can't quarantine the effects of social oppression on a class, we are all a part of and effected by it and so we need to address them. At the moment some people seem to think that we should ignore these issues or silence the discussion of them in favour of something called 'class issues' or 'class struggle' - as if the struggle of oppressed groups within the class were separate to this.

[manic expression]

In the US, identity politics set the left back by decades. By identity politics, I specifically mean activists who view race, gender, "class", sexuality, age and other social aspects as equal forms of oppression. Such ideologies define themselves as "anti-oppression" or "collective liberation" or a similar PC term. Peggy McIntosh and her childlike followers (including the now-once-again-irrelevant SDS) spring to mind.

These views are beyond absurd for many reasons. The idea that white privilege informs and defines oppression against minorities completely ignores the fact that a.) actual oppression of non-whites is most predominately done through economic deprivation and b.) most whites are not "privileged". Blacks are oppressed not because they are black or because those mean whites hate them, they are oppressed because they were first used as chattle slavery, then as cheap labor (first in southern agriculture and later in northern industry), then tossed to the curb when it became unprofitable to employ them. It's not about white privilege, it's about the profit of the capitalist class, and anyone who denies this is a blithering idiot.

If the theories of identity politics were true, it would mean that a homeless white man is privileged in comparison to a wealthy black woman: a homeless white man, after all, is privileged in the sense that he is white, male and heterosexual. Simply put, this sort of identity politics is nothing but rank bigotry veiled with pseudo-sociology and PC-esque terminology.

From what I've seen, whites who embrace this usually end up engaging in self-flagellation, while non-whites usually use it to point fingers and victimize themselves. It divides, it serves self-gratification, it has never contributed at all to revolutionary activity.

This is, of course, not directed at all to critiques of racism and bigotry from a materialist, scientific, socialist, revolutionary viewpoint, it's directed toward the adherence of the garbage I described above.

[Travieso]

To me the oppression of one group of workers (not people who are 'just' workers, i.e. default humanity - white males etc.) is an injury to the whole class.
I've always wondered Black Dagger, what is you definition of "white"? As I see you throwing the term many times around.


If the theories of identity politics were true, it would mean that a homeless white man is privileged in comparison to a wealthy black woman: a homeless white man, after all, is privileged in the sense that he is white, male and heterosexual. Simply put, this sort of identity politics is nothing but rank bigotry veiled with pseudo-sociology and PC-esque terminology.
I agree with this. But I might add that persons who embrace this usually do it to express their own inner prejudices.
At least in the contemporary American Society, when two former oppressed groups (Jewish people and Asian Americans) are the top most wealthy ethnic groups in the country suggest that using white bashing will be more difficult in a future America with a white minority.

[Black Dagger]

People who are treated as such by society? Race is a social construct - it exists so far as people are treated as belonging to one racial group or another. If society would regard you as 'white' then for all intents and purposes you are 'white'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this question though. Do you have a problem or query about something i said specifically?


I agree with this. But I might add that persons who embrace this usually do it to express their own inner prejudices.

Evidence?



At least in the contemporary American Society, when two former oppressed groups (Jewish people and Asian Americans) are the top most wealthy ethnic groups in the country suggest that using white bashing will be more difficult in a future America with a white minority.

I don't understand what you mean here.

What does the position of jews or asians in america have to do with white privilege? Or racism generally? Do black folks in the US no longer face discrimination now that Obama is president? Also as far as asians in the US are concerned your view represents a very distorted one based on misleading data:



Myth: Asian-Americans are a model minority.

Fact: Asian-American immigrants to the U.S. have been highly self-selected.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Summary

Asian immigrants to the U.S. tend to be already highly educated and from the middle or upper class, for a number of reasons. Thus, they get a completely different start in life in the U.S. compared to other minorities. Although Asians achieve a much greater degree of success in the U.S., the "model minority" stereotype is a myth because Asian-Americans still bump into the glass ceiling, receive lower pay even with the same qualifications, and have higher poverty rates. The image of boat people escaping the ravages of war and communism to take full advantage of American opportunities is also a myth, in that Southeast Asians actually have the lowest success rate of all Asians.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Argument

Supporters of affirmative action argue that discrimination and racism have held down minorities in the U.S., and that affirmative action is needed to correct it. In response, critics ask: "If blacks and Mexicans are being held down by discrimination, then why do Asians come to this country and do so well for themselves?" According to this myth, Asians immigrate to America with little or nothing, often as boat people fleeing communism, and through hard study and work become even more successful than European-Americans. Their success would suggest that the U.S. does not really discriminate against minorities.

Supporters of the "model minority" myth cite many statistics in their favor. For example, among college-bound seniors in 1989, Asian-Americans had a high school grade point average of 3.25, compared to 3.08 for all other students. A study of 7,836 high school students in the San Francisco area found that Asian-Americans spent 40 percent more time doing homework than non-Asians, a fairly common finding. (1)

Asian-Americans also have higher levels of education and income:
Educational attainment by ethnic group (1990) (2)

Completed 4 years or more of:
-----------------------------
Ethnic group* High School College
-------------------------------------
Asian 80.4% 39.9%
White 79.1 22.0
Black 66.2 11.3
Hispanic 50.8 9.2

Median family income, by ethnic group (1993) (3)

Asian $44,456
White $39,300
Hispanic $23,654
Black $21,542 (For brevity's sake, "Asian" in this essay includes Pacific Islanders, and "Hispanic" includes Spanish, Cuban, Puerto-Rican and Mexican Americans.)

The model minority myth

Although it is true that an unusually high percentage of Asian-Americans have enjoyed success in the United States, large parts of the "model minority" stereotype are a myth, and cannot be used in debates on affirmative action.

We should first note that Asian-Americans form one of our smallest minorities:
U.S. Population, by ethnic group (1994) (4)

Whites 74.0%
Blacks 12.0
Hispanics 10.0
Asian 3.2 When the percentage is this small, many factors can skewer the composition of a minority. Indeed, this turns out to be the case.

Unlike blacks, Asians have migrated to the U.S. voluntarily. The forced capture and transport of Africans means that the U.S. black population is more likely to be a true cross section of African society, whereas Asians, who migrate voluntarily, tend to be self-selected. What type of voluntary immigrant would take residence in the U.S.? Naturally, those who could afford to make the trip. For immigrants from neighboring nations, like Mexico, this is relatively easy, a matter of crossing a land border. Again, this would tend to make the U.S. Hispanic population a true cross section of its original society. Asians, however, must be able to afford a trans-oceanic journey. Not surprisingly, those who could afford such a trip would tend to belong to their homeland's middle and upper classes.

In a thorough study of Houston's Asian American population, Dr. Stephen Klineberg confirmed what sociologists have long known about the advantaged backgrounds of Asian immigrants. "The survey makes it clear that Asians have been relatively successful in Houston primarily due to the educations and middle class backgrounds they brought with them from their countries of origin," Klineberg says. "One of the key messages from the survey is that we have to discard the 'model minority' stereotype that is so often applied to Asians in America. the fact that a high proportion of Asian immigrants come from an occupational and educational elite." (5)

Furthermore, U.S. immigration policy has long been discriminatory, favoring immigrants with professional skills and higher education. (6) This policy began as early as 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt and the Japanese government negotiated a "Gentlemen's Agreement" restricting the exit of unskilled Japanese laborers to the United States. (7) Asian immigration has been heavily restricted for most of this century, and has only recently become liberalized.

Other aspects of the myth

The above income chart shows that Asians make the nation's highest median family income. But this statistic doesn't tell the whole story. Asian families have a higher percentage of their members employed in the workforce, so their family income is naturally higher. Also, the U.S. Census does not distinguish between Japanese-American citizens and Japanese residents in the U.S. who maintain their Japanese citizenship. Therefore, this figure includes many highly paid Japanese businessmen in the U.S. on extended business. (8)

Asian-Americans aspiring to job promotion are also familiar with the "glass ceiling." According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Asian-American men born in the United States are 7 percent to 11 percent less likely to hold managerial jobs than white men with the same educational and experience level. Median income for Asian-Americans with four years of college education is $34,470 a year, compared with $36,130 for whites, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. (9)

Also, many people who buy into the "model minority" myth do not realize that income inequality is severe within the Asian-American community. In 1994, the individual Asian-American poverty rate was 15.3 percent, compared to a national rate of 14.5 percent, and a white rate of 12.2 percent. (10) In fact, the poverty rate for Asians in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York is nearly twice as high as that of whites. (11) Leaders of the Asian-American community complain that, because of the "model minority" myth, their poverty programs have been drastically underfunded compared to other communities. Thus, needy cries for help among Asian-Americans are going unmet.

Many who subscribe to the "model minority" myth also presume that Asia is a homogeneous society with a shared family and work ethic. Actually, Asia is a land of 27 different countries, sharply delineated by oceans, culture, language, religion and economic systems. This produces wide disparities in the success of Asian immigrants. The following chart shows the percentage of Asian-Americans over twenty-five years of age who have completed four or more years of college and who live below the poverty line:
Asian group Poverty level (12)
----------------------------
Laotian 67.2%
Hmong 65.5
Cambodian 46.9
Vietnamese 33.5
Indonesian 15.2 Notice these groups come from Southeast Asia. Many believers in the "model minority" myth claim that Asians have succeeded so well in America because they escaped the ravages of war and communism, and are thus highly motivated to take full advantage of the opportunities offered in America. However, the above chart gives lie to this myth.

It is true that many Asian cultures, like China and Japan, have traditionally placed a very high value on education. However, Asians have historically used education to create an intellectual caste system. Those who proved themselves went on to receive more education, while those who failed were relegated to menial labor. Higher education was not a universal right, but a test of caste membership. As we have shown above, Asian immigrants to the U.S. tend to come from the middle and upper classes.

Finally, there are many who believe that Asians excel because they have the highest IQs in the world. But there is no evidence to support this assertion. One study, conducted by Harold Stevenson, tested the IQs of children in Japan, China and America, carefully matching them for socioeconomic status and demographic variables. He found no differences in IQ. (13) Another set of studies conducted by Richard Lynn supposedly found a higher IQ in Asians, but his research has been heavily criticized on methodological grounds -- among other problems, his Asian test group was tiny and unrepresentative of the population at large. (14)

In the U.S. during the early 1900s, Asians -- like Jews -- scored much lower on IQ tests than native whites. Their tests scores improved over time as highly educated immigrants continued arriving in the U.S., and their social positions improved. (15)

Implications for affirmative action

Given the above information, it is difficult to hold Asians up as members of a model minority who have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. Asian immigrants to the U.S. tend to be more educated and affluent than the compatriots they leave behind. They generally have not suffered extreme poverty, racism, legal discrimination or hateful prejudice within their own nations. Compare this to black Americans, who have struggled with these problems for hundreds of years. The two groups have experienced completely different starts in the U.S., and cannot be compared to each other.

The model minority myth does a disservice to Asian-Americans, because it suggests they do not need, nor could benefit from, affirmative action. As we have seen, the glass ceiling exists for this minority as well, not to mention the poverty and income inequality that afflict all other groups of Americans. Unfortunately, the myth blinds others to these realities.

Endnotes:

1. Lieutenant Commander James G. Foggo, III, U.S. Navy, "Review of Data on Asian-Americans," Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, May 1993.

2. U.S. Bureau of the Census,[I] U.S. Census of Population, U.S. Summary, PC80-1-C1 and Current Population Reports P20-455, P20-459, P20-462, P20-465RV, P20-475; and unpublished data.

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-188.

4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished data.

5. Stephen Klineberg, "First Houston Area Asian Survey Explodes the 'Model Minority' Stereotype and Explains the City's Changing Demographics," Press Release, Rice University, Office of Development, March 8, 1996.

6. American Writing Corporation, "Research Briefs on Poverty: Poverty and Asian Americans," Equal Opportunity for the Urban Poor Program, National Community Building Network, Rockefeller Foundation.

7. Foggo.

8. Ibid.

9. Carolyn Jung, "Asian-Americans Say They Run into Glass Ceiling," San Jose Mercury News, September 10, 1993, p. 1B.

10. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Asian-American rate: P20-459 and unpublished data; U.S. rate: P-60 series; white American rate: P20-480 and unpublished data.

11. Nancy Rivera Brooks, "Study Attacks Belief in Asian-American Affluence, Privilege," San Jose Mercury News, May 19, 1994, p. 1A.

12. Foggo.

13. Harold Stevenson et al., "Cognitive performance of Japanese, Chinese, and American Children," Child Development 56, 1985, pp. 718-34.

14. Charles Lane, "Tainted Sources," pp. 133-5, in Russell Jacoby and Noami Glauberman, eds., The Bell Curve Debate (New York: Random House, 1995).

15. Thomas Sowell, "Ethnicity and IQ," The American Spectator (February, 1995), pp. 32-36

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aamodel.htm

[manic expression]

People who are treated as such by society? Race is a social construct - it exists so far as people are treated as belonging to one racial group or another. If society would regard you as 'white' then for all intents and purposes you are 'white'.

Not that I disagree with you, but I think the underlying point here is that it's far more complicated than identity politics would have us believe. Mulatto families that have been able to "pass" may be treated as whites, but that doesn't change their history or their outlook. Irish families may be treated much like Anglo-Saxon or Italian or Jewish families today, but this was a relatively recent development tied to the white flight and changing social relations after WWII. Even a Bosnian, removed from his or her community, might be treated as white, but the reality is certainly more complex than that.

What really annoys me about the identity politics I described is that it largely ignores these nuances and subtleties, mostly because it's an entirely superficial and shallow way of looking at society.

Most importantly, though, identity politics denies how racial dynamics are so closely tied to class dynamics: as you pointed out, some Asian groups are treated like crap while other Asian groups are treated essentially as equals by the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois sections of society. It's not about race, it's about class.

[Invincible Summer]

What really annoys me about the identity politics I described is that it largely ignores these nuances and subtleties, mostly because it's an entirely superficial and shallow way of looking at society.

Most importantly, though, identity politics denies how racial dynamics are so closely tied to class dynamics: as you pointed out, some Asian groups are treated like crap while other Asian groups are treated essentially as equals by the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois sections of society. It's not about race, it's about class.

Indeed, it's not about one or the other, as race and class (as well as sexuality and gender) are all tied into each other and are inseparable.

You can't try and deal with each in isolation

[Travieso]

People who are treated as such by society? Race is a social construct - it exists so far as people are treated as belonging to one racial group or another. If society would regard you as 'white' then for all intents and purposes you are 'white'. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this question though. Do you have a problem or query about something i said specifically?

That is a really shallow description.
Race and identity politics are more based on self-identification. That's why the many accusations of "selling out" and "white washing"




Evidence?

Oh common, you must be really naive to not see that many people in the left use the demonization of certain groups (whites and in the last decades, jews) a lot.



I don't understand what you mean here.

What does the position of jews or asians in america have to do with white privilege? Or racism generally? Do black folks in the US no longer face discrimination now that Obama is president? Also as far as asians in the US are concerned your view represents a very distorted one based on misleading data:

Black people are a whole different story.
By the way, I do not see anything in that article that disproves my point that paticular groups of Asians in America are a privileged group at par with white people and that so called "white privilege" apparently works the same way for them.

[manic expression]

Race and identity politics are more based on self-identification. That's why the many accusations of "selling out" and "white washing"


Oh common, you must be really naive to not see that many people in the left use the demonization of certain groups (whites and in the last decades, jews) a lot.

I think I have to agree with these two points, especially the second one. In a lot of "radical" groups that employ identity politics, a white person interrupting a black person is deemed a manifestation of some latent racism (again, that belief in some omnipresent "white privilege"), instead of just someone being impatient or trying to make a point. The same goes for "male privilege", "hetero privilege" and "age privilege", and it's often taken to the most absurd of heights by these self-styled "radicals".

[Black Dagger]

Race and identity politics are more based on self-identification.

Identity Politics are sure, but the social reality of 'race' is not. Obviously self-identification is a part of how 'race' operates but the real function is how it is used to mediate relationships in society - 'race' exists when people are treated or regarded by others based on their perceived 'race' - as in cases of social discrimination, interpersonal prejudice etc. Whether or not someones identifies themselves as being a member of a race does not mean they will be treated by society/individuals as if this is true. This is because races are defined socially - that is by people, society - not by biology or in a persons head - one only has to look a certain way to be treated as being a member of a particular 'race' even if that individuals identifies differently.


you must be really naive to not see that many people in the left use the demonization of certain groups (whites and in the last decades, jews) a lot.


Firstly, that is not what you said.

You said that people who support the ideas of identity politics or white privilege "usually do it to express their own inner prejudices." I completely disagree and asked you to provide evidence for this assertion, if you cannot just say so. Berating me for not agreeing with you is not evidence.

Secondly, i also disagree that 'the left' (define?) demonise white people as a group. You need to separate critiques of (white) racism from 'demonising' white people, it's not the same thing. That is not to say it does not occur, but there is no large-scale conspiracy against the white race at play here.


By the way, I do not see anything in that article that disproves my point that paticular groups of Asians in America are a privileged group at par with white people and that so called "white privilege" apparently works the same way for them.

Of course it does, you never said 'particular groups of asians in america' you said 'asian americans':



at least in the contemporary American Society, when two former oppressed groups (Jewish people and Asian Americans) are the top most wealthy ethnic groups in the country suggest that using white bashing will be more difficult in a future America with a white minority.


Don't try to sidestep the matter, you said that 'asian americans' are a privileged group in the US (and even that they were the 'most wealthy' :unsure:); completely ignoring the fact that asians are not a homogenous group as i have shown - you were wrong. You can't just change what you said, pretending like you were making a completely different point.

Here, i'll do the work for you, i.e. you're wrong because:

Asians in america are a small and selective group, the statistics are misleading:


The above income chart shows that Asians make the nation's highest median family income. But this statistic doesn't tell the whole story. Asian families have a higher percentage of their members employed in the workforce, so their family income is naturally higher. Also, the U.S. Census does not distinguish between Japanese-American citizens and Japanese residents in the U.S. who maintain their Japanese citizenship. Therefore, this figure includes many highly paid Japanese businessmen in the U.S. on extended business. (8)

Glass-celing:



Asian-Americans aspiring to job promotion are also familiar with the "glass ceiling." According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Asian-American men born in the United States are 7 percent to 11 percent less likely to hold managerial jobs than white men with the same educational and experience level. Median income for Asian-Americans with four years of college education is $34,470 a year, compared with $36,130 for whites, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. (9)


Higher rates of poverty than whites:


In 1994, the individual Asian-American poverty rate was 15.3 percent, compared to a national rate of 14.5 percent, and a white rate of 12.2 percent. (10) In fact, the poverty rate for Asians in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York is nearly twice as high as that of whites. (11)

Basically, your POV that asians are the most privileged or wealthy group in the US is false. Yes, some asians in the US are wealthy and highly edcuated (but noting that for example "highly paid Japanese businessmen in the U.S. on extended business" are counted in the census stats on asian american incomes etc). But saying that as a whole asians are a privileged group disguises the fact that many asian americans live in poverty (asians have a higher rate of povery than whites, despite your claim they are the wealthiest - with jews- groups in the US), earn less based on the same qualifications/and face discrimination in the workplace. Ruling class asian americans are a privileged group, not asians (or 'jews') - in general - as you suggested.

[Black Dagger]

I think I have to agree with these two points, especially the second one. In a lot of "radical" groups that employ identity politics, a white person interrupting a black person is deemed a manifestation of some latent racism (again, that belief in some omnipresent "white privilege"), instead of just someone being impatient or trying to make a point. The same goes for "male privilege", "hetero privilege" and "age privilege", and it's often taken to the most absurd of heights by these self-styled "radicals".

What are you basing this on? Like you do you have extensive experience in identity politics? Given you are opposed to the concept, surely not? So how is it that you know so well the groups you eschew?

[manic expression]

What are you basing this on? Like you do you have extensive experience in identity politics? Given you are opposed to the concept, surely not? So how is it that you know so well the groups you eschew?

Perhaps I should have specified my experiences earlier. I worked for some time in SDS and helped start a chapter at my school; SDS was (is) a proponent of the identity politics I've been describing, and I came into contact with it quite a bit while I was involved with them. Also, the Africana Studies, Women's Studies and Sociology departments at my school are very much invested in the views I've talked about (see below). What's more is that most of the "left" groups in my community adhere to them as well, and you can sense it in their statements, their rhetoric, their campaigns and their behavior.

So when I say that whites and males are looked at with suspicion when they contradict a non-white or female group member, it's because it has happened to me. In fact, a fair number of these "radicals" here treat me like a bigot because of it. I understand that I probably sound like I have a chip on my shoulder about this, but it's because it's singularly frustrating and uniquely annoying to deal with these kinds of "anti-oppression activists", and I've been trying to do exactly that for about two years.

----------------------------------

By the way, if you want to see what kind of stuff they're reading, take a whiff of this:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

Just consider the first item on the list of "white privilege": I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

The stupidity of this leaves me almost speechless. The PROBLEM is that working-class blacks and hispanics are collectively forced into certain areas through housing prices, wages, unemployment and general deprivation, so they ALWAYS arrange to "be in the company of people of [their] race most of the time". Most black students in public schools go to school with mostly black classmates (in sub-par schools even for the US)...and it's a result of how heinously the capitalist class has treated that community. I'm astounded that the author (Peggy McIntosh) couldn't even look at a demographic breakdown of ANY American city before publishing this trash, and yet it's quite accepted among the circles I've been talking about.

[OriginalGumby]

Its times like these that I wish I could post articles already.
Google Sharon Smith unite and fight for a video from our conference on the subject of identity politics.

[Travieso]

Identity Politics are sure, but the social reality of 'race' is not. Obviously self-identification is a part of how 'race' operates but the real function is how it is used to mediate relationships in society - 'race' exists when people are treated or regarded by others based on their perceived 'race' - as in cases of social discrimination, interpersonal prejudice etc. Whether or not someones identifies themselves as being a member of a race does not mean they will be treated by society/individuals as if this is true. This is because races are defined socially - that is by people, society - not by biology or in a persons head - one only has to look a certain way to be treated as being a member of a particular 'race' even if that individuals identifies differently.

If one has to look "a certain way" then how is race not defined biologically?
Would you really deny the blackness of a mulattoe? Do you think black hispanics are wrong labeling themselves as Hispanic?



Firstly, that is not what you said.

You said that people who support the ideas of identity politics or white privilege "usually do it to express their own inner prejudices." I completely disagree and asked you to provide evidence for this assertion, if you cannot just say so. Berating me for not agreeing with you is not evidence.
I could give you evidence, personal experiences, but that would change anything? I mean, you even defended a song about blacks attacking white people in another thread, any evidence I could give would be not good enough for you.



Secondly, i also disagree that 'the left' (define?)
What society defines as "left" ;)

demonise white people as a group. You need to separate critiques of (white) racism from 'demonising' white people, it's not the same thing. That is not to say it does not occur, but there is no large-scale conspiracy against the white race at play here.
Of course there is no conspiracy. But its fairly easy to generalize, and whites are an easy target.



Of course it does, you never said 'particular groups of asians in america' you said 'asian americans':
True.



Don't try to sidestep the matter, you said that 'asian americans' are a privileged group in the US (and even that they were the 'most wealthy' :unsure:);
And they are, they have the highest median income, and depending on the meaning of "white" they have the lowest rates of poverty.
That article is way old, here is newer data.
census. gov / prod/ 2005pubs / p60-229.pdf



completely ignoring the fact that asians are not a homogenous group as i have shown - you were wrong. You can't just change what you said, pretending like you were making a completely different point.
And how are "whites" a homogeneous group?
I've heard the Appalachian is full of dirty poor white people. Is that enough to say that whites need affirmative action?

Sorry but the whole article is just a sorry excuse to try to deny the privilege of Asians in the States.
How is a difference of 1.2% in the rate of poverty (agains whites, non-hispanic) even a proof of asians being an "oppressed class" when their difference against whites in general is positive and their poverty rate against blacks is a whooping 14.9%?




Basically, your POV that asians are the most privileged or wealthy group in the US is false. Yes, some asians in the US are wealthy and highly edcuated (but noting that for example "highly paid Japanese businessmen in the U.S. on extended business" are counted in the census stats on asian american incomes etc). But saying that as a whole asians are a privileged group disguises the fact that many asian americans live in poverty (asians have a higher rate of povery than whites, despite your claim they are the wealthiest - with jews- groups in the US), earn less based on the same qualifications/and face discrimination in the workplace. Ruling class asian americans are a privileged group, not asians (or 'jews') - in general - as you suggested.And believing in the conspiracy of "white privilege" doesn't disguises the fact that many whites live in poverty? (whites have a higher rate of poverty than asians, despite your claim that they are the wealthiest).

[Mujer Libre]

[QUOTE=travieso]whites have a higher rate of poverty than asians, despite your claim that they are the wealthiest[QUOTE]
Considering that BD's data proved otherwise- do you care to back up that statement?

Oh, and wealth does not equate to privilege... A subtlety you seem to not understand.

And- I've noticed that all your posts on the board have been essentially claiming anti-white racism from the left. Forgive me for being suspicious (one of the Asian chattering class, no doubt)- but do you have anything else to offer?

[OriginalGumby]

Sharon Smith, author and columnist, spoke on "Unite and Fight?: Marxism and Identity Politics" at Socialism 2008 in Chicago on June 20, 2008.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1194981561430335369&ei=9rrVSfTGNYqe_AHxqryKCg&q=sharon+smith&hl=en&client=firefox-a



SHARON SMITH argues that identity politics can't liberate the oppressed
http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/feat-identity.shtml

[Travieso]

Considering that BD's data proved otherwise- do you care to back up that statement?
It's in the link I posted, I had to split up the address. The BD data is based on 14 years old statistics. I also can't believe the supposed 4.6% ( :o ) gap between whites in managerial positions since the newest data shows they have the highest personal median income amongst all ethnic groups in America


Oh, and wealth does not equate to privilege... A subtlety you seem to not understand.

Then what does equate privilege? Any non-ambiguous definition?



And- I've noticed that all your posts on the board have been essentially claiming anti-white racism from the left.
What, is that a taboo to discuss?



Forgive me for being suspicious (one of the Asian chattering class, no doubt)- but do you have anything else to offer?Why would you be suspicious?
Don't worry, I also like to bash white males also from time to time. I was just trying to give my opinion about so called "white privilege".

[Die Neue Zeit]

I caught this post from the former Wall Street economist Michael Hudson (whose work has been noted in mine):

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/13857


For me, Marxism was the culmination of classical political economy, and Marx had a loathing of state bureaucracies. But for American socialists today, socialism is not about the core of capitalism; it’s about the periphery NOT absorbed into the core — ethnic minorities, womens’ rights, the poor, etc. The result is a political program without the economic core that Marxism itself had, at least in 19th-century Europe.