"Things That Anarchists Say to Me in Private But Never Repeat Publicly"

[#FF0000]

So this was posted on infoshop.org (http://news.infoshop.org/opinion/things-anarchists-say) today n I was wondering what you all think. I agree with a lot of the points made (minus the idea that "queer is fashionable") but also haven't really had much problem saying things like this out loud in discussions with other radicals v:mellow:v


1) “Call-out culture was developed to allow activist groups to confront leaders who abused their privilege, but now it is being used to settle petty scores on the level of interpersonal politics. I now have a hard time believing some people when they make call-outs because I have seen too many that were based on nothing. Call-outs have become a way to acceptably inflict social violence and rarely are followed up in any way resembling transformative justice because people are not interested in doing the hard work of working with those who are called out.”


2) “As a white person, if I don't automatically agree with whichever person of color is directly in front of me, I run the risk of being labelled a racist. This is a result of good intentions where we want to center people of color and their experiences, but it makes no sense because people of color are not a monolithic block who all agree or share the same experiences. I am basically forced to perform a kind of double-think where I am expected to be able to agree with multiple conflicting viewpoints at the same time – or at least pretend to.”


3) “The line, 'it's not my responsibility to educate you, educate yourself' is being used too frequently. People should only say this when it would be seriously difficult to help educate someone. Otherwise as an anarchist it is your responsibility to help educate people who want to learn, or to help find someone who is willing to do it. Furthermore, refusing to explain yourself contributes to a form of classism in which people with less formal education and access to information are marginalized within anarchist communities. As well, this line assumes that there are 'correct' resources to be reading that are available, and that the person in question will be able to find them among thousands of conflicting resources.”


4) “Excluding straight/cis/male people makes sense in queer/trans/women's spaces, but often these people are informally excluded in anarchist spaces that are not any of these things. This hurts our ability to cultivate meaningful popular social power. It's also related to a dynamic where men of color, native men, immigrant men and other groups of marginalized men are severely underrepresented in anarchist spaces. It also assumes that straight/cis presenting people have the option of being 'more queer' or 'more trans', which is often not the case depending on their circumstances.”


5) “Calling people out for using the wrong language, for example saying 'biological female' instead of 'person assigned female at birth', is harmful and makes no sense because not everyone has access to the same information, they'll never learn if they're excluded, and the 'correct' languages changes every couple of years anyway. People don't want to be associated with us because they see how punishing we are to each other and it turns them off.”


6) “People use 'unsafe' when they mean 'uncomfortable' way too often and it diminishes the meaning of the word 'unsafe' to the point where it's not very meaningful anymore.”


7) “People's obsession with identity politics means the only people who can say stuff like this out loud have to be able to identify themselves as multiply marginalized, and then everyone immediately agrees about how problematic it all is.”


8) “Who cares about who you personally fuck when we're talking about a broad political movement? Get off the ego trip. What we want is health care, affordable housing, jobs, prison abolition, immigration rights, sex workers rights, and the end of capitalism. 'Queer' has become so fashionable that it's being confused with 'radical'.”


9) “People have no interest in actually changing things anymore. Talking about class and economics isn't fashionable, and in some cases it's downright dismissed and labelled as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. Anarchists don't want to build coalitions with working-class people because they don't want to be 'triggered' by having to explain their politics to people who disagree with them.”


10) “We've completely failed to build frameworks for accountability and transformative justice, and instead rely on callouts and social exclusion that replicate the prison system without the benefit of having trials.”

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Point 8 conveniently ignores all the problems homosexuals face in capitalist society and it makes me wonder if the author has some kind of issue with homosexuality. "Queer is fashionable" is something only an anarkid with his head so far up his arse he can see his spleen would say.

The rest of the points are fair enough, except for point 10, even if most of them are phrased in a pretty whiny way. I don't really care about straight people feeling endangered, I care about any old rubbish being given a pass because the person regurgitating the rubbish is gay. But I have no problem saying that in what passes for political circles here and - more importantly - none of the people I know from outside Croatia, whether Leninist or anarchist or leftcom or whatever - do.

As for point 10, a revolutionary organisation shouldn't function as a court. I don't think that's a controversial thing to say, except maybe among a very specific subset of anarchists.

[Counterculturalist]

I also agree with many (not all) of these points, although I wonder how widespread a problem a lot of it really is. Is this what anarchists are like?

In my own experience, those that I've met in person (mostly while in university) who espouse the most strident and divisive forms of identity politics weren't even members of marginalized groups, and I'm pretty sure they weren't anarchists either. I fact, I'd hesitate to even call them leftists, if economic equality is a necessary component of leftism, and it should be. When "radicals" are perfectly OK with the existence of capital and social classes so long as they there is no racial/sexual discrimination attached (as if that could ever even happen) they've abandoned the left.

[Hermes]

I'd like to know more about the actual situations that caused this person to compile this specific list, but even then I don't think that I could contribute very meaningfully because I don't really travel in anarchist, or even radical, circles.

I think that it would help a lot to know what some of the solutions this person puts forward are, though.

[BIXX]

1) I don't really know about the history of calling folks out in radical settings and I highly doubt it had much to do with getting better leaders, but i do think it is a form of social violence.

2) this one is a stupid white complaint.that I don't think is legitimate at all

3) but it isn't my responsibility to educate people, especially when they refuse to actually engage with my points/ideas.

4) I seriously doubt that white cishet folks are being excluded as much as their tears would suggest. And even if they are, boo hoo.

5) I think this is essentially the same as 1.

6) I agree to some extent.

7) oh no the white people can't voice their opinions! Seriously I don't see this being the case in my experience.

8) ultra stupid

9) Im not a leftist so my views on this will 100% differ from this person in terms of what I think is desirable.

10) this is true but all I don't really want their alternative much either

[#FF0000]

2) this one is a stupid white complaint.that I don't think is legitimate at all

Nah I think it can be, because like the person making the point said -- it's not as if people of color are on monolithic bloc with the exact same experiences. Fwiw someone tried to pull this with me when I criticized their support for the Perons(!!!) on the basis of anti-imperialism (they identified as an anarchist).

I mean it's a pretty simple concept anyway -- someone being oppressed or exploited in any way doesn't always mean they've got the best understanding of their oppression on a structural level. Being working class doesn't mean one has an innate understanding of how capitalism exploits them. Same goes for anything else, imo.

At the same time I think people have the right idea trying to prioritize the voices of people of color or women or transgender ppl when talking about these issues.


3) but it isn't my responsibility to educate people, especially when they refuse to actually engage with my points/ideas.


Well, I don't know if you actually read this point, because they specify that this is only the case when people are making a good faith effort. If your goal is to affect any sort of change whatsoever, you have to do more than walk around being right all the time.


4) I seriously doubt that white cishet folks are being excluded as much as their tears would suggest. And even if they are, boo hoo.

is the point to change the conditions we're living in or is it to set up isolated spaces where people can commiserate and be powerless?

[Atsumari]

This was from Reddit which gives some good insight to what kind of person this guy is, but you have to admit that much of what is talked in ledtist circles these days is just incredibly boring, predictable, and uninspiring

[Hermes]

is the point to change the conditions we're living in or is it to set up isolated spaces where people can commiserate and be powerless?

what can communities such as these do to attract white men?

[#FF0000]

what can communities such as these do to attract white men?

tbh I don't think attracting white dudes is a problem w/ radical groups and spaces. I think attracting working class people is the actual problem, because if people don't know the right language or have unsophisticated ideas on certain issues, they're crucified. People aren't really willing to work with people who still have to learn.

[Ele'ill]

1) “Call-out culture was developed to allow activist groups to confront leaders who abused their privilege, but now it is being used to settle petty scores on the level of interpersonal politics. I now have a hard time believing some people when they make call-outs because I have seen too many that were based on nothing. Call-outs have become a way to acceptably inflict social violence and rarely are followed up in any way resembling transformative justice because people are not interested in doing the hard work of working with those who are called out.”

I agree with this.



2) “As a white person, if I don't automatically agree with whichever person of color is directly in front of me, I run the risk of being labelled a racist. This is a result of good intentions where we want to center people of color and their experiences, but it makes no sense because people of color are not a monolithic block who all agree or share the same experiences. I am basically forced to perform a kind of double-think where I am expected to be able to agree with multiple conflicting viewpoints at the same time – or at least pretend to.”

boots riley knows everyone in oakland and knows that they all hate black bloc





3) “The line, 'it's not my responsibility to educate you, educate yourself' is being used too frequently. People should only say this when it would be seriously difficult to help educate someone. Otherwise as an anarchist it is your responsibility to help educate people who want to learn, or to help find someone who is willing to do it. Furthermore, refusing to explain yourself contributes to a form of classism in which people with less formal education and access to information are marginalized within anarchist communities. As well, this line assumes that there are 'correct' resources to be reading that are available, and that the person in question will be able to find them among thousands of conflicting resources.”

I don't agree with this across the board and have tried to respond to it a few times but don't exactly know what they're talking about. I think the 'i don't have to educate people' is a fine position but when you are doing things with people and suddenly stop talking etc. .but I don't know if that's even what's being talked about here.




4) “Excluding straight/cis/male people makes sense in queer/trans/women's spaces, but often these people are informally excluded in anarchist spaces that are not any of these things. This hurts our ability to cultivate meaningful popular social power. It's also related to a dynamic where men of color, native men, immigrant men and other groups of marginalized men are severely underrepresented in anarchist spaces. It also assumes that straight/cis presenting people have the option of being 'more queer' or 'more trans', which is often not the case depending on their circumstances.”

queer/trans excludes queer/trans on a regular basis through predefined expectations of positivity and a lot of 'spaces' are pretty worthless and alienating because they were created by delusional scenes



5) “Calling people out for using the wrong language, for example saying 'biological female' instead of 'person assigned female at birth', is harmful and makes no sense because not everyone has access to the same information, they'll never learn if they're excluded, and the 'correct' languages changes every couple of years anyway. People don't want to be associated with us because they see how punishing we are to each other and it turns them off.”

I agree with this.



6) “People use 'unsafe' when they mean 'uncomfortable' way too often and it diminishes the meaning of the word 'unsafe' to the point where it's not very meaningful anymore.”

how do we know this where is this even being taken from maybe the people do actually feel unsafe? this itself could be listed as a thing on this list




7) “People's obsession with identity politics means the only people who can say stuff like this out loud have to be able to identify themselves as multiply marginalized, and then everyone immediately agrees about how problematic it all is.”

I guess it depends on the motives, I don't even know that I understand what they're saying here.



8) “Who cares about who you personally fuck when we're talking about a broad political movement? Get off the ego trip. What we want is health care, affordable housing, jobs, prison abolition, immigration rights, sex workers rights, and the end of capitalism. 'Queer' has become so fashionable that it's being confused with 'radical'.”

Here's an example of where the makers of the list could perhaps read some other texts that I'm definitely not going to share here because I don't have to. I will give a minor hint that maybe knowing what queer is outside of 'who you fuck' and how that relates to the social destruction waged on humans by the state/civ would be a good start even if just a brief historical glance



9) “People have no interest in actually changing things anymore. Talking about class and economics isn't fashionable, and in some cases it's downright dismissed and labelled as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. Anarchists don't want to build coalitions with working-class people because they don't want to be 'triggered' by having to explain their politics to people who disagree with them.”

who is 'anarchists'?





10) “We've completely failed to build frameworks for accountability and transformative justice, and instead rely on callouts and social exclusion that replicate the prison system without the benefit of having trials.”

I agree with this although not with the positive wording about building frameworks and stuff

[Redistribute the Rep]

The calling out thing is a bullshit point because at least in my experience people are not comfortable doing that espcially if the person in question is in a leadership role. A lot of men and white people seem to think minorities have it pretty good in leftist settings and can just screach "check your privilege!" And then they get everything they want. People are ignorant of the issues some groups face trying to get their voices heard in leftist movements and they either A. Develop a persecution complex and write bullshit comments like the author, or B. Manipulate this rhetoric for their own gain. Men can tell other men that their opinions are biased due to being male and it works for them a lot of them time. This keeps them in their ignorance because they don't see that when women do that they get shit on and accused of acting in their own self interest, and these men also fuel on the type A. For an extreme example see Rachel Dolezal.

Also I agree with PC in that it's not the responsibility of every anacharist/leftist to help people. That's just not some peoples jobs as they can play a different role in organizing. Also, in discussions, sometimes people want a more advanced discussion and complete newbies, while sometimes well intentioned, can just derail it.

[Zoop]

I agree with a lot of these.

No. 8, however, just translates into "I don't give a shit about LGBT struggles."

[Redistribute the Rep]

Also the economics and class being ignored one...? If your in an anarchist/Marxist meeting that probably isn't the case, although a lot of times women's issued are ignored by people who think it's all about class. Someone probably told them this and then they ran home to cry on reddit about how it's not real socialism anymore because it's not all centered around them for once.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Also the economics and class being ignored one...? If your in an anarchist/Marxist meeting that probably isn't the case, although a lot of times women's issued are ignored by people who think it's all about class. Someone probably told them this and then they ran home to cry on reddit about how it's not real socialism anymore because it's not all centered around them for once.

If the (numerically) major ostensibly-socialist organisations in the US have an analysis centred on class, they need to be congratulated for keeping it hidden for years.

[Rafiq]

Identity politics, in every manifestation, has been the rot of 21st century anarchism.

It is perverse, not because it's "too extreme" but precisely because of how hysterically weak it is. talking about drivel like "straight/male/white/cis" is absolutely fucking abominable on a political level, in fact, such words - stemming of course from reactionary privilege theory - are used precisely as a substitution for political language.

Basically, such "anarchists" know that what they seek is impossible - this excessive use of pseudo-political correctness, this talk of "straight/male/white/cis" - they know all they're doing is keeping in check something which simply, inevitably exists (in their OWN minds). This is the whole point of privilege theory - if oppression is conceived in terms of "privilege", then it's merely a matter of keeping yourself in check with false guilt. In this sense, these kinds of anarcho-masochists are the modern Leftist equivalent of the self-flogging, as we saw during the black death. Like the inevitable despair wrought from the plague, some of our anarchist friends see the existing coordinates of power with a sense of pathetic despair, and lack the Communist language that cures it. So they resort to guilt.

Communists do not flog themselves. Communists do not have guilt over ANY kind of essential characteristics! A Communist is not ashamed of being white, straight, male or cis. That is because Communists recognize that even if they fit all of these qualifications, they do so while constituting the living expression of their negation as ESSENTIAL characteristics. A Communist is not one BECAUSE he is white, for example - that does not mean being white entails guilt, it means recognizing that you are a Communist above all, and that while you recognize the connotations of whiteness, you struggle for its destruction - what is more to say? It's no wonder you find so much slimy pieces of shit "male feminists" who end up as sexual abusers - because this 'guilt' is a god-damned sham, it is the highest expression of ideological ingenuity. One cannot ACTUALLY be guilty about something which is essential, which is INEVITABLY something you conceive as definitive of your character. Instead, the guilt is used to ABSOLVE the subject of the - yes - demanding commitments of the real struggle - and yes, I'm talking about the POLITICAL struggle. The only struggle, mind you, the one that gives meaning, substance and vitality to all of its subsets. Moreover, such guilt nonsense is condescending, it not only reveals a deep lack of insecuirity, a weakness and deep-seated hysteria, it is thoroughly a perversion of the same "relations of power" which perpetuate their conditions. Again, it is the ying of the yang it inevitably will present itself as opposing. Communism is the NEGATION of identity, not its celebration. Those who lack faith in Communism, those who do not place the real struggle in the class struggle, have no place in the future of the Left (if there is one). It is almost as though we are so privileged today (to be ironic) that we can reduce politics to the controversies of the university, or the office-work environment.

And please, before you start, I am well aware that such issues permeate the marginalized, the working classes, and so on - no one is falling back on reactionary games where we use the poor and ignorant as a means to deflect real theoretical engagement. The point is that all of these issues are SECONDARY to the wider class struggle. While the social antagonism intensifies on the systemic level, while reaction and darkness (which is very much fancying itself upon attacks of so-called "tumblr culture" in a way which appeals ordinary people, or at least embodying the reactionary temptations of the working class against this - of course they don't ACTUALLY know or give a damn about internet-talk, ) brood, this is what the 21st century Left gives us.

To put it shortly, if your politics, if your ideological foundations are so WEAK that you have to rely on this stupid fucking political correctness, you should resign into apathy immediately or recognize you're not what you say you are. Again: Only the guilty blush! Innocence is ashamed of NOTHING. The class struggle is the primary struggle - without it, none of any of this means a damn thing. THAT IS NOT to say that Communists today ought to IGNORE other mediums to struggle, but subsume them into the wider Communist struggle. For example, if there is homophobia in politics, then one should go as far as to say that there was rot in the politics to begin with - it is not a game of picking and choosing your priorities. All other struggles must be divided on class lines, but of course it's our duty to defend them in the midst of the reaction. We oppose BOURGEOIS feminism, as Communists, but we defend even bourgeois feminism against the reaction. We oppose BOURGEOIS queer politics, but defend them at the level of their attacks by the reaction. This is not wrought from political correctness, and if people have to be kept in check in this way - there is probably something wrong with those people ideologically to begin with.

[#FF0000]

The calling out thing is a bullshit point because at least in my experience people are not comfortable doing that espcially if the person in question is in a leadership role.

That's been my experience as well which is why I think it isn't bullshit. People call people out over interpersonal issues or petty political ones, and they never call out friends. It's not about accountability as much as it is about


A lot of men and white people seem to think minorities have it pretty good in leftist settings and can just screach "check your privilege!" And then they get everything they want. People are ignorant of the issues some groups face trying to get their voices heard in leftist movements and they either A. Develop a persecution complex and write bullshit comments like the author, or B. Manipulate this rhetoric for their own gain. Men can tell other men that their opinions are biased due to being male and it works for them a lot of them time. This keeps them in their ignorance because they don't see that when women do that they get shit on and accused of acting in their own self interest, and these men also fuel on the type A. For an extreme example see Rachel Dolezal.

Do you think any of that describes me, though? Because I've had these experiences and think a lot of these points are at least somewhat correct. Hell, I can send you the zine that was put together by queer members of the IWW, where they touch on some of these same issues, because the behavior being talked about in that article is a huge detriment to actual practical organizing.


Also I agree with PC in that it's not the responsibility of every anacharist/leftist to help people.

I don't think the author of the point said it was -- just that it was used too frequently.


Also the economics and class being ignored one...? If your in an anarchist/Marxist meeting that probably isn't the case

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who share this experience, to be perfectly honest.

[Hermes]

tbh I don't think attracting white dudes is a problem w/ radical groups and spaces. I think attracting working class people is the actual problem, because if people don't know the right language or have unsophisticated ideas on certain issues, they're crucified. People aren't really willing to work with people who still have to learn.

how can communities such as these attract working class people who don't know the language/don't have as sophisticated views, without watering down their views or alienating those members of the group who are shown hostility because of these undeveloped views/lack of sophistication?

I guess, how does one work with people who not only still have to learn, but apparently have little interest or are opposed to their being 'taught' by a group of radicals?

[Rafiq]

Men can tell other men that their opinions are biased due to being male and it works for them a lot of them time. This keeps them in their ignorance because they don't see that when women do that they get shit on and accused of acting in their own self interest, and these men also fuel on the type A.

The difference, of course, is that when women do this, they are expressing their real experiences. Conversely, when men want to play the game of self-guilt, they do so in a perverse and in-genuine matter, no matter what their intentions are: Because in being "guilty" of their essential identity, it absolves them of the recognition that their is nothing in fact essential about their "identity" at all, and for that reason do you find bursts of sexual predation among "male feminists" and so on.


Also I agree with PC in that it's not the responsibility of every anacharist/leftist to help people. That's just not some peoples jobs as they can play a different role in organizing. Also, in discussions, sometimes people want a more advanced discussion and complete newbies, while sometimes well intentioned, can just derail it.


Many people don't realize that because we don't have a real political movement, "explaining" things to ordinary people is a waste of time. Joining these kinds of organizations, scenes, whatever you want - must require the presupposition of individual commitment at the present moment. The reality that newbies need to educate themselves isn't that we ought to ignore their concerns, but that all we could ever do is be very brief, i.e. gild the course to political consciousnesses.

[Proletarius]

Identity politics, in every manifestation, has been the rot of 21st century anarchism.

It is perverse, not because it's "too extreme" but precisely because of how hysterically weak it is. talking about drivel like "straight/male/white/cis" is absolutely fucking abominable on a political level, in fact, such words - stemming of course from reactionary privilege theory - are used precisely as a substitution for political language.

Basically, such "anarchists" know that what they seek is impossible - this excessive use of pseudo-political correctness, this talk of "straight/male/white/cis" - they know all they're doing is keeping in check something which simply, inevitably exists (in their OWN minds). This is the whole point of privilege theory - if oppression is conceived in terms of "privilege", then it's merely a matter of keeping yourself in check with false guilt. In this sense, these kinds of anarcho-masochists are the modern Leftist equivalent of the self-flogging, as we saw during the black death. Like the inevitable despair wrought from the plague, some of our anarchist friends see the existing coordinates of power with a sense of pathetic despair, and lack the Communist language that cures it. So they resort to guilt.

Communists do not flog themselves. Communists do not have guilt over ANY kind of essential characteristics! A Communist is not ashamed of being white, straight, male or cis. That is because Communists recognize that even if they fit all of these qualifications, they do so while constituting the living expression of their negation as ESSENTIAL characteristics. A Communist is not one BECAUSE he is white, for example - that does not mean being white entails guilt, it means recognizing that you are a Communist above all, and that while you recognize the connotations of whiteness, you struggle for its destruction - what is more to say? It's no wonder you find so much slimy pieces of shit "male feminists" who end up as sexual abusers - because this 'guilt' is a god-damned sham, it is the highest expression of ideological ingenuity. One cannot ACTUALLY be guilty about something which is essential, which is INEVITABLY something you conceive as definitive of your character. Instead, the guilt is used to ABSOLVE the subject of the - yes - demanding commitments of the real struggle - and yes, I'm talking about the POLITICAL struggle. The only struggle, mind you, the one that gives meaning, substance and vitality to all of its subsets. Moreover, such guilt nonsense is condescending, it not only reveals a deep lack of insecuirity, a weakness and deep-seated hysteria, it is thoroughly a perversion of the same "relations of power" which perpetuate their conditions. Again, it is the ying of the yang it inevitably will present itself as opposing. Communism is the NEGATION of identity, not its celebration. Those who lack faith in Communism, those who do not place the real struggle in the class struggle, have no place in the future of the Left (if there is one). It is almost as though we are so privileged today (to be ironic) that we can reduce politics to the controversies of the university, or the office-work environment.

And please, before you start, I am well aware that such issues permeate the marginalized, the working classes, and so on - no one is falling back on reactionary games where we use the poor and ignorant as a means to deflect real theoretical engagement. The point is that all of these issues are SECONDARY to the wider class struggle. While the social antagonism intensifies on the systemic level, while reaction and darkness (which is very much fancying itself upon attacks of so-called "tumblr culture" in a way which appeals ordinary people, or at least embodying the reactionary temptations of the working class against this - of course they don't ACTUALLY know or give a damn about internet-talk, ) brood, this is what the 21st century Left gives us.

To put it shortly, if your politics, if your ideological foundations are so WEAK that you have to rely on this stupid fucking political correctness, you should resign into apathy immediately or recognize you're not what you say you are. Again: Only the guilty blush! Innocence is ashamed of NOTHING. The class struggle is the primary struggle - without it, none of any of this means a damn thing. THAT IS NOT to say that Communists today ought to IGNORE other mediums to struggle, but subsume them into the wider Communist struggle. For example, if there is homophobia in politics, then one should go as far as to say that there was rot in the politics to begin with - it is not a game of picking and choosing your priorities. All other struggles must be divided on class lines, but of course it's our duty to defend them in the midst of the reaction. We oppose BOURGEOIS feminism, as Communists, but we defend even bourgeois feminism against the reaction. We oppose BOURGEOIS queer politics, but defend them at the level of their attacks by the reaction. This is not wrought from political correctness, and if people have to be kept in check in this way - there is probably something wrong with those people ideologically to begin with.

Fantastic post. I couldn't have summed it up better.

[#FF0000]

how can communities such as these attract working class people who don't know the language/don't have as sophisticated views, without watering down their views or alienating those members of the group who are shown hostility because of these undeveloped views/lack of sophistication?

I guess, how does one work with people who not only still have to learn, but apparently have little interest or are opposed to their being 'taught' by a group of radicals?

I don't think there's any one answer to this, and I don't think a parochial way of doing things would work or be well-received in a lot of cases. I mean, the IWW has workshops and trainings for this kind of thing which are nice, but obviously won't get through to people who aren't already interested. Best I can say is that I don't think it's possible to change minds outside of the process of struggle itself, which is probably a vague and useless thing to say but v:mellow:v

It's something we need to seriously talk about, that's for sure.

[Redistribute the Rep]

That's been my experience as well which is why I think it isn't bullshit. People call people out over interpersonal issues or petty political ones, and they never call out friends. It's not about accountability as much as it is about

Yea, those people exist but like I said they have the same mentality as the author that posted the first comment. They make it seem like it's some easy thing for people to call others out, when it's not for some marginalized groups who have legitimate issues. This idea that it's easy for them to call others out is what causes people to do it over petty issues.



Because I've had these experiences and think a lot of these points are at least somewhat correct.


Sure, but I wasn't arguing that they werent 'at least somewhat correct.' Some of them I think can be right in certain contexts. What I'm concerned about is the mentality behind these comments. That whites must agree with minorities or be silenced for perceived racism, that men are excluded from cultivating 'social power,' etc. that line of thinking seems to come from a bad place

[#FF0000]

Yea, those people exist but like I said they have the same mentality as the author that posted the first comment. They make it seem like it's some easy thing for people to call others out, when it's not for some marginalized groups who have legitimate issues.

Yeah I see what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that I think a lot of call-outs are more motivated by cynical personal reasons than actual concerns.


This idea that it's easy for them to call others out is what causes people to do it over petty issues

I don't think that's the case at all. I think people do it over petty issues to secure whatever miniscule power they might have in their political sect, or just because they don't like someone.


Sure, but I wasn't arguing that they werent 'at least somewhat correct.' Some of them I think can be right in certain contexts. What I'm concerned about is the mentality behind these comments. That whites must agree with minorities or be silenced for perceived racism, that men are excluded from cultivating 'social power,' etc. that line of thinking seems to come from a bad place

I don't see any reason to think that this is the mentality these people are coming to this with, though. Especially considering that most of the people doing these things, (calling people out, silencing people, etc. etc. etc.) are white dudes themselves. Radical and anarchist spaces are overwhelmingly filled with white and educated people, which is a huge reason why this type of nonsense is so problematic in itself -- it keeps people who don't have access to the education or who lack the social capital to navigate these spaces locked out. All of this actually does the opposite of empowering marginalized groups (unless they went to school, or are part of the right sub-culture to learn the language).

[bcbm]

seems pretty par for the course for a marginalized and impotent quasi-political scene

[Redistribute the Rep]

I don't see any reason to think that this is the mentality these people are coming to this with, though. Especially considering that most of the people doing these things, (calling people out, silencing people, etc. etc. etc.) are white dudes themselves.

I think it's pretty clear some of these comments aren't talking about white guys, particularly 2 and 7. The others don't make it explicit but overwhelming I hear this type of stuff from people like those I described.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I definitely agree with number 3. I've seen that happen before, in which a person unfamiliar with the left comes into contact with it for some reason and has questions (in good faith), and just completely flusters whoever they're talking to over really basic stuff. I think a lot of people on the far left are so used to arguing with people based on common assumptions (in other words, arguing with people who share much of their worldview) that they're largely incapable of interacting with the wider public.

Which, in the final analysis, I don't think that many in the "anarchist milieu" are terribly interested in interacting with, anyway.

[#FF0000]

I think it's pretty clear some of these comments aren't talking about white guys, particularly 2 and 7. The others don't make it explicit but overwhelming I hear this type of stuff from people like those I described.

Yeah but just because those people say similar things doesn't mean the points made here are wrong. The problem isn't that we're trying to boost the voices of marginalized people -- it's that we're doing so in a way that keeps marginalized people who aren't already part of the scene or who don't have access to the same educational resources out. Saying "people like this say that" isn't an argument, because all sorts of people with wildly conflicting ideas and worldviews and interests will sometimes come to similar conclusions on certain issues.

[John Nada]

So the author is calling out people who're calling out people.:lol:

What's the origins of all this? Even though the author's article is about anarchism, could be it Leninist "criticism and self-criticism" (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch27.htm) mutated from a tool to internally correct errors and strengthen inter-group unity, to (sometimes)aimlessly pointing out errors without addressing them, and no self-criticism in return, resulting in(or because it is) a subculture rather than an effective movement? Self-determination turned into essentialist identity determinism? "Liberate yourself" turned "educate yourself"?

It sounds like shit from earlier Leninist movements cross-pollinated across tendencies but twisted through postmodern discourse. Is there an effective response to the ten points in the op's link?

[RedSonRising]

I don't see this as a distinctly anarchist critique, but a criticism of modern activism which has succumbed to the modern paradigm of identity politics full force. Seeking political power and creating a broad political movement based on class is no longer on the agenda; class (meaning income) is just a spice, another constructed identity to be added onto the endless ways we can divide human beings in a social context. It's all about safe spaces and post-modern deconstructions of language and labeled role-playing.

[Working Class Hero]

Two of my left friends (one cis-female queer, the other cis-male something, can't remember) both white, were complaining about the idea of the "privilege check" and how it made them feel uncomfortable, and this reminds me of that. Get over yourself. Sometimes people need to feel uncomfortable in order for change to be made.

[Bala Perdida]

Talking to some internet anarchists feels like talking to police. Everything can and will be used against you. Haven't met many of them in real life, and don't care to. I don't usually mind teaching people either. Although kissing my ass or pretending to learn isn't fun to deal with. Some people that just don't get it and it's not necessary or helpful to anyone, including them, for them to learn so fuck them. I've met some bad queer people, like trans-phobic and hetero-promotive if that makes sense. Then some really racist POC, not just against other people but against 'their own people' who they've gladly denounced. Saying crap about us reinforcing stereotypes, so racism is our fault. Not to mention being Queer or OC doesn't negate shit-ass politics and opinions. Fuck them too. Also, I'm not really trying to appeal to anyone, and I'm not a communist so that mass-line shit doesn't fly with me. Whatever though.

[Quail]

I wondered if this would make it onto Revleft. There are some bits I agree with, many I don't.

I do agree with 3) though. I know it's hard and frustrating and exhausting to educate people on basic stuff, but someone has to do it. If someone genuinely wants to learn then personally I try not to tell them to fuck off and have they even heard of google? There are loads of people who might be interested in working with anarchists, feminists, etc., who don't come from an academic background, maybe don't have access to the latest terminology and stuff, who end up being treated with unnecessary hostility. It's okay to be ignorant or not know something as long as you're willing to learn, but if people get jumped on and crucified for one mistake then nobody's going to learn anything and the anarchist/feminist movement remains reserved for academics... Which just makes it irrelevant.

[Cliff Paul]

1) “Call-out culture was developed to allow activist groups to confront leaders who abused their privilege, but now it is being used to settle petty scores on the level of interpersonal politics. I now have a hard time believing some people when they make call-outs because I have seen too many that were based on nothing. Call-outs have become a way to acceptably inflict social violence and rarely are followed up in any way resembling transformative justice because people are not interested in doing the hard work of working with those who are called out.”

I don't really know too much about this but I highly doubt that this is where call-out culture originated from. That being said, call-out culture is generally complete shit and something needs to be done about it. While I have definitely seen call-outs being used to settle personal scores before, that doesn't address the main issue with call-out culture.

Generally speaking people in leftist circles (and most people in general) don't want to be assholes. They don't want to hurt other people or make them feel uncomfortable. But in my experience, call out culture often works under the opposite assumption. Not everyone who self identifies as a leftist has the 'correct' position on every issue, but instead of working with these people to point out how what they say or do makes others uncomfortable, the left tends to dismiss these people as sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic assholes whose views come from the fact they are, assholes.

Besides the obvious affect of alienating people, this also does little to solve the problems of sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. In confrontational situations, people don't usually step down, instead they try to justify/solidify their own position.

2 is not true in my experience. Most leftist spaces are predominately white and are generally dominated by white individuals. 3 I completely agree with however. The wording on 4 is kind of convoluted so I'll just ignore that one...


5) “Calling people out for using the wrong language, for example saying 'biological female' instead of 'person assigned female at birth', is harmful and makes no sense because not everyone has access to the same information, they'll never learn if they're excluded, and the 'correct' languages changes every couple of years anyway. People don't want to be associated with us because they see how punishing we are to each other and it turns them off.”

This one I disagree with. Yes we shouldn't be alienating people for using terms like 'biological female', if it's because they don't know better. We should be trying to cultivate a healthy environment for trans people and anyone who consistently acts or says otherwise is an asshole. While languages do 'change', that doesn't mean we should continue using archaic language that ignores the existence of trans people.

6 I mostly agree with.


7) “People's obsession with identity politics means the only people who can say stuff like this out loud have to be able to identify themselves as multiply marginalized, and then everyone immediately agrees about how problematic it all is.”

This is kind of true and reflects the fact that the left places more value in experience over correct analysis.

8 I disagree with. 9 I agree with and I don't really have an opinion on 10.

[RedWorker]

I will repeat what I said on another thread about ableism, as it is relevant to this topic.


But words are put in the mouth of these groups of people far too often. Just look at what's going on this thread - a disabled person is saying almost every insult should stop being used because it is ableist, another disabled person is defending the use of the word "dumbfuck" (and was told to shut up and listen because it was assumed that they are not disabled!). Well, which is it?

The fact is that this culture of worship, and I mean WORSHIP, of the oppressed collective is pathetic, and something that in many instances is opposed by the oppressed collective themselves. Just look at what some pseudo-feminists (such as those who oppose sex workers' rights) do here on RevLeft - the first thing they do when attacking someone else's counter-argument is assuming he is a man and treating him as one, plus adding the comment that he's wrong because he's a man. The people they're replying to could very well be women, queers, non-cis and/or non-heteronormative. And even if they were cis heterosexual men, that is irrelevant, and to reference that has nothing to do with feminism. This travesty of "worship of the oppressed collective" which today is far too frequent has NOTHING to do with opposing discrimination. Of course, a feminist analysis must understand that only women truly have a first-hand experience of sexism. But there is no relationship between this and the phenomena that I mentioned. It does not logically follow.

So people need to drop the whole "oh you're not disabled/a woman so you are wrong" bullshit, because nobody here has an idea what anybody else here is, and even if they did, this kind of attitude has nothing to do with opposing discrimination.

Saying that "the oppressed collective knows what they're talking about and they've told you to do this or stop doing that so do it or stop doing that" is not a replacement for arguments. People here are obviously open to the idea of opposing ableism. So convince them with logical arguments.

Actually "culture of worship of the oppressed collective" is a wrong label. The real phenomenon would be rightfully labelled as: "cis heterosexual white men who tell people to shut up and listen because they know nothing about oppression". That and the occasional bourgeois-"feminist" who happens to actually be a woman (as if that was relevant) doing the same thing once in a while and the cis heterosexual white men engaging in chivalry and treating her like the holy virgin. :laugh:

[Rudolf]

I find it a bit weird how the whole calling people out narrative emerging in this thread is around people new to rev politics but this doesnt conform to my experiences where it's not the young, new people saying dodgy shit the most it's the veterans, it's the older activists who often can get away with it because of their long history.

[RedWorker]

This phenomena sometimes too also affects people who are actually members of an oppressed group. A good example is the "El Tornillo" show from La Tuerka. La Tuerka is a TV and YouTube channel in Spain ran by intellectuals associated with the Podemos party.

So La Tuerka broadcasts a "feminist" show named "El Tornillo" the videos of which are also uploaded to YouTube. This is a one-woman show, and each show lasts ten minutes or so. Basically, every episode is her giving her particular opinion about any given topic, which is portrayed as the "feminist" view.

Now, on this video series, there are several kinds of comments:

1) Sexist pieces of crap saying sexist crap. Usually posted by men, but some women too.
2) People who worship the person that presents the show. It's not mere agreement, it's worship. These types of comments are made by mostly women but also some men.
3) Comments critical from a feminist point of view. Comes from both men and women.
4) Comments which claim to not be sexist, but are infected with sexist ideology, and/or ignorance of discrimination and attempt to attack some genuine points that all feminists would agree on. Usually from men.
5) Other types of comments. e.g. occasional agreement that does not come from her religious followers, etc.

The funny thing is, the show presenter replies to comments and both her and her followers constantly are debating with comment type 1). Someone could say something like: "go back to the kitchen ***** LOL" and she and her followers will start making comments which are several paragraphs long and make use of complex arguments and do not go down to insult but rather try to reform and convince the person.

So as for comments from type 3. This is an example of such a comment: "I, as a feminist, disagree with what you said in this video. Some elements of what you say seem to be informed by a moralist view rather than feminism". Or "the arguments you made are factually wrong, not necessarily feminist and are a weak type of the argumentation". etc etc etc.

These type 3 comments could have several paragraphs and make use of complex arguments. Every time this type 3 comment happens, the presenter and her followers will go into boiling rage, refuse to debate at all and simply make a short comments like: "You are a sexist who truly hates women at the core... etc. etc. etc... I am not even going to bother replying properly because it is obvious your comments come from the fact that women have always had to be your servants... etc.". They go into this attitude when it is unknown whether the one who made the comment is a man or woman or what oppressed groups he or she may belong to. When they are sure that it is a man making the comment - then the intellectual dishonesty goes to such an extent that I am not even going to bother describing here. When it is clear that a woman made the comment - they do not even bother replying, they just completely ignore it.

And the fact is that these type 3 comments do not make any apologism for patriarchy and sexism. Not a bit. In fact, they often bring arguments in against sexism and always from the point of view that women are the oppressed group.

An example is a video where she made a series of ridiculous statements such as: "When a man interrupts a woman in a conversation, that is because he believes he is superior to her". "When a man leaves some trash in the ground, that's because he knows a woman will come and pick it up." etc. etc. etc. These statements were not examples attempting to prove an actual point - rather, the point was built up from such statements and the ultimate point was that a man had inherently built-in sexist ideology and every single action he does that does not stick to a certain behaviour set involves sexism unless he explicitly fights against that.

So some people replied comments such as: "While myself having always been a feminist, that seems like a weak argumentation. We need to analyze and criticize when a man follows such behaviour from sexism. But that doesn't mean every single instance involves sexism. Your sort of thinking reduces feminism to such weak arguments and gives the wrong image to outside observers."

And, of course, she started attacking them like mad, doing character assasinations, painting them as sexists, etc.

And it is exactly the fact that the presenter is a woman that allows her to be worshipped like the holy virgin and that this travesty, this impression of feminism, gains any legitimacy.

And that's exactly the same phenomenon that allows transphobic, anti-sex workers' rights, moralists, chivalric and other kinds of "feminists", some of which explicitly promote sexism, to be taken seriously, just because they are women, and there are some "leftist" apologists for this.

Now, I don't give a shit about the gender or sex of someone when it comes to debate and argumentation (of course it should be analyzed where the arguments come from and what influence their sex/gender has had on the arguments, but that does not mean the argumentation boils down to this), if he or she says something I disagree with, I will go and criticize it. And I understand that people who ask me to not criticize them due to their gender or sex, no matter how they paint themselves and the character of their requests, I understand that these people are exactly on the wrong side and I will fight their arguments no matter whether they claim they are men or women, "left-wing" or "right-wing", "feminists" or otherwise.

This pseudo-feminist behaviour has managed to gain some ground on some threads on RevLeft, which should know better.

[RedWorker]

And of course, there is when this behaviour completely turns into its caricature, when living strawmen come into action.

For example, in a recent thread about ableism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/usage-ableist-words-t193423/index.html), me and several people, including disabled people, criticized some views characterizing themselves as "anti-ableist" (not a good representation of anti-ableism I'd say). The supposed "anti-ableists" stated that the word "dumbfuck" is an ableist term and should stop being used becuse it discriminates disabled people.

I am an actual anti-ableist, I just happen to have the view that calling people "dumbfucks" has nothing to do with ableism. This dumb debate was truly the complete expression of the phenomenon I have described in my previous points. It was like the caricature I would draw of it suddenly was born - like some would-be strawmen in my arguments started breathing and posting.

A disabled person making arguments against the "anti-ableists" was attacked and told to "shut up and listen" because it was assumed that they were not disabled. Later, the person who led the attack, hearing of the person's disability, made it look like he or she would make such comments either way, but it was obvious he or she would never made such a comment with previous knowledge.

The description is the following. A disabled person questioned the premise of the term "dumbfuck" being ableist, by saying:


Those angry posters are themselves guilty of dumbfuckery.

The referenced posters were not RevLeft posters. An user, not knowing that he or she was replying to a disabled person, made this comment:


What a profoundly insightful post. I despise insults that have palpable connections and associations with the degradation of a particular group. If you're too insensitive to listen to how it affects those who complain about the insult, then you're not worth any consideration. When a flaw of mine is used as an insult, and when those who use the insults fucking know it (and they do), then they can go fuck themselves. Fuck you and everyone who liked your post.

The disabled person replied:


How are slurs based on definable, and marginalized, groups comparable to the word in question here?

The user, still unaware of the fact the person he/she was speaking to is disabled, replied:


You're guilty of insensitivity and indifference in the face of justifiable and understandable complaints about certain insults. Either listen to what they have to say, or shut up. Sigh, even amongst the left you find people who just don't give a shit.

... and the disabled person replied:


So, can you explain how the word in question is ableist? I'm physically disabled and struggle with mental illness. Don't make assumptions about me.

Later on this phenomenon regurgitated again, turned up to its dumbest expression. People had made complex, rational, reasonable and legitimate arguments against the premise of the "anti-ableists", which was met with:


Is this the thread where able-bodied individuals tell us what does and does not constitute ableist language? Hopefully next week we can get a thread on white people telling black people which words and beliefs are racist and which are not. I imagine we'll have much enlightenment and I hope to see everyone there."

... to which I replied:


This is exactly the stupid attitude I've been describing. Not only is it stupid to judge arguments like this by itself, but in fact you don't know whether anybody here is able-bodied. Furthermore, it's a strawman. Able-bodied people haven't collectively stated that they are going to tell disabled people what to think. So what's your point? If this was a thread in which men were reading about some woman's experience with sexism and they were going like "yeah, sweety, you didn't know what was going on there" then this kind of post would make sense. Here it does not.

... which was, once again, met with:


Nah bruh, you've decided that you don't need to change your language because you haven't been presented with the golden truth that's been shat out of Aphrodite's ass and onto a ten page essay which then managed to convince your mighty Logic™ that these words are slurs against a marginalized groups and shouldn't be used. Which is unfortunate if you consider yourself a revolutionary and willingly choose to cling into oppressive language that targets a group already treated like shit in society

I did not bother replying because of obvious reasons, but it would've been interesting to see what level of stupidity this debate could get to.

[blake 3:17]

I think a lot of these are pretty common. I've tended to stay away from a lot of fairly interesting things here because unless I already know the people involved fairly well, I do feel like I'm walking on egg shells.

And I know a fair number of people who are reluctant to organize much of anything because they anticipate being called out and don't want the extra stress.

Just on #3 -- While sure self education is great, the whole 'don't ask people to explain' thing can be pretty damaging. In some situations I'm happy just to listen, but other times if I'm going to understand what the person is talking about I might need to ask a question. I had an experience last year where I asked someone who was experiencing a form of bigotry what was going on, and someone else chimed in that I had no right to ask. And that was like, OK, I guess I can't do anything about it or understand it. I'd have been fine with "I'd prefer not to talk about it anymore" (or something like that) but the response was more on the lines that I was some kind of bigot for asking.

[John Nada]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_communication It might be useful to study into this more in order to foster a healthier culture. Sounds like many just have poor communication skills(even if they're well-meaning), or don't realize that others might not be good at it either. This then creates an unhealthy organizational culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture).

[human strike]

4. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really think this is a problem. I do think the issue of some being seen as "not queer enough" or "not trans enough" is relevant though.

8. This is obviously bullshit.

9. I don't care about this/I don't really see a problem.

Otherwise I broadly agree. 1, 6, and 10 feel especially relevant.

[Hatshepsut]

I think attracting working class people is the actual problem, because if people don't know the right language...they're crucified.


Communists do not flog themselves. Communists do not have guilt over....essential characteristics.

And proletariats tilting rightward is just the way the bourgeoisie wants things to be. Global capitalism’s leaders, faced with severe unrest over the monsters of racism, xenophobia, patriarchy, and heterosexual bias they had nurtured if not created de novo, took a strategic decision: They opened all these categorical identity issues to discussion and ideological reform while aiming to smother class consciousness in a fog of consumerism, shrouded by middle-class ninety-nine percents.

Chinese and Vietnamese Communists indeed used a strident language of “calling out” in their educational programming, as appropriate for their basic culture and history. While that’s not the way speakers of European languages did things, it can be appropriate sometimes—those who inadvertently utter racist tropes need to be told that’s what they’re doing and to stop. Blatant racists should be barred from our movement.

Yet the bourgeoisie has encouraged abuse of calling out as shaming, where the purpose switches from education to inculcation of anger and guilt over the monsters, thus directing the Left’s rhetoric away from perpetuation of the class system. Guilt is especially paralyzing; what better way for capital to enjoy victory than if whites, males, and heterosexuals all hang their heads in response to crimes their ancestors committed, to offenses their fellow whites, males, and heteros cause today, and to social facts they can’t do whit about unless they destroy the class system that underpins them. Systematic biases persist and evolve into new forms because they remain profitable. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have “colorblind” racism.

I won’t say communism seeks to erase personal identity, yet it does subordinate it to one’s identity as a communist. It also views fixed characteristics like race or sexual orientation as artificial bases for identity formation which are subject to exploitation.

So, in a discussion, we don’t “center the person of color.” We center the institution of racism and the fact that it is really class in disguise.