Identity politics/ leftypol

[Einkarl]

Recently ive been lurking around in 8chans leftypol and a lot of folks there are pretty disdainful of identity politics. From what I can gather idpols are exactly what they sound like, political ideologies and goals based different factors of identity (religion, nationalism, gender, race etc.) but beyond that I am completely clue less. Can one of y'all explain in further detail what idpols are and how you stand on them?

[marl]

In the context of people from that messageboard, identity politics is a meaningless word to be tossed around whenever their reactionary views are called into question.

Identity politics implies a person's interests are racial (and so on), rather than class based - and thus it is an idealistic analysis of oppression. It manifests itself in what appear as struggles against ideology (e.g. self-determination), but any analysis of such struggles - or, for that matter, bourgeois ideology itself - reveal an obvious class character.

It can be problematic when it becomes highly individualized: either a problem of psychology remedied by liberalism, or one that is antithetical to the advancement of socialism as some intersectional theorists would cause. However, if anyone runs around priding themselves on being "anti-identity politics", I would view them with the same suspicion I'd view someone who runs around spouting nonsense about Zionism (in contexts unrelated to Israeli colonialism, that is).

[ChangeAndChance]

From my perspective, I think identity politics and class-based politics must find some form of unity in order for there to be any form of progress for the radical left. Marxism has always had this serious problem with down playing the role that nationalism and the nation state has had in not just society but also the individual mind - with the rise of "identity politics based around race, gender and sexual orientation, the radical left must reach out to these groups and mould their ideologies to emphasize a unity of the oppressed rather than a divisive stance like "we'll work on our problems, you work on yours".

[Khalistani]

From my perspective, I think identity politics and class-based politics must find some form of unity in order for there to be any form of progress for the radical left. Marxism has always had this serious problem with down playing the role that nationalism and the nation state has had in not just society but also the individual mind - with the rise of "identity politics based around race, gender and sexual orientation, the radical left must reach out to these groups and mould their ideologies to emphasize a unity of the oppressed rather than a divisive stance like "we'll work on our problems, you work on yours".

Marxism is precisely ineffective for the very reason it jettison's people's own cultures and self-identities in favour of some greater nation-state patterned off of a dead 19th century Jewish German philosopher and his Methodist compatriot's vision of society, and the Historical Materialists they based their philosophy off.

As shocking as it sounds, most people find this a bit baffling that they would sacrifice their identities to the cauldron of Marxism.

There has to be a better way for socialism and the left than Marxism.

[#FF0000]

Identity politics implies a person's interests are racial (and so on), rather than class based - and thus it is an idealistic analysis of oppression. It manifests itself in what appear as struggles against ideology (e.g. self-determination), but any analysis of such struggles - or, for that matter, bourgeois ideology itself - reveal an obvious class character.

I don't necessarily agree, here. Identity politics can be based on virtually anything that can be construed as an identity, from things like race, gender and class to being part of a certain age group or a group with shared interests. Class politics are not necessarily any less "ID politics" than politics based on gender.

That's what ID politics are, in the broadest sense, but it has negative connotations in most contexts. Personally, I most often hear used by people (both on the right and left, unfortunately) who want to dismiss people who talk about women's issues or issues of racism. Less often but more fairly, I hear it used to describe people who talk about the interests of a group to the exclusion of any other sort of analysis, (see: anti-racist groups that don't address issues of gender and class, feminist groups that don't deal with issues of race and class, and, hey, even working-class groups that don't deal with race and gender).

As an aside: leftypol is a fucking pit, dude.

[ChangeAndChance]

Marxism is precisely ineffective for the very reason it jettison's people's own cultures and self-identities in favour of some greater nation-state patterned off of a dead 19th century Jewish German philosopher and his Methodist compatriot's vision of society, and the Historical Materialists they based their philosophy off.

As shocking as it sounds, most people find this a bit baffling that they would sacrifice their identities to the cauldron of Marxism.

There has to be a better way for socialism and the left than Marxism.

Marxism (of the Orthodox variety at least) does not advocate any nation state. It simply downplays the significance of cultures and self-identities in the strategy towards communism. This is obviously and demonstrably wrong. You are a prime example.

I think all of the criticisms leveled against you are valid. You don't seem to understand the contradictions within your own ideology and you accuse anyone who disagrees with them as a Eurocentric racist. Marx was right in the sense that the working classes around the world SHOULD abandon the divisive nature of bourgeois nationalism (AKA your shit) but he was wrong in the sense that they WILL abandon bourgeois nationalism via some natural sociological process. Some identity politics are easily integratable with Marxism and radical leftism: queer liberation, feminism, and anti-racism are all examples. However, ethnic or religious nationalism, time and time again, has been shown to be either ineffective in establishing socialism or anything close to it, or deliberately working against it. It doesn't work. It will never work.

Don't think I agree with you. I don't.

[Asero]

As an aside: leftypol is a fucking pit, dude.

N-no y-you are! :unsure:

There isn't many places to discuss Left politics tbh. At least it has posters.

[DOOM]

A bunch of white male internet leftists crying over women and 'fucking blacks and their non-problems'. They're basically left to the MRA.

Fuck'em and their opinion.

[#FF0000]

N-no y-you are! :unsure:

There isn't many places to discuss Left politics tbh. At least it has posters.

The pickings were always slim but goddamn dude there's always communist facebook or libcom. I know you're a marxist-leninist but I'd take those over a chan any day of the week.

[DOOM]

I'd declare Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn the champions of communism just to spite them

[Asero]

The pickings were always slim but goddamn dude there's always communist facebook or libcom. I know you're a marxist-leninist but I'd take those over a chan any day of the week.

I don't want to use my real identity for discussions about politics online, and I don't want to go so far as to actually make another Facebook just so I can argue with people on the internet. I also like staying anonymous.

I've gone there every now and then, but I always forget libcom is a thing. Anarchism doesn't exist in the Philippines.

Besides, I like imageboard culture. Angry shitposting and ironic memeing can be therapeutic if you don't let it get to you.

Also, the ML scene in /leftypol/ are just internet tankies. Like most of the Left in general, /leftypol/ seems to be dominated by Anarchist and "libertarian socialist" types. There are more MLs in reddit than /leftypol/.


A bunch of white male internet leftists crying over women and 'fucking blacks and their non-problems'. They're basically left to the MRA.

No need to be vitriolic. I don't think I've seen any Leftist dismiss racism like that on /leftypol/ before, and most of the board is apathetic to GamerGate. Feminism is a fairly controversial topic on /leftypol/ since it's inception, but recently /leftypol/ has had an upsurge of users, most of whom tend to be the typical undefined "I'm not a liberal feminist but socialist feminism would be fine I guess" in-between, not really but sort of, position. You're mischaracterizing a large portion of the board population as badly as the worst mischaracterize feminists.

It's a weird thing. Places like reddit (or Revleft, as will happen, /leftypol/ has been growing in popularity) like to think that /leftypol/ are all MRA brocialists. One the other hand, the other fascist-dominated boards on 8chan likes to think that /leftypol/ are all "SJWs". Neither of which are true.

[#FF0000]

Nah I've been there and I know what it's like. There's a variety of opinion, I'm sure, but the loudest voices seem to be people with level 1 communist politics mixed with bizarrely conservative views, and a lot of people who are very comfortable calling people "faggots". In my experience "irony" is often an excuse for folks who don't want to be held responsible for what they say. That mentality and chan culture in general makes for pretty useless discussion, imo. But we're veering off topic.

[Einkarl]

Nah I've been there and I know what it's like. There's a variety of opinion, I'm sure, but the loudest voices seem to be people with level 1 communist politics mixed with bizarrely conservative views, and a lot of people who are very comfortable calling people "faggots". In my experience "irony" is often an excuse for folks who don't want to be held responsible for what they say. That mentality and chan culture in general makes for pretty useless discussion, imo. But we're veering off topic.
Actually i wanted to know what yall thought of the place too but i forgot to ask in the post so i hope this doesn't count as derailing the thread. I agree that a lot of the posters there are fucking scum that claim to be socially conservative, but then again chans are always rife with "bait" threads and I'm sure a part of those posts fall under the category of shitposting. I personally like the chan format more than traditional forums in terms of user experience and ease of use. they're more intuitively structured and threads seem to move faster. And I've seen some interesting discussions there and on bunkerchan, at least when it comes to economic theories. Plus, it's nice to have more lighthearted discussions sometimes although the whole "faggot" thing you mention really irks me. It's kind of expected on 4chan or 8chans to use that blatantly homophobic language but i think so called "leftists" could refrain from it while still having a sense of humor. Revleft has some really awesome users and it'd be nice to see them on leftypol; i think that could improve discussions there.

[#FF0000]

I'm a fan of the image board format for those same reasons but I don't know if they're good for discussing politics or anything remotely in-depth. Not that Revleft has a high level of discussion but I think the speed of image boards, on top of the anonimity and kind of invisible modding makes it hard to manage thoughtful discussion.

Plus, 8Chan's a site borne of pretty unsavory things, what with the whole gamergate thing, the invasion board, the "ephebiphilia" board, etc. I think all that, without even talking about the culture of the place, is gonna turn off most people outside the typical Chan demographic, and I think that precludes most people who have actual practical experience in activism and organizing.

[Aslan]

as a response to #FF0000 I'd say that I've seen some pretty good conversations in Revleft. Especially from Individuals like Rafiq etc.

As for 8-chan I'd say that I've never been to the site. But from what I've heard of It I don't have any regrets.

As for Identity politics, I'd say that it is useless. All they think about is ''how am I being represented'' ''How are they represented'' ''what labels am I/them''. They get so enveloped into labels about themselves that they create a block between themselves and the rest of humanity. Being black or white or straight or gay or transgender doesn't matter in the end! What matters is class and the role of economic hierarchies in our society. Labels are irrelevant in the end but our class is.

[WideAwake]

The problem I see in people who are into identity politics is that they don't have any will to power, any will to rise to government power, any will power to overthrow the capitalist class and replace it with the oppressed and working class. They are too conformists, another problem is that identity politics are just solutions for 1 single or 2 issues (like immigration etc.).

While overthrowing the whole dictatorship of the capitalist class and replacing it with a dictatorship of the working class, would be solutions for all issues at the same time (Immigration, climate change, low wages, inflation etc). I think that identity politics will not lead to more wealth and to higher living standards in the majority of poor people, and will not lead to the overthrow of the dictatorship of The Democratic Party, and The Republican Party from power

There are lots of identity politics leftists on Facebook and on other social networks, probably, because those leftists belong to the white collar and high wage right-wing working class.

I've noticed that people who are into climate change are not really worried about food prices, they never talk about the price of eggs, chicken, meat, milk etc. They are not really desperate, not hungry and not feeling any pain at all. That's why we need a real ultra-leftist united organization in America composed of people who are experiencing hunger, pain, cold in winter and extreme heat in summer (from not being able to use their heater units because of very expensive electricity because of the neoliberalism economic model of both Democratic Party and Republican party









Recently ive been lurking around in 8chans leftypol and a lot of folks there are pretty disdainful of identity politics. From what I can gather idpols are exactly what they sound like, political ideologies and goals based different factors of identity (religion, nationalism, gender, race etc.) but beyond that I am completely clue less. Can one of y'all explain in further detail what idpols are and how you stand on them?

[#FF0000]

What matters is class and the role of economic hierarchies in our society. Labels are irrelevant in the end but our class is.

I think this is hella reductionist, because race and sex and gender identities do matter because different groups experience unique oppression under capitalism. Women deal with things that men don't. Black folks deal with things white folks don't. These things have to be dealt with, don't they?

[Sewer Socialist]

Things like race, class, gender, etc. are more than just labels, more than just identities. They are actual experiences, actual material conditions. Economic reductionism is really a vulgar Marxism, and one that can not even identify that real movements arise from real contradictions.

Can a black person get out of being killed by the police in the street by telling the pig that they do not identify as black, or by explaining to to the cop that race doesn't matter in the end? No. I could no easier say that class is just a label, it's just an identity, it doesn't really matter.

It is correct to notice there are identity politicians who do not seek to resolve these contradictions, not to abolitish these divisions, not to liberate, but secure bourgeois rights for some.

8chan / 4chan / etc? Every time I look at it, it's "faggot" this, "USSR #1" that, "DAE INTPJF", and a bunch of other one-sentence schlock.

[ckaihatsu]

Marxism is precisely ineffective for the very reason it jettison's people's own cultures and self-identities in favour of some greater nation-state patterned off of a dead 19th century Jewish German philosopher and his Methodist compatriot's vision of society, and the Historical Materialists they based their philosophy off.

As shocking as it sounds, most people find this a bit baffling that they would sacrifice their identities to the cauldron of Marxism.

There has to be a better way for socialism and the left than Marxism.


This is conflating historical culture and cultural identity, with political economy.

It's unfortunate that there was significant cultural loss during the time of the USSR, but much of that could be chalked up to the generic process of urbanization, anyway, anywhere.

Marxism and historical materialism isn't a *religion*, as you're implying, so it really doesn't demand any cultish-like sacrifice of one's culture on any altar.





I don't necessarily agree, here. Identity politics can be based on virtually anything that can be construed as an identity, from things like race, gender and class to being part of a certain age group or a group with shared interests.




Class politics are not necessarily any less "ID politics" than politics based on gender.


Yes, class politics is *not* identity politics, because its manifestation -- as in rank-and-file workplace organizing -- can spontaneously take place *without* consciousness of that class politics. (Whereas identity politics is *all about* being self-conscious and vocal about one's social-minority status.)





That's what ID politics are, in the broadest sense, but it has negative connotations in most contexts. Personally, I most often hear used by people (both on the right and left, unfortunately) who want to dismiss people who talk about women's issues or issues of racism. Less often but more fairly, I hear it used to describe people who talk about the interests of a group to the exclusion of any other sort of analysis, (see: anti-racist groups that don't address issues of gender and class, feminist groups that don't deal with issues of race and class, and, hey, even working-class groups that don't deal with race and gender).


This shows that any given politics, like identity politics, is *relative*, on a left-right continuum.

There's a significant difference between critiquing / dismissing any given single-issue position from the left, versus from the right -- from the right it implicitly means that matters of extant social oppression are being summarily ignored, in favor of a vision of nationalist-hierarchical *monolithic* social policy that will definitely *not* recognize social diversity or historical and present-day oppression.

From the left, though, identity politics looks like a neverending mosh-pit of ferment, with more heat than light generated as a result. Sure, it's good to have the diversity and activity of a 'rainbow' of groups asserting themselves and their rights, by oppression, but inevitably the *economics* of capitalism and wage-slavery are going to hold sway, and a working class self-divided on the basis of minority status is going to be less cohesive, and weaker, than a working class that is conscious of its own position as exploited labor versus the interests of capital.


Also:


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)

[Comrade Jacob]

Having basic labels for different ideologies is an important thing but when it gets to splitting hairs it's time we need to chill.

Never been on leftypol

[Sasha]

Even when im not an marxist i liked this article; http://thecharnelhouse.org/2013/12/07/whats-wrong-with-identity-politics-and-intersectionality-theory/

[Palmares]

Anarchism doesn't exist in the Philippines.

Not true.

It is true, that compared to a place like Indonesia, where anarchist tendencies are prevalent, the Philippines has an almost non-existent anarchist population. My anarchist friends in the Pines postulate that at least some of this difference in ideological composition relates to the widespread persecution and execution of communists/socialists/maoists/etc in Indonesia, which then left a vacuum for anarchist ideas to take hold. Whereas in the Pines communists/socialists/maoists/etc have not lost their stranglehold on the left in the same way, but rather have slowly shrunk from the changing social context and thus moved much their constituency from the countryside to the universities.

But yeah, there are a bunch of anarchist infoshops throughout the Pines, multiple in Manila, for example. But compared to the reds, they are very much in the minority.

[Asero]

Not true.

The Philippines has an almost non-existent anarchist population.
lol

[Palmares]

You spotted my joke...!