|
Byolante posted:Because neoliberals use it as a wedge issue to divide classes so they won't unite on economic issues Racism is a wedge issue designed to divide the classes so they wouldn't unite on economic issues. Identity politics is about dismantling racism.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Torpor posted:Unless you are a moron and invoke it haphazardly which is what happened. No democrats were actually interested in dismantling racism. Lots of white people weren't, and trump capitalized on this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Also attempting to 'fight racism' by referring to huge populations of people exclusively by their skin color and acting as though they are all the same is just not a good plan. This is not what happened, despite what Breitbart would have you believe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:Appealing to working class whites through a stronger stance on economic issues doesn't detract from fighting for the rights of minorities, though. It doesn't necessarily detract, but it certainly can. If you're a low-wage worker, kicking out all the immigrants is a strong economic stance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Torpor posted:A huge part of discussion surrounded the election was "the black vote" and "the hispanic vote". There's a difference between recognizing that racial minorities have a substantial common interest in dismantling institutional racism and believing that all black people are exactly the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Why do you consider this to be an economically motivated stance rather than an identity-based one? It's both.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Do you believe that there is nothing leftism can do to make supporting immigrants good from a fiscally left point of view? It's a tricky road to navigate because racism is a tool to get poor white people to vote against their own economic interests. We can't have more welfare, because those lazy browns will get it. Paradoxish posted:So why do you think it's possible to address one side of this issue without also addressing the other? I agree that democrats need to be addressing both problems, and in stronger terms. I'm suggesting that there might be situations where "do both, real big" isn't possible electorally.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:outside of the incest belt white people seem to be falling for that thing less and less as time goes on I'm not so sure. Maybe it explains why some working class Rust Belt voters preferred Trump's jobs message to Hillary's taxes and social services message.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:These are distractions from the underlying problems: class. Elevating issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc above class does nothing but serve the interests of capital, as we have seen. Thus why liberals who prioritize those issues are reactionary, since capital wants to divide or unite us on its whim. White supremacy and patriarchy are tools which serve the interests of capital. Perhaps they need to be dismantled before real progress can be made in a socialist economic agenda.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Here it is. Hillary: "Not everything is about an economic theory, right? If we broke up the big banks tomorrow -- and I will if they deserve it -- if they pose a systemic risk, I will -- would that end racism?" Crowd "no" Hillary: "would that end sexism?" Crowd "no" Hillary "would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?" Crowd "no" They're right!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:As iniquitous as things already are, I don't foresee teaching white people the language of identity politics ("own your whiteness!!") is going to work out very well for anyone except white people. We usually do this in college, and the college educated voted for democrats, so there's every reason to think it could work if we teach it to everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually it was HRC who suggested that because fighting economic inequality would not by itself end the problems we should not touch them. Crowsbeak posted:She should not say if. They should be broken up. Period. Also why not instead say I'll do it and support everyone when you are denied equal pay. When they say your lifestyle prevents them from renting to you. When they say your gender means they cannot provide your health. So can you admit you were wrong to claim she said "we should not touch them"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The problem with pushing about diversity among elites is that the elites can just find people like Margaret Thatcher and Clarence Thomas that will check that box while still completely enforcing the status quo, which is incidentally what Trump is doing right now. Thomas was approved on a 52/48 senate vote, and all the democrats who voted for him were blue dog southern democrats. The idea that the people pushing for diversity are interested in any POC or woman wasn't true then, and it certainly isn't true now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
You know what the alt-right really hates? identity politics. Crazy, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Hot take-- people that hate identity politics are real bad at identity politics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If this election is anything to go by they're actually really good at it, but white identity never comes up in these discussions for some reason. Well it's a lot harder to poo poo on (non-white) identity politics if you recognize it's a reaction to white identity politics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Violator posted:I honestly thought that there being more voters wouldn't matter with all of the horrible gaffes Trump made and he would lose terribly. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I really thought fighting a Gold Star family and bragging about molesting women would at the very least depress the Republican turnout quite a bit. Apparently America is full of racists and sexists. But don't worry we have it on good authority they secretly lust for socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
emdash posted:lots of socially regressive americans love socialist/redistributionist programs when they don't understand that they are socialist/redistributionist. e.g. Medicare, the NFL, etc. And what does the Republican Party do when democrats propose those policies? 1). Scream socialism! 2). Remind those regressive Americans that lazy brown people will benefit from these policies. So I'm not really understanding how socialists expect to sell "not socialism we promise" to these people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:We call it socialism. I happen to know some of those people you think are deplorable. They liked Bernie and didn't mind him calling it socialism. You know Americans hate the word socialism, right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:You can be "racist and sexist" but still support socialism though? JeffersonClay posted:And what does the Republican Party do when democrats propose those policies? Crowsbeak posted:All hate the word socialism? I mean those polls showing Bernie ahead suggest if there is opposition its not enough to say this country hates it. What AMericans really hate is cowards. Like a dem who retreats when they are accused of socialism. Yes, socialism is slightly less popular than atheism among the American electorate. You keep clinging to these useless pre-convention head to head polls like they're the only thing keeping the neoliberal vampires away. Here's the thing, the polling before this election was deeply flawed. Exit polling showed very low support for more liberal policy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:So you're telling me socialism polls as well as Hillary Clinton It polls substantially worse. That's the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:A 5 point deficit over Hillary ain't too bad, I never get bringing up low polling socialism as a killer because they're responding to a pretty abstract poll question, not an actual policy. Nor does opposition framing always work like some sort of magic trick. I didn't bring it up, I was responding to someone asserting that socialism is real popular. It isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 23:09
|
|