|
khwarezm posted:Idpol is not going away, definitely not anytime soon while Trump and the kind of movement he represents are so prominent.To be honest I find raging against Idpol utterly futile because people having an allegiance to a group quite separate from class has been around for as long as humans have been and while its useful and straightforward to interpret history as that of class struggle no leftist movement in history has been able to stamp that out. I would suggest that the desire to boil everything down to economic class is no longer sufficient, there manifestly are other, valid classes to which people may belong.
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
Higsian posted:We definitely want a pan identity and a singular goal if we can though. Being groups of people that are doing their own thing but help each other out from time to time cause we're roughly fighting the same group of people is kinda weak. The alliance between communism and anarchism brought about "no war but class war" because it unites them against their shared enemy. Now we need something like "no war but <identity type> war" where <identity type> basically covers the fight along all types of power differentials, rather than just the economic power differential. Which then covers like... the entire left vs the right. So then we have things like the race front, the class front, the gender front, the sexuality front, etc but only one war. That might actually drive out centrists though because a lot of them are not at all about helping all oppressed classes. Whether that's a good thing or not depends if the left can succeed without them I guess. The difficulty there is that unlike the economics of the 1800's there is no single enemy. It is entirely possible for people on the same side of economic conflict to be on opposing sides of a racial or sexual conflict. White Rock posted:Classes are based on material interest. The people inside that class share real material goals, and thus cooperation is possible, while with other classes genuine cooperation is impossible since they are in a material conflict. I would suggest that probably all black people want to stop being racially discriminated against. And all gay people similarly would like the same thing for sexuality reasons. It is far from elegant but that does not mean it is not more accurate than saying "Actually this is complicated so I'm going to ignore all of these other classes because it's easier to understand if we pretend that Marxist economics is the only thing that matters." The reality of multiple classes to which a person may belong means they also have multiple goals, and may be forced to choose between them. If you want to overcome this you would need to provide a choice which fulfills as many of them as possible for as many different people as possible, though as some of them will contradict the goals of other classes this will hardly be simple. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Immigrants drive down wages. Government policy drives down wages.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
No, government policy does it. Immigrants don't need to have any effect on wages at all unless the government wants them to. That's what things like minimum wages and protectionism are for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
White Rock posted:How can you consider nationalism a form of identity politics? It's an actual ideology. Is Globalism identity politics too? Nationalism is literally the attempt to build a unified identity in order to organize people to strive for a goal together. If it isn't identity politics then very little is. It's stupid identity politics and dangerous to boot, but it has the concept of individual and collective identity and their interaction with politics at its very core. White Rock posted:And the buck stops there at those issues. the rich black people and the poor black people have ultimately vastly different interests. You can't have a big tent party different material interests get along. They have different economic interests but possibly similar racial interests. Economics may make them largely immune to some of the racial issues because say, rich people don't get arrested very often, but the bias remains. If we are envisioning a hypothetical economically equal society, I see no reason why that would guarantee equality in other areas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Isn't the point of identity politics is something you are? If identity is just opinions the term seems meaningless. If identity politics was just "what you are" then it wouldn't need to exist, it would just automatically happen. If we're talking about the somewhat recent use of the term to reflect attempts by people to take traits of a person and use them to build a group identity in order to facilitate a political goal, that's obviously quite a constructed thing. A very sensible thing in that it's exactly what Marxists have historically tried to do with the working class but still a constructed thing all the same. Nationalism, Marxism, and racial/sexual/sexuality...al identity politics can all be put under a fairly simple umbrella of trying to construct a collective identity to inspire collective action. The latter two are generally productive, the former seldom so. I think understanding that is quite important because it helps you see that the method is difficult to criticise and instead you really do need to criticize based on whether you judge the goals of the people using it to be valid. The idea of someone who thinks that the class war is good criticizing other forms of identity politics for, well, being identity politics is rather silly. Much better to criticise them for having lovely ideas about what to use that method to achieve. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Can you please explain to me what the difference is between Nationalism and Racial identity? It is possible to construct a racial class geared around fighting against racial inequality, in the same vein as one would construct an economic class geared around fighting against economic inequality. Nationalism as practiced doesn't generally have that goal, and tends to be centered around the concept of the nation-state whereby the state uses the national identity to control its populace. It does generally try to enforce things like racial supremacy for the majority ethnic population but that's largely a bread and circuses thing, minority populations make a useful scapegoat, there's little actual concern for the wellbeing of either majority or minority populations. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Identity politics is a really useful term to be honest because it accurately describes how the method works and the flaw is really just the idea that it's a new thing. It's definitely not, it's just applied in new ways now. Recognizing that is, I think, going to be key to unifying socialist and social leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Nothing matters to Hillary Clinton but her own power and prestige either, (I won't stoop to calling you a loving idiot). Trump is literally everything bad about Clinton except worse. If you want an alternative that will require engagement, you won't get it by sitting around and voting for the most reactionary idiot you can find every four years. That you do not have the option of using your vote as you might like does not excuse you using it in the most stupid loving way you possibly can. You are not a child. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Trump will either improve things for his constituents like he promised or accelerate us towards socialism, though. Hillary would have maintained the status quo. for another 4-8 years. You are voting to gently caress yourself and people in worse positions than you over, Trump is not going to do anything to destroy the privilege of wealth because his life revolves around it. You are literally saying you voted for basically the avatar of bourgeois excess supported by the party of entrenched wealth because you think he'll usher in socialism. That makes absolutely no sense at all and if you believe that then I don't know what to tell you because your concept of reason appears to be be completely different from mine. Once again, you do not effect political change by voting once every four years, if you desire change you must engage at other times.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Accelerationism is a loving stupid ideology for idiots because putting people in hardship doesn't make them behave rationally and only idiots believe it does. And no, that Trump is unversally reviled does not make him good, people don't hate him because he's a secret millionaire socialist. I would say I hope he deports you so you can stop wrecking the country but I don't want you back in the UK either because you'd probably vote for UKIP. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
"I can take anarcho-communist or literal hitler, I don't mind which" is not my preferred political ally.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
If you're left wing you should not be voting for the man who lives in a literal golden tower and whose platform is unfocused yet spiteful nationalism. If you do want to vote that you are not an ally, you are very definitely the enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
The Saurus posted:I didn't vote for him, and I would have voted communist or Jill Stein or written in Bernie or something. I just don't think he's any worse than what politicians in the west have been doing for years, decades. I mean they're loving monsters who murder people for profit and political expediency, and collaborate in making the poor poorer to give more to the rich. How is he any worse than them? How will he BE any worse than them in office, really? What could he possibly do worse? A great many things. Neoliberalism is bad, but there were far worse options before it co-opted both right and left. If you believe otherwise you really need to look at history. For the third time, if you want an alternative, you will not get it by sitting and doing nothing until election time rolls around. Voting is the least worthwhile political activity you can do. The Saurus posted:Also - The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and he sure is pissing off a lot of my enemies and it's fantastic to watch. He's won, might as well enjoy it. Why should I let it upset me when it's so entertaining, instead of spending my time on this earth happy and gleeful? If you are capable of being happy that people worse off than you and without your ability to gently caress off back to the UK whenever you want, are going to suffer, you are literal subhuman filth and you have absolutely no place in any leftist political organization.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 08:58
|
|