I am posting this as a discussion starter. I normally frown upon uncritical usage of the term Identity Politics as a supposedly self-contained ideology. But this is a cool-headed analysis that proposes a very simple process: It is the method of singling out disenfranchised groups that allows autocrats
- to single out the ethnic working class majority as the most disenfranchised
- to other the most downtrodden groups as the root cause of the disenfranchisement
- justify their persecution as necessary for the survival of the group
(Finally the author suggests that the inclusion of the disenfranchised groups as part of the ingroup is essential to overcome this dynamic.)
Part 1. He is right: This is was happened and the Democrats were happy to jump onboard
It is hard to argue with this logic, because this is literally what happened.
Let's not forget what is the big picture here: Similarly to how corporate PR pushed the narrative of individual responsibility for climate change, far and wide, it also pushed the idea of "everyone's equal opportunity to the American dream".
This might explain why this equal-washing resembles so much PR tactics, and fits perfectly with established advertising and marketing practices, starting with Benetton's "anti-marketing".
It is a complete denial of structural violence and intersectionality of exploitation (Benetton's own sweatshops included). In this sense, and contrary to common right-wing wisdom, identity politics is not even "woke", which is supposed to be alert to those things.
Part 2: Historical exploitation is collective, not individualistic - and it casts a shadow despite production mode shifts
This is a passage from one of my own text I linked above. I reiterate it here to clarify the above point:
Then, I don’t even see black, brown, woman, trans, gay, intersex, as identities, rather than inherent features of people. The meanings they have are due to societal groupings alone. And you bet they have been political in the past and they are as hell political now.
Anti-identitarian leftists, leftists who split “identity” from “class consciousness” by default seem weird to me in that effect, because for example slavery was a mode of exploitative production, ownership and enslavement of women was integral in pre-industrial economic systems.
This “laborist” sterilization of the working class definition reduces a snapshot of British 19th century capitalism to the canon of analysis for every historical period and every type of social stratification? How do you even approach other type of societies entirely, like tribal societies?
Like marxist anthropologists tried to and ended up with all kinds of upgrades to marxist theory, but some people do not want to hear about it because of purity.
Part 3: The industrial worker reductionist and the culture war as a "divide and conquer" tactic
The above thoughts are supposed to trigger an understanding of a leftist criticism of identity politics that frames them as a "divide and conquer" tactic, as simplistic and erroneous. In fact, as simplistic and erroneous as seeing the whole climate thing as a distraction from worker rights, because of how aggressively capitalists push "green energy".
We would think a take like this as extremely stupid, but there is a huge double standard with gender, race, and homosexuality. You know why. If you really want me to spell it out, it is because of
- internalized misogyny, racism, and homophobia on the left
- rigid reductionism on the part of those who consider political economy a hard science
"Identity politics", if it has any meaning at all, is a washed down capitalist propaganda, that anyone is capable of living the American dream, regardless of any previously "stigmatized individual features". No mention of the historical context nor collective nature of the "stigma". Just individual variation, erasing centuries of collective attacks on different groups of people, by white heterosexual European colonialists (included but not limited to the slave trade triangle, militarist and colonialist anti-homosexuality laws, and domestic exploitation of women for perpetuating power and property - kinda basic stuff really).
People were not excluded for the color of their skin, they were brought in ships to slave their lives away for a European master. The slave-traders were given reparations when slavery was abolished, the afflicted countries and communities were given none. To understand this and its long reaching aftermath in race politics is woke - alert to systemic violence and intersectionality of exploitation. Therefore
- Woke is a good thing - MAGA has reached a point of conservativism that they think the Pope is a radical leftist, this is just how much the Overton window has shifted, and:
- Identity politics is not woke and was never woke to start with - if so called progressives in Harvard in the nineties thought this was a good idea, well, then they were wildly misled by an elevated standard of living. To say the least.
Part 4: Being anti-woke on the right vs. Being anti-woke on the left
Being anti-woke on the right is to accept that systemic violence and intersectionality of exploitation is natural order. Being anti-woke on the left is to be blind to the whole breadth of exploitation throughout the human history, and push a strictly industrial worker reductionist, that some insist is a straw-man of dialectic materialism. To those I say, to thine own self be true and respect those little arrows you draw from the superstructure back to the foundation. In other words, understand that the ideology of exploitation of the past casts a shadow on the stereotypes and ideological wedges of the present, although the modes of production have shifted, and keep shifting as we speak.
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, develop an intersectional analysis that empowers historically disenfranchised groups in their own safe spaces, overcome their ongoing survival issues, and instead of fixating on how capitalism dealt with such issues, start thinking how socialism will overcome these bias without removing the rights and dignity of any group of people.
Um, in the ..middle? What middle?
Middle like MAGA (who put nazis to shame)? Middle like the dark enlighment (a reactionary movement)? Middle like the AFD (the German neonazi party)?
I am fucking losing it rn, Elmo thinks he is a fucking Centrist. Now I have seen in all.