how exactly would you define "idpol", Holla Forums?
would you say that all attempts at talking about how oppression is different for certain groups is automatically idpol?
or do you think its possible without falling into bourgeois idpol? like do you think there's a difference between proletarian feminism and bourgeois feminism?
This thread
Is the fact this thread with a similarly shit image keep propping up a sign that we are about to become targeted by COINTELPRO?
What makes you feel that you are actually doing anything worthwhile at this point, and why have you not become whistleblower?
In spite of such preconceptions about blackness, in spite of special subordination of blacks in the Americas in the seventeenth century, there is evidence that where whites and blacks found themselves with common problems, common work, common enemy in their master, they behaved toward one another as equals. As one scholar of slavery, Kenneth Stampp, has put it, Negro and white servants of the seventeenth century were "remarkably unconcerned about the visible physical differences."
Black and white worked together, fraternized together. The very fact that laws had to be passed after a while to forbid such relations indicates the strength of that tendency. In 1661 a law was passed in Virginia that "in case any English servant shall run away in company of any Negroes" he would have to give special service for extra years to the master of the runaway Negro. In 1691, Virginia provided for the banishment of any "white man or woman being free who shall intermarry with a negro, mulatoo, or Indian man or woman bond or free."
whites were involved in the slave resistance. As early as 1663, indentured white servants and black slaves in Gloucester County, Virginia, formed a conspiracy to rebel and gain their freedom. The plot was betrayed, and ended with executions. Mullin reports that the newspaper notices of runaways in Virginia often warned "ill-disposed" whites about harboring fugitives. Sometimes slaves and free men ran off together, or cooperated in crimes together. Sometimes, black male slaves ran off and joined white women. From time to time, white ship captains and watermen dealt with runaways, perhaps making the slave a part of the crew.
Only one fear was greater than the fear of black rebellion in the new American colonies. That was the fear that discontented whites would join black slaves to overthrow the existing order. In the early years of slavery, especially, before racism as a way of thinking was firmly ingrained, while white indentured servants were often treated as badly as black slaves, there was a possibility of cooperation. As Edmund Morgan sees it:
It was common, for example, for servants and slaves to run away together, steal hogs together, get drunk together. It was not uncommon for them to make love together. In Bacon's Rebellion, one of the last groups to surrender was a mixed band of eighty negroes and twenty English servants.
We see now a complex web of historical threads to ensnare blacks for slavery in America: the desperation of starving settlers, the special helplessness of the displaced African, the powerful incentive of profit for slave trader and planter, the temptation of superior status for poor whites, the elaborate controls against escape and rebellion, the legal and social punishment of black and white collaboration.
The point is that the elements of this web are historical, not "natural." This does not mean that they are easily disentangled, dismantled. It means only that there is a possibility for something else, under historical conditions not yet realized. And one of these conditions would be the elimination of that class exploitation which has made poor whites desperate for small gifts of status, and has prevented that unity of black and white necessary for joint rebellion and reconstruction.
Politics pursued with the aim of advancing the cause of a particular identity.
No. The "marxist" feminists will always use the same intersectional theory that the liberal feminists use as soon as it gets pointed out that all of the First Wave feminists' goals have already been achieved. Then it's all about the world-wide mad deadly communist gangster patriarchy.
...
Identity politics is class politics for lumpen-bourgeoisie or as Adolph Reed said…
" [Identity] politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature.
An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people.
It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class."
After election debacle, Democrats debate identity politics
wsws.org
It's a strong possibility. I thought this was the old thread.
You don't need intersectional theory, which is shit btw, to see the way female sexuality and work is controlled. Why is it that of all human trafficking women are the biggest victims? Why is it that so many young girls are being forced into arranged marriages? Is it to exchange money and cleanse (unrelated) debts? Why is it that women's clothes make them more or less deserving of harassment or violence? Why is it that the exponential increases in "honor killing" overwhelmingly makes women its victim? Why is it that communities are now given free license to practice oppressive traditions such as femicide in the name of cultural tolerance?
And what pray tell was the goals of the first wave feminists? To be able to vote? Yeah, surely we're going to be able to change the conditions of labour with a vote!…Not.
This whole post reminds me of Žižek's joke about the Mongol warrior, the wife, and the husband.
Not really, if you count slave labour in trafficking (as you should).
Sex slavery and commercial sexual exploitation constitutes the majority of the demand that drives human trafficking. And yet even by the totals of all intensive labour, especially child labour, it is still overwhelmingly female.
Modern liberal politics is the politics of charitable giving. It is not unifying people under a single banner of proletarian revolution but instead telling the whole to fight for a variety of niche issues as those are the people who need the most help at the moment. It is as ridiculous as the concept of requesting that the capitalists give us socialism, yet this is what the liberal fights for and expects all of the left to fight for. I am all for intersectionality in the sense of fighting for any issue that helps erode capitalism and build support for the revolution, not this shit where you're supposed to give up on the class struggle because it's not as important.
unodc.org
The most common form of human trafficking is sexual exploitation, 79% by their numbers.
Your numbers however also include individuals who aren't necessarily slaves, nor trafficked, but wage labourers exploited by the private economy.
Idpol is politics with identity at the base.
As long as you recognize that labor relations and technology are at the base of society and that identity is part of the superstructure, you're not doing idpol, EVEN IF you're talking extensively about identity.
One other insight of Marx is that people engage in class warfare EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW THEY'RE DOING IT. Idpol- or ideology-based emancipation and liberation movements can still be valid and worthwhile, especially if you look at the history of class warfare that predates Marx. However, if your movement is pure idpol in the modern day and age, it can very easily become co-opted into "nicer capitalism," which is basically a waste of time. This is why it is still extremely important for people to put class at the base of their analysis.
Reed wins this thread.
Oh my god, women have it so disproportionately bad in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia! That's why women need feminism in the U.S. and the E.U.. Nevermind that none of those things apply there. But they do make $0.10 less per hour! Patriarchy!
Oh my God! There are regional differences in how people treat women! Clearly this invalidates feminism as a whole because morals and knowledge are completely relative!
wew
Horseshit. Critical theory needs to die already. If the twentieth century has taught us one thing it is that whenever identity gets treated as a front for economic liberation the movement gets subverted by counterrevolutionaries. One could even say as much about Stalin's Russian nationalism.
Thanks for proving my point btw.
It invalidates the feminists' focus. It has no practical purpose anywhere that real patriarchy does not exist.
There may be some feminists who tell you that you can't be a feminist and deny the existence of 'muh patriarchy.' Just like their are feminists who will tell you that you can't believe in 'muh equality' and not call yourself a feminist. They are both wrong.
there*
sorry
I mentioned that in my post:
Identity politics is when someone uses identity (socially constructed classifications of people) as the basis for framing conflict.
One big thing that distinguishes idpol from communism is that idpol strives to preserve and protect an identity, while communists are trying to destroy their own class (the proletariat) in order to create a classless society. In this sense, all idpol is inherently reactionary.
(continued from here)
The belief that you can fix discrimination with discrimination.