Is identity politics the logical conclusion of capitalism or post-modernism?

We wuz vikangz

Since IdPol has gotten popular as a reaction to attempts to unify people using their class interests, I'd go with Capitalism.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What seems to be the problem? Or, to put it the other way: how do you define post-modernism?

I don't think anybody cares.

I don't think that's transphobic. I think it's wrong, but not transphobic.

Transphobia is when psychologists and radical feminists split us trannies into "extreme homos" and "AGP crossdressing fetishists"
When people say we should not be defined as women I do not consider it transphobia, but I will fight hard against that notion. I am victimized by hatred of women every day. I am interrogated over my fashion choices, anything too feminine and I am "playing into female stereotypes for my own gratification". I am subjected to patriarchal beauty standards. I am defined by my sexuality alone (Blanchard's typology is a prime example of this). In the eyes of patriarchy I am teetering between "fuckable" and "freak". Does that sound familiar to you?

Post modernism is the rejection of modernism, the idea that society has one goal or one directive towards an abstract achievement of "progress" and "innovation". It is opposition to state and Capital-defined "high culture". It is by nature anti-Capitalist. "Avant-garde" literally means "vanguard".

Wonderful argument. Excellent. Perfect. A+

...

What marxist feminists say they're about. If you don't believe me read their lit.

...

"identity politics" is a meaningless term used by the right to try and make us compete with one and other.

read it again retard

not really en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

what about it?

idpol has not tried to unify people

it has divided people

Reminder that almost nobody used to talk about and scorn idpol before Holla Forums existed.
Reminder that even tho we are a tiny group of autists on a Fingolian pictorial board we are changing the discourse.
Reminder that if you are a true leftist then you have to continue the struggle to make people class conscious and to destroy liberal bourgeois shit like idpol.

If this is presented as an idea that society should not be artificially given a single goal (DotP), then it becomes equivalent of support of status quo - something that Capitalism likes very much.

If only names of things actually changed the nature of things.

No, they don't.

Also, time for old post. I really need to start saving those regularly.

Do you English? Reaction in the sense of counteraction.

Or could you be referring to Feminism of Cultural "Marxism"?

Bullshit mate, some of us have done it since the late 90s

Not an argument.

Marx had done it since 19th century.

I'm referring to the feminism that wants to abolish gender roles and sexual division of labor.

Well, it's not Marxist Feminism.

Dare I ask?

Why call an ideology that is about the abolition of gender "feminism?"

Reminder that there are people in this board who think acknowledging the existence of institutionalised racism anywhere is "idpol". You retards are doing porky's work for him just as much as the liberals who think that the existence of racism or hatred of women means class is irrelevant.

identity-politics or whatever shit flavor of tribalism you prescribe to has always existed, people will always identify with whatever group they believe they're apart of.

They call themselves that. I'll probably post the books when I have time.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_division_of_labour

Wiki is shit, but this is a decent summary.

I have no idea.

After i tried to have a regular chat with you on the trans thread, so i can understand better your perspectives, now you call it transphobia.
Hmpf

Yeah, we have a tripfag here like that, although she just got banned for being COINTELPRO. Shit was so cash.

8ch.net/leftypol/res/1207513.html#q1207640

Because of marijuana-fueled lies

You're equating two different ideologies that cannot be equated. Read Horkheimer.

That's not what idpol is about. It's about playing one side against another and using minorities or whatever for virtue signalling to hide the fact that you're really a heartless cunt that won't do anything meaningful to benefit people generally.

Except being anti-idpol is being against discrimination and oppression based on factors like gender orientation. Such discrimination is itself idpol. The difference between us and liberals is that the move forward in an identitarian fashion, encouraging the expression of these identities rather than their abolition. The goal should be to abolish race or gender as a concept, not tell everyone that they're a special snowflake worthy of attention and validation.

This kind of liberal idpol ironically creates shit like the alt-right, because it defines politics through identity on the basis of equality, and yet doesn't allow certain identities (white, male, cis, etc) to be openly expressed and celebrated. This obvious double standard makes easy prey and cannon fodder for the alt-right.

This is correct. Liberals used idpol and Trump just used it right back against them.
If you say you're gonna make downtrodden women, downtrodden black people, downtrodden gay people or whatever your special interest group then why complain if someone says "I'll make "all you downtrodden white folk" my special interest group"? Live by the sword, die by the sword.

'Idpol' as defined as political struggle solely organized by race/gender/religion/etc. is a product of a capitalist society which refuses to acknowledge class struggle. In the absence of a class-conscious movement, the people balkanize into interest groups based on individual identity characteristics in order to get what they want. Such organization is accepted and encouraged by capitalist society as a means of diffusing attempts at radical change and commodifying dissent.

Idpol movements are based on real problems of structural discrimination and inequality, but because idpol movements do not usually advocate for the overthrow of capitalist class structure, they cannot meaningfully address or eliminate these problems. At best, they can achieve cultural changes, temporary reforms to alleviate suffering, and the empowerment of a few to positions of wealth and power. In times of prosperity this activity is accepted and encouraged, but in an environment of economic stagnation or crisis they provoke resentment or backlash from rival idpol groups, who see this as a zero sum game in which one group benefits at another's expense. The end result is the workers inflicting violence, cruelty and destruction upon each other while the system looks on and smiles.

Identity is cancerous when it being taken over by national culture, religion etc and people arent free to do and be who they are and instead become some retarded stereotype

And it is so easy to exist because people who have no achievements and nothing in life have no real individuality so of course they ll throw it to become part of something so their worthless selves can feel better

Biology isn't institutional oppression and wont go away. Gender isn't 'constructed' with no connection to biology. Ironically, social constructivism and feminism is.

that ain't idpol son, that's what elites have been doing since the beginning of time.

Yeah, that's idpol.

Then free college must be capitalism, because "safe spaces" have become barracks.

>It seems the cultivation of identity has encouraged such a psychic and emotional distance between people that some prefer to stay in their bubble everywhere they go. In this vein, Northwestern President Morton Schapiro wrote in the Washington Post last year [washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-create-inclusive-campus-communities-first-create-safe-places/2016/01/15/069f3a66-bb94-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html] that it is understandable that black students eating in the cafeteria would not want white undergraduates to join them. “We all deserve safe spaces,” he wrote, and “black students had every right to enjoy their lunches in peace.”

latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-furedi-safe-space-20170105-story.html

Kek. """""Progressives"""" have never looked so reactionary.

dude take your pills you're literally insane. Maybe you'll even manage to talk about leftist politics to people once you wake up from your paranoid persecutory complex

wtf I love Richard Dawkins now

but literally

The back of the bus should be a safe space for black people.

It's an outgrowth of faggotry, the LGBT movement.

...

...

GTFO Holla Forums. Cease your D&C.

ITT: blame more problems on state capitalism

You should try an make non-sequiturs invisible

...

why is marx so based

The politics of identity are about bypassing the roots of oppression and concentrating on the symptoms. Obviously identities exist; they are products of our place within capitalist society. Identities define the situation between the global conditions that oppress us: our nationality, sexuality, the social meaning of our gender, our physical abilities, our experience of familial relationships. In capitalist society where people's needs are subordinated to the tyranny of profit, identities provide a focal point for making some sense of who we are, what has happened to us, and what we would like to do about that. They are a survival mechanism, accommodated within capitalism as a sweetener for individuals who are denied any other control of their lives. They appear to lend a sense of individuality in a world where most people are treated as a factory, office, or gun fodder. But to form a political agenda on the basis of identity is to mistake identity as an end in itself. Identity politics celebrates and sanctifies our oppressions—rooting our individuality in a system of exploitation and compulsion rather than a context where we are free to fulfill each our own potentials. They divide up what we think to be a multiplicity of identities (gay, woman, African) into single, monolithic, even mutually exclusive, concepts that compete with one another for ascendancy*. They say that if you are not specifically oppressed on the basis of identity then you must surely be oppressing. Identity politics separates oppression from exploitation, thus divorcing cause from effect. They assert that only those who personally experience a type of oppression (homophobia, sexism, racism) can lead or even be involved in the fight against discrimination and prejudice. Identity politics reveres lifestyles, saying that it is your constitution which forms the basis of your political action. They concede the commodification of identity and encourage the fetishization of identities in the marketplace. They compete for visibility and influence. They concentrate on one symptom—say abusive language—and promote a futile counter system reform as a way of changing society. The leaders of identity politics fail to recognize class society as the root of stigmas, and blame and enter 'working class' as an optional item halfway down their shopping list of identities, or hierarchy, of so-called oppressions. In identity politics it is what and how you consume that defines you, not what and wherefore you produce.

*hence the mocking term 'oppression olympics'

Identity politics is bad, fake "individualism" is worse. The idea of the rugged individual invariant from all social causes and that individual development is more important than social development was the biggest cancer against leftism to ever be put forward. Whats worse about it is it's a hydra that isn't being resisted nearly as much as identity politics is.