Muh idpol

I don't get it. Isn't "being proletarian" an identity, too?

Oh, I get it. And therefore it also means that "blackness" is not an identity, because you have no control over it and can't escape the consequences of being a black person in America. Now I d-

Other urls found in this thread:

It is an identity. Its just the broadest, most inclusive identity category there is for oppressed peoples, so we choose that one, you fight the whole war or not at all.

go back to Holla Forums

How dumb are you that you cannot recognize this as the most basic of bait?

since when did you become the board police? I post on what I want copper


i did faggot answer it

"Being proletarian" describes your relation to production as a propertyless worker. It means you have to work for someone else (the bourgeoisie or the state) in order to make a living, and it usually also means living indebted to those same people.
Meanwhile, being black in itself means absolutely nothing. A black person can be a prole or a bourgy, just as white people can, and being a black person in a predominately black country is no different from being a white person in a predominately white country. That's the difference
Now fuck off

No you dumb retard. Its not about whether you have control over it, one has control over one's relation to the means of production, unlike blackness.
Blackness is an identity as its ramifications exist solely in the context of the social superstructure. Blackness has no consequences of itself. It doesn't mean anything particular for the person. A black person may be fucked in the US (only if they're a worker tho :^) ) but not so in nigeria, new zealand or italy). A class is the same everywhere as it describes a concrete position in relation to the process of production. A worker is fucked always.

Either the OP pathetically falseflagging or an anarkiddie libtard.

All social classes function as identities, but only few identities are social classes.

And yes, the critique of identity politics on this board has always been rather vulgar, and it's only gotten worse over the years. That's absolutely not to say that left-identity politics cannot be cancerous to the communist movement and that a critique of them is not in place, of course.

Naturally. My point is not that black people aren't divided by class but that blackness is not a subjective identity. Therefore, addressing specifically black proletarian issues is warranted.

But that's completely wrong. The defining trait of capitalism, private property of the means of production, precisely means workers do NOT have control over it.

You control your position in relation to the means of production. A worker can become a capitalist, a capitalist can become a worker.

no. you're wrong on both accounts.
lurk more.


non sequitor, 0/10 effort


It's sightly more complicated, when we look at eg. Jim Crow laws, we find that certain identity and associated disadvantages were systematically forced upon certain groups by the State apparatus and this had to be opposed(after all CPUSA was one of the first parties to demand such, back in the very twenties). Naturally, it's important to address the worse treatment of certain minorities even after the removal of such, but from "fug idpol" perspective the importance switches towards other types of more-or-less systematically enforced divisions by the state, mostly class division because there's very little systematic discrimination of minorities at this point.


ID pol is a specific tendency which developed in the 60s and 70s and is characterised by its rejection of universalism.

Read based Adolph Reed:

Does anyone have the pdf titled something like "A critique of identity politics"? I saw it around here a while ago, it would be nice to read it because I lost it. I would be grateful.

You mean this one?

Sage's not a downvote. It just means that your post doesn't bump a thread. All it does is embarrass yourself.

sage goes in all fields
stop embarrassing yourself


Why do anarchists always have such utterly cringeworthy pseudonyms?

Saging just for you, faggot.

Looks like it, thanks a lot my man.

The oppression based on 'blackness' has to be externaly imposed. There is no economic reason why blacks/women/etc should be denied certain powers. These identities are mainly just labels. (In the economic model)

Class-relations are inherent to the economy, be it a system of slavery, feudalism or capitalism, because they describe who creates a labour surplus and who gets to allocate it.

Offcourse, many identities are tied to a (historical) class (e.g. blacks and slavery). But if there is anything we've learned in the past century, it's that these imposed identities are more fluid and adapt well without changing the way our economy functions.

Make of that what you will, but see that there is a difference to be made when discussing political matters.