What does idpol actually mean...

what does idpol actually mean? I thought it was a term for people who didn't consider class struggle the leading problem (i.e. bourgeois feminists and white nationalists), but I've seen it used to mean anytime a non-class identity's struggles are mentioned

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HX2z2u3Uar8
revleft.space/vb/threads/193784-quot-Things-That-Anarchists-Say-to-Me-in-Private-But-Never-Repeat-Publicly-quot?p=2846255#post2846255
cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf
buzzfeed.com/alannabennett/reminders-that-representation-really-is-important?utm_term=.hnQek2kOr#.dqL1ZaZrL
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Liberals keep co-opting movements and draping themselves in the red flag, they've greatly overstayed their welcome. Rejection of social reform is a reaction to that.

This. If your liberation movement is not based in class then you can just fuck off. No more Beyonces or Woodhulls.

But what about base and super structure. Won't racsism and sexism fade away once capitalism is overthrown?

Identity politics, in every manifestation, has been the rot of 21st century anarchism.
It is perverse, not because it's "too extreme" but precisely because of how hysterically weak it is. talking about drivel like "straight/male/white/cis" is absolutely fucking abominable on a political level, in fact, such words - stemming of course from reactionary muh privilege theory - are used precisely as a substitution for political language. Basically, such "anarchists" know that what they seek is impossible - this excessive use of pseudo-political correctness, this talk of "straight/male/white/cis" - they know all they're doing is keeping in check something which simply, inevitably exists (in their OWN minds). This is the whole point of muh privilege theory - if oppression is conceived in terms of "privilege", then it's merely a matter of keeping yourself in check with false guilt. In this sense, these kinds of anarcho-masochists are the modern Leftist equivalent of the self-flogging, as we saw during the black death. Like the inevitable despair wrought from the plague, some of our anarchist friends see the existing coordinates of power with a sense of pathetic despair, and lack the Communist language that cures it. So they resort to guilt.

Communists do not flog themselves. Communists do not have guilt over ANY kind of essential characteristics! A Communist is not ashamed of being white, straight, male or cis. That is because Communists recognize that even if they fit all of these qualifications, they do so while constituting the living expression of their negation as ESSENTIAL characteristics. A Communist is not one BECAUSE he is white, for example - that does not mean being white entails guilt, it means recognizing that you are a Communist above all, and that while you recognize the connotations of whiteness, you struggle for its destruction - what is more to say? It's no wonder you find so much slimy pieces of shit "male feminists" who end up as sexual abusers - because this 'guilt' is a god-damned sham, it is the highest expression of ideological ingenuity. One cannot ACTUALLY be guilty about something which is essential, which is INEVITABLY something you conceive as definitive of your character. Instead, the guilt is used to ABSOLVE the subject of the - yes - demanding commitments of the real struggle - and yes, I'm talking about the POLITICAL struggle. The only struggle, mind you, the one that gives meaning, substance and vitality to all of its subsets. Moreover, such guilt nonsense is condescending, it not only reveals a deep lack of insecuirity, a weakness and deep-seated hysteria, it is thoroughly a perversion of the same "relations of power" which perpetuate their conditions. Again, it is the ying of the yang it inevitably will present itself as opposing. Communism is the NEGATION of identity, not its celebration. Those who lack faith in Communism, those who do not place the real struggle in the class struggle, have no place in the future of the Left (if there is one). It is almost as though we are so muh privileged today (to be ironic) that we can reduce politics to the controversies of the university, or the office-work environment.

And please, before you start, I am well aware that such issues permeate the marginalized, the working classes, and so on - no one is falling back on reactionary games where we use the poor and ignorant as a means to deflect real theoretical engagement. The point is that all of these issues are SECONDARY to the wider class struggle. While the social antagonism intensifies on the systemic level, while reaction and darkness (which is very much fancying itself upon attacks of so-called "tumblr culture" in a way which appeals ordinary people, or at least embodying the reactionary temptations of the working class against this - of course they don't ACTUALLY know or give a damn about internet-talk, ) brood, this is what the 21st century Left gives us.

To put it shortly, if your politics, if your ideological foundations are so WEAK that you have to rely on this stupid fucking political correctness, you should resign into apathy immediately or recognize you're not what you say you are. Again: Only the guilty blush! Innocence is ashamed of NOTHING. The class struggle is the primary struggle - without it, none of any of this means a damn thing. THAT IS NOT to say that Communists today ought to IGNORE other mediums to struggle, but subsume them into the wider Communist struggle. For example, if there is homophobia in politics, then one should go as far as to say that there was rot in the politics to begin with - it is not a game of picking and choosing your priorities. All other struggles must be divided on class lines, but of course it's our duty to defend them in the midst of the reaction. We oppose BOURGEOIS feminism, as Communists, but we defend even bourgeois feminism against the reaction. We oppose BOURGEOIS queer politics, but defend them at the level of their attacks by the reaction. This is not wrought from political correctness, and if people have to be kept in check in this way - there is probably something wrong with those people ideologically to begin with.

Yes, that's why we're simultaneously always bitching about it but not actually total dicks about the groups concerned and acknowledge their problems.

the social norms of previous societies can still affect current ones. It is highly unlikely that all of the built up history under capitalism will just fade away once modes of production switch.

shut up. This retarded way of arguing is exactly what liberals think of when they imagine an anti-idol straw man.
don't say "racism and sexism fade away once capitalism is overthrown", say racism and sexism are the result of, and maintained by capitalism. The only way these concepts have any power over people is because of how society is structured.

I'm not sure why guilt is inherent to recognizing that groups can be/are marginalized. If I recognize a race/gender/whatever that is marginalized, I don't feel guilty about it, since it's not my fault

This is our position, Not: Lets ignore racism until we've overthrown capitalism, as liberals accuse us, but lets fight racism directly instead of the periphery results of it.

Well put

To me idpol always seemed like a perversion of intersectionality theory that "conveniently" forgets to include proper class analysis.
It's not uncommon for someone engaged in idpol to even outright marginalize someone for bringing up class analysis, reject their marginalization, or attack one for their identities, claiming they are more muh privileged or whatever

It's pretty much always a white middle class woman or absolute flamer doing this.

we need to kill all the whites so we can eradicate idpol.

This right here buddy

Holla Forums promised me this bitch would be dead by January, now here we are.

these posts should be banworthy, if only our mod team was not made up of idpolers

Would you like to meet my friend Nestor Makhvo?

ah yes of course

Who are you quoting?

In socialist parlance, idpol refers to politics based not on class struggle but on sectoral, interclassist identity-based interests.

On Holla Forums, it's an epithet hurled by edgy teens and Holla Forums renegades at anyone who dares suggest race and gender might be connected to class.

OP's attached pic has a guy saying "You fucking tankies sinner" as an example of "idpol."

Leftist idpolers do use "tankie" as a slur though, especially when accusing others of being trans/homophobic.

Don't exonerate intersectionality theory, for it is inherently identitarian.

It's a kind of band-aid over naive identitarianism that divides people into groups based on a single aspect of their personhood (like type of genitals or skin color), in that it posits that people should be understood as an intersection of those aspets of their personhood. It may help an identitarian comprehend that people differ, but ultimately it does nothing to solve the main issue of dividing people into groups based on unessential characteristics and ignoring their individuality.

I don't get why the class struggle isn't considered idpol itself. I mean "worker" is an identity and they are trying to liberate themselves. How is that not the same thing as idpol.
It seems like you just want to muh privilege one form of idpol above and beyond all others.

Wait, so are you claiming there were no racism and sexism before Capitalism?

This thing is all well put and interesting but seriously how do you communist think people won't just be listless and purposeless after Communism if you define your movement as the literal destruction of all identity. Having a definitive understanding of the self is an essential and healthy factor in meaningful life.

...

Its not a byproduct of capitalism but of class society, capitalism is just one form of class society (slave/feudal/capital)

youtube.com/watch?v=HX2z2u3Uar8

Idpol discussions are so boring I would rather engage in vitriolic exchanges about the value form with leftcom

They are the same every single time

It's an over focus on idpol and claiming it is more important the class. Though I take a stance that ignoring or downplaying cultural aspects that adds to class oppression is just as bad as Idpol. I actually don't mind talking about identity but it should really be connected to class in some way.

original post by rafiq here:
revleft.space/vb/threads/193784-quot-Things-That-Anarchists-Say-to-Me-in-Private-But-Never-Repeat-Publicly-quot?p=2846255#post2846255

class is based on real material conditions, not idpol. lurk moar.

You can do things without identifying with them. Identification is a substitute and a means of blurring away your fundamental humanity into some pseudo-commodity group. Nowhere perhaps is this more obvious than with music, where one will identify with a certain genre despite regularly liking different genres just for the purpose of having something to anchor themselves to.
Indeed capitalism destroys the fundamental identity of doing and being with that of buying and consuming - I am no longer an Englishman because of the deterritorialising effects of capitalist globalisation (not to defend nationalism, but to show the direction of travel and how even old capitalist identities collapse) - but I am a gamer.

I understand that for example I have had depression. I did not however, identify as depressed at any stage. It was a condition, a trait, but not an identity. I did not feel any need to build who I am around an illness for the purposes of branding myself in an attempt to obtain social capital in one form or another. The negation of identity is not the negation of being.

fighting racism is fighting capitalism, because capitalism enforces its imperialist hegemony through racism.

however, electing a black president or buying albums from black millionaires is not fighting racism. neither is tagging CWs.

real anti-racism is fighting police violence, fascist rhetoric, and discriminatory apartment rental practices.

Class doesn't work as the basis for a revolution because class is permeable if you're not a dumb nigger.

Nope. Racism, sexism, and classism, are all manifestations of the tribal discrimination mechanism. Capitalism does indeed arise from this mechanism, but one does not drive the other unless you're so salty you cant see straight.

Intersectionality is a creation of advertisers to stuff 'lifestyle marketing' into commie revolution. Pure D&C.

Poorfag spotted, bitching about rent, how about you make some investments?

More like if you're inhuman.

why are you here Holla Forums?

...

If you re-read your post, you'll see that you actually made 0 arguments. Only baseless claims.

Not my post. It's based on reality. We know class isn't a static condition that you're born into. When you put up a graph supposedly displaying "wealth inequality," it's only a snapshot that ignores the fact that each individual's "class" is changing over time.

Of course for some smelly antifa, their class is permanent because they don't have the skills to move up, but for the general population capitalism makes class mobility possible, which is why leftist states have less class mobility and a more static, entrenched ruling class.

I don't understand class: the post.
(Protip: It's not income.)

If we're going to judge by power and influence instead of income then the ruling class is leftist and Jewish. In what sense are you not bootlickers of the establishment?

This tbqh

You really don't know what class is, do you?

what does it mean to be 'marginalised'?

Holla Forums's retarded vision of the world is honestly so awesome and i wish it was real

If it's not about wealth, and it's not about power, then what is it about? What useless, distracting leftist definition have you given it?

You already define "my" property as "your" property with your leftist word games. What game are you playing this time?

it's about your relationship to the means of production. the game is called dialectical materialism. if you own capital, that is to say, the means to turn money into more money, you are a member of the propertied class, the bourgeoisie.

if the only way you can make money is by selling your labor, you are a member of the proletariat.

i assure you, the people who don't have to work for a living have no intentions of reorganizing society to change that.

Materialism motherfucker do you speak it?

Relationship to the means of production.
Bourgeoisie = Large business owners, etc. Not necessarily CEOs, the game is ownership not management
Petit-Bourgeoisie = Small business owners who employ others, but also directly do the work of their own business. Also arguably in the modern case rarely actually own their business to begin with, since it's really the bank's.
Proletariat = Anyone who sells their labour for a wage, even if that's an obscenely rich doctor.

Yeah whiteboi we gonna take your toothbrush.
private property isn't the same thing as personal property either, dummy.

But everyone can own capital. It's not limited to one group.

no fucking shit. once you own capital, you're in the bourgeoisie, and you become the enemy. the problem is there's only so much capital because value comes from socially useful labor.

therefore the majority of the people must always be in the proletariat, and thus suffer exploitation at the hands of the property owners.

In what sense is controlling the means of production not "socially useful labor"? Owning a business and repairing a machine both involve necessary work.

Owning a business does not involve necessary work.
Managing a business may well be necessary, but ownership is not.

If you own the business, you get the profits of the business. If you work for a business, you get what the boss decides to pay you. They are completely be different.


Also this. And as proof that ownership isn't socially necessary, co-ops exist.

My spook detector is off the chart.

Identity is an impediment.

A business/corporation doesn't produce anything. It's a legal mechanism that allows the propertied to extract surplus value from the proletariat who are the ones actually producing.

I came.

Co-ops are a form of ownership.

Democratic ownership by multiple persons isn't really ownership at all, but I'll grant that it is under the yoke of capitalism.

Co-ops exist in anarchist and socialist societies such as Rojava, North Korea and Cuba.

Human interaction will be like water flowing through water.

None of those places are socialist or anarchist societies.

disagreed bitch

American style idpol, with its buzzword theology originating on the internet and with corporate diversity consultants is definitely something worth analysing. I believe the system has become complicit with what Deleuze and Foucault would refer to as the society of control. The subject's identity and self perception are now something to be managed by experts, made to fit certain established patterns. The complexities of subjective identity need to be flattened out in order to conform to the system. Under the societies of control, 'social progress' has been institutionalised, made synonymous with individual advancement within the corporate ladder, the media and academia. The 'oppressed' subject is conceptualised as a psychiatric patient who needs constant validation from 'society' in order to maintain a semblance of self worth. The invisible center of this system lies with righteous 'progressive' whites, who are, after all, the ones who dispense precious acknowledgement and validation. The subject is not given the option to reject or accept the system, which presents itself as an apolitical and nonideological technics of 'decency'.

cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

Proof that bootlickers are literally too stupid to live.

Someone has to own the business. It's either privately owned by someone who wants it to succeed, or collectively owned by government bureaucrats that don't know how it works.

...

identity will emerge organically from forms of life, rather than being something that is imposed from above.The inherent misery of 'strategic' essentialism will be a thing of the past, as people will no longer feel obliged to prove anything to an abstract 'society', that is ultimately not real but a spectacular representation of a nonexistent unity.


buzzfeed.com/alannabennett/reminders-that-representation-really-is-important?utm_term=.hnQek2kOr#.dqL1ZaZrL

Cuba and Rojava are, but not DPRK.

You've been taught that winning means oppressing the loser…that's why you're oppressed. You've given permission. Hi! I'm Bourgeoise…I have guns and a glut of resources. Is your revolution going to be able to defeat me? Hardly, you still don't know what human really means.
Put down Marx. Pick up Jung. Integrate your shadow. Clean your room I await new competitors.
Come at me you broke bitch.

That's me! We're psycopaths. We unironically kill commies for fun. You work for us. Dummy.

I'd have to pick him up first.

there's more of us than there are of you, and we make all of your guns and harvest all your resources. we will kill you.

D'aww, look a the wittol temporarily inconvenienced Stalin with his edgelordian cuck rage. Please, send me a sample of your genes so the automatic sentry bots can put you up against the wall last. You'll be amazed by the Kill/Death ratio when automated socialism bumps up against automated capitalism. Welcome to the fantasy zone.

Well, you'll be easy to suppress then…What a 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧meme🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Amazing.

lmao this is embarrassing. i'm speaking from historical experience and you're jerking off over an imagined future.

spoiler: you don't win. either global warming kills the bourgeoisie or the proletariat do.

'marginalisation' always exist in relation to an implied structure, that is an unitary representation of society. Identity politics emphasises the symbolic moment of acknowledgement in which the 'privileged' person acknowledges the marginalisation of the 'oppressed' person. but we must ask ourselves, for whom is this display intended? what does it achieve? why are autonomy and the lack thereof confined to abstract identity categories and abstract representations of society? Why has the left become more focused on the quantification of opression, on the crafting of morally differentiated hierarchies of opression, some more 'fair' than others rather than on the overturning of the whole system of control?

Not at all imagined.
Well…the gene stuff sure.
The field drones, bucko, those exist, and you don't stand a chance….It's gonna be so fun!
Don't you love genocide?

this is creepy and edgy. the bourgeoisie can scarcely keep their own imperial proxies al-Qaeda and ISIS under control. they're backstabbing idiots who won't ever be able to unite against proletarian consciousness. fascism has a very, very bad track record and it won't save them.

Of course capitalism destroys all forms of authentic identity and subverts them to serve capital. That's one of the main problems with capitalism.
But don't you see this inherent drive to find some cogent form of identity as a fundamental aspect of the human experience. We need something authentic to root ourselves to as an identity. Identity is a layer above simply being and stripping existence down to that bare reality will only deteriorate the fullness of our lives. Even today in the liberal capitalist society we see people desperate for any semblance of an identity.

It's really just replacing one paradigm with another.

I use it to refer to people who place their identity based struggles on a par with class struggle or make up daft new identities for vanity reasons (vide "Enby"). Without focusing on the battle to secure food and warmth, which are physiological, we are resultingly no different to those "bourgeious feminists" and are essentially co-opted into the militant wing of the liberal reformist establishment.

I've can seen this effect on twitter, there are irritating idpols who make all the right noises, then start defending vocal anti-communist liberals who argue that it's bigotry for straight men not to want to suck tranny cock and denigrating leftist podcasts for making a few jokes about gay sex. Liberal entryism writ large.