gabapentin

3y

@krishna_bound basically, imo, "the application of marxist economic theory to social phenomena" you reference essentially created the conditions for the "leftist umbrella" to become the dominant node of political philosophy and ideology for the American left -- and hence, the modern self-identity of "leftism" as opposed to Marxism or anything else more specific

obviously many people do "claim those labels" but the umbrella, despite being nominally freeing and allowing people to eat at the buffet of different leftist ideologies, ultimately absorbs all those disparate efforts into the gestalt of "leftism" and, in a sense, defangs them as separate things

necromancer

3y

· edited

https://nonsite.org/why-black-lives-matter-cant-be-co-opted/

a interesting write-up from Reed, written around last year during the BLM stuff

While I do disagree with his assertion that anti-racism is antithetical to class consciousness (I find it quite the opposite, Asad Haider explains his critique of Reed on this well), I do believe it has been largely co-opted from its radical element and it has achieved nothing concrete except symbolic victories and petty reform (if even that)

krishna bound

3y

The identity politics discussion is hard to talk about because it takes a lot of different forms. In a very general "influential" sense, it's prevalence is debatable. There's some truth to the fact that "extreme" identity politics discourse doesn't really exist outside of like, twitter/youtube/reddit/tiktok/etc, but a form of what is commonly considered identity politics definitely exists as a fabricated version promoted by large conglomerates, academia, the media, and (to an extent) the government, which then trickles its way into the overton window of discussion as people begin to discuss it or identify with its themes/topics. It's true that in the wider scheme of things identity politics is a massive infectant in leftist circles, but leftist circles are already a fringe, so you're really talking about a fringe of a fringe - yes, the DSA exists for example but who gives a s*** about them besides other people on the left, even with their issues and the like, they're barely influential except for echoing the calls which exist elsewhere - i.e. supporting LGBT stuff because LGBT stuff already exists in politics. None of the "fringe" DSA ideas exist outside the DSA influentially at all, so the identity politics stuff that exists there is just a reflection of it existing elsewhere the same way. In a more hyper general sense though, "identity politics" meaning less the internet stuff and more "politics as defined by cultural parties" definitely exists more prominently, but it's not what people generally refer to when they use the word.

necromancer

3y

@krishna_bound dm

krishna bound

3y

not sure what you meant by this, was this just to bring attention to the above thing?

Womanpuncher69

3y

http://ktt2.com/messages prob sent u a dm (direct message) u boomer

krishna bound

3y

holy s*** i didnt realize this site had messages i just checked my dms and i have a ton of s*** ive never responded to

krishna bound

3y

holy s*** i didnt realize this site had messages i just checked my dms and i have a ton of s*** ive never responded to

Womanpuncher69

3y

i do agree with the overall thesis, i don’t think it’s a coincidence the biggest era of identity politics followed right after occupy wall street. so we can all forget about class politics.

race and class are interlinked, with the principal being class but i always wonder with this discussion how important is race like we can all agree the radlib is overtly focused on identity but before that point what’s the fine line.

of course u can sub in and out race with gender sexuality etc just using race in my example.

gabapentin

3y

obviously when you look at this you feel that the guy is a total idiot

and i do think he doesn't really understand what he's talking about

but also, he's unintentionally brushed up against a truth with regards to nazism, marxism, and their relation to the political world of the 21st century

obviously, the nazis were not "socialists" (meaning marxists, or left-wingers more broadly)

but just as obviously, the nazis were a reaction to the popularity of marxism in political currents

to the extent that marxism is indeed predicated on an "oppressor narrative" (which is obviously reductive but is good enough for government work/this exercise), nazism took advantage of the people's inchoate understanding that they were under someone's heel and injected "identity politics" (another reductive phrase) into that narrative

hence the famous phrase "antisemitism is the socialism of fools"

there's a reason so many former reds became brownshirts or blackshirts

This is complicated by the fact that Nazism was also influenced by American race science of the late 19th and early 20th century

In this context, it's clear that NAZISM is actually the deformed offspring of Madison Grant and red socialist impulses

Since standing in opposition to Nazism has become the central moral narrative of the post-1945 west, it is socially incumbent to develop an ideology that is the inverse of Nazism

Since Nazis and Communists were mortal enemies, it's natural for people to utilize the left as the instantiation of modern antifascism

But because Nazism is the b****** child of progressive eugenicist race scientists from a century ago, a focus on race with precisely opposing beliefs becomes essential

How can we fight Nazism, the weaponization of "IDPOL," without employing "IDPOL"

Thus "class reductionism" (i.e, Marxism) is injected by "left IDPOL" to produce the modern left, and hence the tension between the "class reductionist" impulse and the "idpol" (ethnically invested) impulse

Basically we're shadowboxing against Hitler, Jim Crow and Madison Grant

necromancer

3y

You’ve been in academia for a while. What do you see of how race is taught in universities?

I don’t like it, partly because of the distinction that I mentioned on the phone between categories of a***ysis and categories of practice. Race should be treated as an historical phenomenon comparable to others—a category I call ideologies of ascriptive differentiation—that comes into existence at a certain point in relation to specific patterns of social relations and institutions. “Race” is more often taught in universities in a way much closer to how Victorian era racists used it.

https://daily.jstor.org/adolph-reed-jr-the-perils-of-race-reductionism/

My issue with how Americans primarily understand race, and I honestly think that this is an outcome of internalized white supremacist narratives of "inherent differences", is that we tend to understand it as a material, "real" thing and not an abstraction fueled by social relations and institutions.

Institutional racism/interpersonal prejudice is definitely a real phenomenon that is fueled by this abstraction, but the way in which you destroy this oppressive, alienative framework is through changing these social relations and institutions in which Reed describes above.

Of course it won't be eliminated quickly on a personal level, but the economic alienation on these grounds should be dealt with much better in a fully socialist society, and we can make room to abolish this framework and solve this contradiction.

designing

3y

· edited

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, so apologies for bumping this thread.

Recently discovered identity politics and the subsequent subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/) and was wondering what are people's thoughts on the rejection of identity politics and academics like Adolph Reed, Jr. I'm fairly uneducated in politics as a whole, but was just curious to hear others opinions in the matter.

krishna bound

3y

The application of marxist economic theory to social phenomena is what destroyed western leftism and I will die on this hill. Applying (essentially an understanding of, for lack of a better term) anarchism to culture theory by and far was the most detrimental thing to ever enter the western conscious and western leftism will forever be defined by this imo.

necromancer

3y

I assume he's alluding to the deterministic view of Marxism and congealing the volatility of history to simple "stage" processes, but I may be wrong, that's just how I interpreted it

Scratchin Mamba

3y

Conflating anarchism with marxism

The problem really is not applying the economic theory enough and relying too much on a theory of ideology

designing

3y

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, so apologies for bumping this thread.

Recently discovered identity politics and the subsequent subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/) and was wondering what are people's thoughts on the rejection of identity politics and academics like Adolph Reed, Jr. I'm fairly uneducated in politics as a whole, but was just curious to hear others opinions in the matter.

Scratchin Mamba

3y

Adolph Reed isn't too bad but that sub is horrible

Scratchin Mamba

3y

Conflating anarchism with marxism

The problem really is not applying the economic theory enough and relying too much on a theory of ideology