[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


>Identity politics is a political approach wherein people of a particular race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, social class, or other identifying factors develop political agendas that are based upon these identities. Identity politics is deeply connected with the idea that some groups in society are oppressed and begins with analysis of that oppression. The term is used primarily to describe political movements in western societies, covering nationalist, multicultural, women's rights, civil rights, and LGBT movements.

leftypol used to have a hardcore anti idpol stance. This is softened in recent years (esp. since 2020). What is the actual correct stance on "identity politics", how does it relate to class struggle, and how do we stop it from being re-appropriated by neoliberal capitalism?


IDPOL is whenever BIPOC, Women and sexual minorities start thinking they're people


left-right spectrum is idpol


class struggle is idpol, but that doesn't make it bad


The working class tends to go (exclusively) toward idpol movements because they are more and more estranged from the actual producing activity, but some ML schizos mixed up consequence and cause so they thought idpol was a CIA gladio nazi MKultra psyop to divide the working class so they created MAGA communism


Identity politics is a gateway into socio-economic analysis.
It leads people towards intersectionality or oppression olympics, dividing the working class unnecessarily. Or another way, it often leads people to be short-sighted (failing to realize that the systematic issues that affect everyone and not just their identified group) and acknowledge struggles of other identities as unimportant or even competitive. See liberal feminism vs. mens rights, in contrast with old-school (for lack of better word) feminism and mens liberation who collaborated very well.
That's why we see calls for unity and 'no war but class war'.

anyway this post is getting cut short because I'm out here touching grass. catcha, nerds.


idpol is a recent phenomenon mostly used by liberal academics that don't understand that Socialist having been dealing with the issues much longer than they have, that when they see a class based analysis of these various "oppressions", they mistake it for what they are doing because they're narcissists.


>What is the actual correct stance on "identity politics"
Strongest possible support, both for moral and strategic reasons.
>how does it relate to class struggle
Idpol struggles are both shaped similarly, and fueled by same values as class struggle is. If movements share similar goals and tactics, the refusal to cooperate would be stupid.
>how do we stop it from being re-appropriated by neoliberal capitalism?
How do we stop communism from being re-appropriated? We don't need to, idpol issues are fundamentally anti-capitalist.


the correct stance is to transcend the category of idpol as a whole and realize that fundamentally, even "anti-idpol" as we knew it in 2017 was functionally a tool to carve out a political identity for leftists not involved or interested enough in social justice matters [or who were too at odds with the orthodoxy of those circles] to become "social justice warriors" (back when that was the big bogey[wo]man), but not contrarian enough, to too wedded to left economics, or even simply too socially progressive to be right-wing culture warriors. that is to say, exactly where /leftypol/ sat - more interested in the Grundrisse than in gamergate.

as time went on, 8chan died, Trump lost, and the relatively recognizable "SJW" gave way to "radlibs" and the ever-present "woke", the positioning of "anti-idpol" in the marketplace of identities also shifted - no longer feeling a pressing need to distance themselves from "SJWs", /leftypol/ no longer sees such a strong need to play up being "anti-idpol" as the defining and fundamental part of its identity (although it's still appealed to as a means of suppressing culture war discussion). the "softening" of the anti-idpol stance that follows from this is, in fact, just a subtle realignment of who is a "friend" and who is an "enemy". (in metaphorical terms, a subtle realization that /pol/ is more of an enemy than Tumblr.) that both liberal-left and right-of-all-types are engaged in idpol all of the time always gives you a little leeway in where you pin the middle, depending on who is more insufferable on a given day.

or that's a sketch of my thinking anyway. the main thing is to shake away from thinking of the boring old politics of identity, like a pointless back and forth about gay rights, and try to get you thinking about the exciting car crash that is modern identity and how that intersects with the good old human universals of ingroups and outgroups, friends and enemies…
if your response to any of this is to imagine it means that the anti-idpol stance was "wrong" or "right" or anything so cheap as that, you're far too personally invested and i'd appreciate if you didn't project that investment on to me. why you feel that way either provides you an opportunity to examine why you were briefly hurt by a dispassionate analysis of a label for a socal norm in a web community. or to pick apart typographical errors and ambiguous wording on my part which lead to a genuinely inaccurate impression. proofreading is idpol.


File: 1669334736080.png (439.6 KB, 1191x544, noel ignatiev.png)

>leftypol used to have a hardcore anti idpol stance.
Still do
>This is softened in recent years
Never happened.
Reminder that this guy described himself as anti-idpol as well. Anti-idpol doesn't mean you never deal with problems associated with various segments of the working class.


Other liberatory movements must unite under the same banner. Other axis of oppression exist, but class must come first. We should seek to uplift all members of the proletariat and ensure a satisfying and dignified life for everybody, no matter their gender, sexual orientation/identity/race/religion/etc. Simple as.


>leftypol used to have a hardcore anti idpol stance. This is softened in recent years (esp. since 2020). What is the actual correct stance on "identity politics", how does it relate to class struggle, and how do we stop it from being re-appropriated by neoliberal capitalism?

Simply put make turn idpol issues into class related issues. Capitalism either has a direct or indirect effect in maintaining opressive acts of domination, xenophobia, racism, sexism, etc. in order to maintain itself and the people who guard it.

Thing is most "pro-idpol" leftists that leftypol hate usually wind up having the same stance on woke-capitalism- the only reason that they hate them is because leftypol goes
without any regard for people's sensibilities.

In other words- if someone tries to promote "le heckin wholesome women CEO" point out that domination via capitalism is still at present and this is merely "pink capitalism" or "pink patriarchy".


You're right, but
>"le heckin wholesome women CEO
Literally nobody ever said this. I never seen anyone say such a thing irl or on /leftypol/. As with most all idpol or contentious things online /leftypol/ just takes it's stances based off of imaginary lib takes that serve nothing.


>analysis doesn't matter
Nah brah. We agree with liberals that prison slavery is wrong, but we have a coherent analysis of why it happens and what are obvious mechanisms to subvert it. Same with identity issues. If you have no Marxist analysis then you are condemned to follow whatever liberals say, which sometimes are outright reactionary conclusions.

Other than that, I agree. The Marxist point of view is that identity issues, namely oppressed peoples and sexualities, are caused by, perpetuated, and evolve in relation to history, but particularly class society.


Do you interface with IRL feminists? Le based CEO is a pretty common take.


>class must come first
Meaningless statement. Go do things IRL and then apply your learnings to the things you say.

Identity issues, eg trans or feminicides are a class issue because they present themselves as classed oppression. Women being subordinated to men is a class issue.

The mechanisms of emancipation of the working class in general and the oppressed identities is the same, solidarity in proletarian power. No single issue orgs. Only a Marxist Leninist org, analysing the situation and judging the best course of action for it.


IMO analyzing the phenomenon is distinct from engaging in it. The former is necessary and acceptable whereas the latter is not.


NTA but which part of the US are you in? The feminists I know understand that the patriarchy is an engrained system and women CEOs are largely irrelevant.


>Identity issues, eg trans or feminicides are a class issue because they present themselves as classed oppression. Women being subordinated to men is a class issue.
Not in the formal sense. In the formal sense class is defined by the relation to production.


>MLs created Maga Communism
no that was some weird LaRouchite cultists


File: 1669344905225.jpg (511.82 KB, 2048x1367, womens-day-mx-rand.jpg)

>Do you interface with IRL feminists?
Yes. I don't think you do.
> Le based CEO is a pretty common take.
No it isn't lmao grow up.


File: 1669346862317.png (1.06 MB, 900x606, itis.png)


>Toaster controversy



It says on Noel Ignatiev's wikipedia page that he got into some controversy complaining about a toaster. Pretty basic bitch life tbh.


:O the jewish guy is antisemtic just like Marx was


File: 1669347677413.png (61.37 KB, 2210x265, toaster controversy.png)

>"Hasidic Toaster!"
<"No, OUR toaster!"
Honestly just makes me like him even more.


Haz and his ilk aren't actually MLs but a bunch of LaRouchite morons.


From my understanding of the term, identity politics is politics solely on a identity, i.e. positions solely on the betterment of a certain group.

An example that comes to mind to explain this is two different approaches on black liberation. Identity politics is pushing for a black ethnostate, this position is designed solely on the bettering of the black race. While on the other hand a non-identity politics approach, (or better phrased as a idenitys-politics approach), would be fixing the loophole in the 13th amendment that still allows slavery, it failing to be identity politics since it's an attack on black oppression and attack of the oppression of private property.

>>1280210 (Get fucked, lol)


More broadly speaking, identity politics is politics based on the fertilization of identity in a manner analogous to commodity fertilization - idpol treats relation between people as relation between a collection of identities and in the more extreme expressions these identities begin to inform behavior and how others are interpreted.


If I had to pin down the essence of what's wrong with idpol I would say this: it is philosophically incoherent and politically unstable.

By philosophically incoherent I mean that it commits the fallacy of reification, or false concreteness. It treats identity as an immutable essence when in fact it is an ephemeral contingency of history and culture. So while the individual indulges in this narcissistic identity trip, they try to locate some essential identity in themselves that is defined in terms of various conflicts with other identities, rigid species interests, and so forth, and makes these idealist notions the basic level at which to ground discourse. So when someone says "As a cis-turbo-queer attack helicopter" or "as an x" they are situating "x" as though this were some coherent, actual entity whose interests must be advanced independently of the agent who is its representative. Even though "Blackness" or "Whiteness" , and all these other monolithic abstractions have no empirical reality they are nevertheless advanced over the Real at the expense of factual relations and events. So an individual or group's "race consciousness" or "gender consciousness" is not really seen for what it is, a discrete act of introspection reflecting on a single property of a more complex field of self. Rather, consciousness IS racial, or gendered, etc. Such an outlook is necessarily narrowing and myopic , as it then reduces everything to the terms of the identity. It is no longer about how race relates to the world (or society) , for example, but how the world and society relates to race. Suddenly you can't see anything but in terms of race or whatever pet identity obsesses you. What no longer matters is the quality of what is said or done, but these moralistic rankings and presumptions about what each identity group owes or is owed by another.

Contrast this with the empirical and clearly defined concept of class. Class is a relation. Class is not an immutable identity, because the relations that define class can be renegotiated. Class conflict is a solvable problem because it is situated in material, rather than ideal space.

Secondly, idpol is politically unstable because it is fracturing. It divides groups into narrow-minded tribal constituencies, along lines that are suspiciously reminiscent of market demographics. Indeed idpol is a cultural byproduct of liberal decadence. No broad coalitions can be formed on the basis of universal interests, because each petty identity interest group must swear unswerving allegiance to its tribe.

The ruling class delights in identity politics because it knows it can divide people on the basis of it by exacerbating these contrasts and emphasizing the differentness of each identity's interests at the exclusion at those they share. It can also score false victories in the name of an empty progressivism without actually improving the quality of life for the masses simply by performing symbolic gestures that correct identiarian grievances or imbalances . Wow the first female black president! She'll still drop bombs on poor people and pass tax cuts for the rich though, but who's counting?

Nothing real has to change or improve in this game, all the material conditions can remain untouched. The world can keep getting worse.

Idpol is bourgeois in that it is self-absorbed and individualistic. As much as the identitarian wants to bask in the glory of their oh so special identity, what they they are really doing is navel gazing and making everything about them. This is political unproductive but is perfectly fitting for a political system that wants to neutralize and disenfranchise real organizing.

Now you might say, what about a situation like abortion rights? It clearly targets women, an identity group that clearly exists. That is not the same . Constructing abortion as a women's issue, as an issue attacking or seeking to control womanhood or female autonomy, is just one interpretation of the issue that can be cynically woven into a deceptive ideology. The issue inevitably implicates women, of course, but shaping the narrative to make it about women, rather than about reproduction, for instance, is just one way to rearrange the facts of the matter and to therefore obscure the truth.

The ruling class has instilled strong identity-consciousness in various population blocs, which at the wave of a wand it can then predictably exploit and move around the chess board. There is the black vote, the gay dollar, etc, all of these frozen identities are reifications that have turned groups of differentiated individuals into manipulable amalgamations with predictable interests and therefore behaviors.


File: 1669362640076.png (1.23 MB, 1598x1745, idpol.png)

>leftypol used to have a hardcore anti idpol stance. This is softened in recent years (esp. since 2020).
that's because mods only remove the idpol they don't like


The oppression is classed because the mechanisms of oppression are rooted in class.


Maybe it isn't in your context. Definitely in mine. Corporate feminism is very common.


pretty good


That's a great post I screenshotted it!


telling bigots to fuck off is not idpol


"anti-feminism" and class cuckery are pretty much inseperable


Idpol in the classical sense (as in the way it was used on /leftypol/ at its height) is when you treat ascribed social categories as substances (inherent qualities that exist unto themselves) rather than contingent on a particular social formation. One of the consequences of this is a tendency to fall into intense tribalistic bickering between said groups, based on a belief that they are fundamentally at odds and that a struggle must play out between them to resolve the current political dialectic (or worse in the case of many liberals, that the struggle is Sisyphean in nature and must continue unresolved forever). This dynamic served both to distract us from the BASE struggle underlying all other struggles - class, as well as to mystify the materially existing SUPERSTRUTURAL struggles between these identity groups, based on cultural, legal, etc divisions that separated them and discriminated against them.


correct and basically how i see it, we have neonazi death squads roaming, I can put up with 'call me xir' or whatever


I agree

do I win


>muh MLs


The left and the mainstream have mostly stopped talking about idpol. It seems like the people who are most enthralled with fighting it that want to keep talking about it all the time right now.


those movements are not equivalent but I am sure you know that. Race, sex and sexual orientation(supposedly) are all innate and unchangeable partitions of the human race.

The latter are ideologies that can be shared by all. The former divide under different banners(literally), the latter unite under one.


All politics is identity politics. Cope seethe and dilate



> It treats identity as an immutable essence when in fact it is an ephemeral contingency of history and culture
Good post, though depending on how you define identify I will disagree with this first line. There will always be a need to retain some innate identity or categorization for a people to align with to make their values. The same way all men need water, there are commonalities shared by all peoples irrespective of the history and culture imposed upon them. There is debate as what those are, and can unfortunately be taken advantage of. The cunning of modern idpol is creating a dichotomy, of either dividing the population into irreconcilable innately quarreling factions, or treating humans as completely malleable as needed, and often using these two explanations at the same time for maximum utility.

Unique IPs: 29

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]