A question SJW's need to answer
The debate over identity politics continues to rage over the interwebs, but I've noticed one important question about the issue is rarely asked:
Is it winning? Is racism and sexism, as defined by pro-identity politics groups, being defeated?
The answer is unquestionably: No!
From Britain's Brexit, to Donald Trump, to France's Marine Le Pen.
Counties in the Rust Belt that voted for Obama twice suddenly became racist and sexist. After all, Hillary couldn't have lost for any other reason.
In fact, all over the western world identity politics-acceptable politicians from the neoliberal center are losing, often to racist right-wingers.
Let's full stop on this point.
You are losing. So what do you plan to do about it?
Normally, when a political movement is getting trounced, there is some sort of critical self-examination to find out what they are doing wrong.
I've seen no evidence that this is happening.
Instead, what I do see is identity-politics proponents turning on leftist allies and trying to shame them for not enthusiastically joining them while rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
Do you really think that your fortunes will turn around with that strategy?
Before you answer that, I have a follow-up question.
Let's say things do turn around, and you have racism and sexism on the run.
How will you know when you've won? Who will define victory?
This is a valid question because one of your leaders, Hillary Clinton basically said that racism and sexism have to be defeated before we can worry about wealth inequality.
You see, it occurred to me today how much the War on Terror and the War on Racism/Sexism are alike.
a) The "enemy" is very vague and undefined, thus making it impossible to ever declare victory
b) The "enemy" is often stereotyped in hypocritical ways. For instance, in the GWOT, Muslims who aren't refugees are suspected terrorists. Meanwhile, for SJWs...
We’re left with the odd reality in which white kids who live in trailer parks are “privileged,” while the sons and daughters of wealthy black doctors are “oppressed” — in which the legitimate concerns of white working-class and middle-class Americans are dismissed as misguided at best (after all, they’re privileged) and racist at worst.
Here’s the problem: Progressives don’t like to admit this, but identity politics work as the mirror image of white supremacy — compressing the extraordinarily rich and complex histories of nations, continents, and cultures into one characteristic: skin color.
c) The proponents of both the GWOT and the War on Racism/Sexism are often the same people. And why shouldn't they be? Both wars accomplish the same objective - strengthening the ruling class.
Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism—its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail.
This is why Adolph Reed and I have been arguing that identity politics is not an alternative to class politics but a form of it: It’s the politics of an upper class that has no problem with seeing people being left behind as long as they haven’t been left behind because of their race or sex. That’s why elite institutions like universities make an effort to recruit black people as well as white into the ruling class. They’re seeking to legitimate the class structure, not abolish it.
Identity politics not only justifies inequality, it also works to prevent solidarity in the working class.
It assumes that social groups—say, gay or black—are homogeneous monoliths with uniform interests. And when class isn’t taken into account, socialist critics rightly note that “identity politics” has become a vehicle for the interests of elite leaders who substitute diversity in the White House and on Wall Street for substantive justice. Poor black people and poor white people both face increasing economic precarity and thus share many of the same grievances. Conversely, wealthy black elites share economic interests with wealthy people as a whole—interests opposed to those of the much larger number of black people who are economically marginalized. The same goes for wealthy women or wealthy LGBTQ people.
Growing up I always thought the objective was to have a world in which no one cared about the color of your skin. SJWs have gone the opposite way. They want a world in which we are hyper-sensitive to each other's superficial differences.
d) Lastly, the War on Terror and the War on Racism/Sexism are losing, and losing badly.
And yet, correct-thinking liberals don't seem to care all that much that "their cause" is losing.
At least they don't care enough to consider constructive criticism.
That's when it occurred to me that neither "war" was meant to be won.
Comments
Call it what you will.
But we need a new party rather soon.
Many are turned off by the duopoly we have. Hell , many are turned off by all of the parties we have.
It will need a new name and it won't matter what it's called as long as it's platform is just.
I'm flying a pirate flag currently.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
hell
Right now, "Hell" is exactly what we have!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I agree gjohnsit
Two wars that keep people in constant turmoil. New wars, old tactics though "divide and conquer".
SJWs favor the "oppressed" as long as they're rich.
They're interested in justice for retired tennis pro James Blake when he gets harassed by the cops, but not in reparations for the descendants of slaves. Or at least this is the impression I gained of them at Daily Kos. Some privileges are more equal than others for these people.
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
When the Left started losing
in the 70s, the biggest reason was it feel apart squabbling over Identity. Those with a memory know the organs of state security were overjoyed at the opportunity, which they took, to exacerbate the splits. As does the current Dem ha ha ha Leadership. Anything to keep the focus off of, for example, the coming automation where we are seeing robots building perfect homes in a day or two. Where a near-doubled minimum wage (the party's BIG economic issue) means the time when a robot cook-server becomes cost effective is halved.
Identity politics is the way Dems have decided to avoid actually winning elections, since then they'd have to produce actual benefits. Screaming at bigots, while cathartic, does nothing to change bigots. The redefining of politics as having feelings rather than as having material benefits has been the triumph of the 1%s (remember them) manipulation scheme.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Seems a very reverse needed
Seems a very reverse needed order way that they seek to fix things. Just my own opinion.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Lowest common denominator.
To me, this is what it all boils down to.
Divide and conquer.
United we stand, divided we fall.
From the clan of the caveman, throughout human history.
From the first walled community, Jericho, to the first city states. The United kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the United Arab Emirates, to the United States of America.
We have allowed our Unions to be divided.
And now, on the cusp of conquered.
It's up to us, all of us, to destroy the unions aligned against us, all of humanity.
Be it the United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the unions of Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Insurance,they all have divided the people, the world over.
We must unite against them, or all of our offspring will be lost to them.
IMHO.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
8 Men
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Question
The ultimate question to ask someone is to see who has more power and potential privilege:
Oprah, a black woman who also happens to be a billionaire, or, a white man who is homeless and living under the bridge.
While I loathe the term 'SJW', I agree re: identity politics.
This actually reminds me of things like Bacon's Rebellion or similar things from Colonial America where the ruling elites gave their white indentured servants 40 acres and a mule to keep them from working with Native and African slaves to change the system.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Nice example of exceptionalism.
Well done.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Injustice Collectors
A more accurate term would be "Injustice Collectors".
The anonymous comment on Lisa E. Scott's blogsite I just linked to is the single item I link to the oftenest here on c99p. I've now done it twice in the past 24 hours. Why? Because the shoe fits. The people who are wielding this crap to insure that both duopoly parties end up doing exactly the same thing -- serving the richest of the rich to the detriment of the rest of us -- fit the characteristics of Injustice Collectors as listed on Ms. Scott's site to a "T". Exhibit "A": the current majority of the Daily Kos website.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
the cheapest way to "win" is to bash other
on the basis of god given features. Unless you are God you don't have the power over your gender and race. (you can try to change the former, but may have less success to change the latter).
These identity politics supporters all play God. I guess God might not like it and so he manages to "teach them a lesson". Well paid, if you ask me.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Only if you believe in god can you say:
Many don't care if a fictional character likes it or not.
Peace.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
sure, I use the word God when I don't have
something more precise to pin something to.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I agree, Mimi.
I neither believe god exists nor doesn't exist. Evidence for both stances is equal. Yet I still invoke the concept of god to those I know DO believe.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
God-given
punctuation adjusted
When Mimi said:
her point was valid whether God exists or not.
If God exists, the number of beings who can change one's innate gender or race is one.
If God does not exist, that number falls to zero.
In neither case can the holder of the innate gender or race change these items at will. But the Injustice Collectors don't care; their idea is to make the number of people who actually matter as small as possible.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
The failure is built-in
So-called "identity politics" is a political failure because there's nothing political about it.
It's not politics -- it's a primitive and anti-intellectual form of critical social analysis, of a kind that leads to political paralysis. Taking "identity politics" to a political contest is like taking poorly-understood graduate-school course material to a gunfight.
that's an interesting list.
It seems to me there's a qualititative difference between the first 10 items and all of the rest.
I'm a very difficult person to live with, and I know that some of the people closest to me -- ex-wife, my kids, and my last romantic partner -- would assign as many as 9 of those first 10 characteristics to me (there's no disputing that i have the capacity for guilt, remorse and empathy). I mean -- that collection looks a LOT like a collation of the three email rants that terminated that last romantic relationship. And I'm not sure how many of them I would even try to dispute. However, little or nothing on the rest of the list applies to me. Whatever else I am -- e.g., impatient, arrogant, self-assured, easily frustrated, quick-tempered, and generally irritated by the apparent inability of the people around me to plan, prepare or communicate -- I don't think that a concern over "injustice" is a significant concept in most of my interpersonal relationships. I just want the people around me to deal with their own goddamned responsibilities, so I'm not left scrambling to somehow make all the pieces fall into place. I don't expect them to deal with my own goddamned responsibilities, and I do try to recognize those times when I'm the one who has fucked up, and apologize for them -- though often, i don't recognize that i was at fault until after i've blown my cork.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
a poor yardstick to use
The use of communications between the partners of a dying romantic relationship are a poor yardstick to use for much of anything. Such things are not what one would call "unbiased reporting", to say the least. "Slander and Libel" would be more like it, at least in my own experience.
Narcissism and arrogance are, in general, bad things. No human being deserves them, and no human being deserves to be subjected to them. No matter who you are, you still shit from time to time, and that shit still stinks. Failure to adapt to those facts is, in my humble opinion, a major impediment to peace at all levels of humanity -- whether we speak of individuals or of nations (American Exceptionalism, anyone?). And we need peace far more than we need narcissism or arrogance; and we can either have the former or the latter two, not both. They are inherently mutually exclusive.
Lisa E. Scott's blog is about narcissists. Injustice Collectors -- those who claim to be some sort of oppressed person when in fact they are the oppressors -- are some of the worst kind of narcissists there are. And again, I respectfully submit that "Exhibit A" is Daily Kos's current majority active user population.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Same old song, just in a different key
Used to be, they would keep poor whites in line by telling them, "Hey, at least you're better than the blacks."
Now they ensure black support for a corporatist agenda by saying, "Hey, at least you're better than that deplorable white trash."
The result is exactly the same. Workers, doing the exact same job, who will never see eye to eye, while their bosses make off with more and more of the fruits of their productivity.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." --Noam Chomsky
And after all, it wasn't poor whites who
started the Klan but wealthy planation owners worried about controlling "labor." Same as it ever was.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
it is easy to manipulate
the poorly informed. Fan the flames of fear and it is twice as easy.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
I don't think
it's necessarily ignorance.
I think these people simply think their personal features override all other concerns.
Even Kos 'was' a republican, but now he rants about the discrimination against brown people. Why? Well, he's brown, of course. His switch to the dems was self-serving.
dfarrah
it is culturually perfect for a $ub$et of SJW's and
and their groveling aspirants.
Ya know how many Roman patricians & English aristocrats & Southern plantation owners looked down on the mechanics & the lowly low lifes who had to actually work and actually make stuff work in order to survive? Ya know how the western bible has that STFU advice about render unto Caesar and render unto gawd, and, by the way, keep your snout outta the filthy lucre stuff cuz gawd is gonna give you everything after yur dead?
The true trustafarians of the Social Justice Warrior crowd can afford to stick their noble noses in the air & hide behind their rainbow buttons and their planned parenthood fat checks, as they allow the thieving managements of "health" care & wall street & corp-0-RAT-dom to kick us all in the groin and rip all of us off.
What makes me laugh is that for each SJW with the wealth to be Noblererest, there are 99? 999? aspirants without the wealth who deeply, seriously, steadfastly crave the approval of the Nobererest. These are the shock troops & enforcers of the politically pathetic, the diaper pissing noble nose in the air, the f'kign LOSERS to right wing horseshit.
What's in it for the aspirants? In Seattle, you get to go to holiday parties in gorgeous $4,000,000 view homes and complain about how unrealistic and unreasonable the bernie-bros are. O.K.
rmm.
But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
So, you are going to
post this at TOP (and elsewhere, I hope).
Great diary,as always.
dfarrah
Can't
I got bojo'd in December.
I'll give permission to anyone who wants to use it.
Although it might get you banned too.
I was banned during
the primaries.
I thought you were still accepted there.
dfarrah
Post at TOP?
That would be akin to stirring up a piss ant nest.
All attack, no sting.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Race and sex are campaign issues for Dems.
That's the only value Democrats see in race and sex -- they can be used as cudgels against opponents in campaigns. Bernie Sanders was a racist misogynist according to the Clinton brownshirts. After all, only rich white frat boys supported him.
For me, it all boils down to economic inequality. Working class blacks and white fight over pieces of the economic pie. Why? Because the rentier class wants it that way. Henry Ford hired blacks for his factories as a way to suppress wages paid to white people. Thus began generations of racial turmoil in Detroit.
Until economic equality is fixed, racism and sexism are desirable features ripe for exploitation by the monied and political classes. (Although they're often one and the same.)
Giving you $15/hr min. wage won't fix racism!! But Russia!!!
That is one incredible video clip which captures the neoliberal and identity politics that is the democratic party. I find it ironic that there is a African American woman in the background with an SEIU shirt. A union representing lower wage workers, and thus many minorities, and which is front and center in trying to get $15/hr min wage. And here is the union who in the primaries endorsed a candidate who refused to support $15/hr min wage over Bernie who did support it.
What I take Hillary to mean as a central tenet of identity politics is that fixing economic inequities is no way related or tied to fixing racism. Fundamentally, what the banksters (taking that term to mean the whole of the economic exploiters), do is not racism.
So what is racism then that must be fixed. Well, as far as I can tell, it is speech and attitudes. And not actions such as giving out subprime mortgages to many people of color which the banksters knew would collapse.
Identity has joined the culture wars which are political battles in good measure over symbols and speech. Down with Ann Coulter she says bad things. Don't blame the banksters who actually do bad shit.
Racism is ultimately about actions against a people such as discrimination in jobs, housing, education, health care, wages, etc. Racism is doing actual bad things to a group of people. Democratic party identity absolves the economic, social, and corporate elites from racism if they simply present the proper gestures and symbols.
When MLK was murdered in Memphis, he was there to support black city sanitation workers in getting equal pay and benefits as white workers. He was there to help solve the problem of racism by demanding economic equity. It was economic inequity that defined in real terms the racism of the city toward black workers.
This comment says it better
than I could and I was prepared to point out the same thing as you did. Excellent comment.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
thank you. Also, great essay you had on OWS.
Meanwhile on TOP
This is on the wreck'd list:
My 'Identity Politics' Are Here To Stay. Deal With It. Or I Won't Deal With You.
WTF?
I don't "get" it.
The very thing she seems to be complaining about is exactly what the Democrats have been doing for years with their lesser evilism. Or maybe I am just too dense to understand.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
okay, you and gjohnsit
made me look!
What a pathetic, almost incoherent rant.
Nice to know her uterus is more important than anything else.
dfarrah
You're in no way dense
and I know you know that but I just have to make the smart ass comment here that they would no longer know logic, fact or reason if it bit them in the ass. We are simply not meant to understand them, it would be like us "understanding" that Murka's wars are fought for good and not money, we simply cannot grasp that level of blind stupidity.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Greenwald twitter has a poll from WP/ABC which says it all
Glenn picks up on a poll that asked various questions. One set asked people to rate if the dems or gopers were in touch with people or out of touch.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
Incredible that the gop did slightly better to the dems for being in ouch with people. Score was 32% thought gop in touch, and 28% thought that dems were in touch with people's concerns. Even with thee most unpopular president at this point in his regime, democrats are perceived as being less in touch with people's concerns than gopers. (sorry still haven't figured out how to put figures in text).
Two takes.
1. The democratic party is slowly losing or alienating its base. I figure those positive numbers for each party represent the base.
2. People are not buying what the democrats are selling. Which means the Trump=RussianPatsy is not selling and it literally has been the only theme put out by the democrats really since the election. Certainly it seemed to have played no role in the last few elections as the gop still winning.
And TOP is playing a negative role with both points. All I can say is that the blind support for Hillary has given TOP a chronic illness which won't go away.
Narcissist much?
capitalization and punctuation adjusted
Narcissist much?
That's the kind of response I expect from a "Terrible Two" year old child.
(My apologies to the vast majority of toddlers, whom I just insulted.)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
From ToP re. SJW
post, and Bernie's "presense" or lack thereof...
"" You say there were plenty of progressive white guys who voted for trump or didn’t vote last election.
I don’t agree. And despite Bernie’s broad appeal outside the party, including some who are not progressive — including some right-wingers who hate both party ‘establishments’ and didn’t vote — I don’t think they’re progressive — more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2008.
Craig234
Apr 23 · 01:49:28 AM
“more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2008.”
sorry, but thats just not true, from a percentage or cumulative outlook / tally.
DRII
Apr 23 · 02:00:28 AM
I can just say I’ve seen it reported many times that’s the case.
But as far as Bernie, he did all he could for Hillary, and hopefully the reports are correct.
Craig234
Apr 23 · 08:37:19 AM
“He did all he could for Hillary” ?. . . except enthusiastically endorse her without dragging his feet long after he had lost the primary.
Except objecting when his supporters continued to vilify her as a corporate whore.
Except for trying to undermine the will of the primary voters by flipping super delegates... I could go on . . .
phoebesdatter
Apr 23 · 09:34:28 AM
So what? He did the right thing, which was to represent his voters and negotiate for influence on the platform.
Craig234
Apr 23 . 09:34:28am
my point only, "except enthusiastically endorse her"
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
enthusiastically endorse her
No honest human being could "enthusiastically endorse" Hillary Clinton. And Bernie still had some remaining scraps of integrity, hence the problem.
How could he "object"? Her Heinous is a corporate whore, and Bernie's supporters knew it. Bernie knew he was Bernie, not God (or even Xenu). He "failed" to make that "objection" because he knew it would trigger exactly what eventually happened: the bulk of Bernie's supporters abandoned Her Heinous for any other position whatsoever, be it voting Stein, voting Trump, voting Johnson, or refusing to vote for President at all.
The only thing such an "objection" would have accomplished is Bernie getting blamed personally for the utter abandonment of Her Heinous by his supporters which actually happened. The way things actually happened, the supporters themselves got that blame, and Bernie's Senate seat still retained enough value to make it worth Vermonters' while to elect him to it.
Typical TOP these days, though. The DLC types and Hillary can do no wrong, and the old Democratic base, the "New Deal Democrats", can't do anything right.
Truly, truly I say unto all: Fuck them!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
"No honest human being
could "enthusiastically endorse" Hillary Clinton. And Bernie still had some remaining scraps of integrity, hence the problem."
I don't know what less Bernie could possibly have done except telling HRC and her campaign to fuck off, having said during the campaign he would support the winner. He did that, and as the Hillary supporter pointed out, "without enthusiasm." And with damn little else in the way of "support." Hence what problem? Short of an F.U. Bernie did as little as he could to "support Hillary." And, Hillary supporters were totally pissed about it.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
the problem
The "problem" known as President Donald J. Trump, about which the Hillary supporter was complaining. The Hillary supporter obviously felt that if Bernie would have "enthusiastically supported" Hillary, his supporters would have fallen in line and elected her.
As we "who were there" know painfully well, few things could be further from the truth. Her Heinous was seriously flawed; we knew it; we refused to vote for her; and the result was the Trump victory we saw in November.
The community of those who were Bernie supporters in 2016 were and are not cattle to be herded. We are cats, with our own minds which we insist on using. The Turd Wayers who currently run the not-so-democratic "Democratic" Party don't like that, but it's the way it is and shall forever be.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
The Dems appear to be eating themselves.
When Labour under Clement Attlee set up the NHS in post WWII Britain, it wasn't 'coverage for all, except for those deplorable Tories'. Sure, assholes, bigots and reactionaries were covered... as part of the price of progress.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Nostalgia
Ah, a real Labour Party! Those were the days, eh, lad? [heavy sigh] [swallow whole shot of Scotch]
Cat bless Jeremy Corbin and his followers, though!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
A battle not meant to be won.
And you are so right to compare it to the GWOT, same deal, not meant to be won but meant to be used as long as possible. I didn't watch that clip of Her Heinous, can't stand to look at her much less hear her, but what an idiotic remark, fed to the rubes while they swallow it whole.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur