Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DarkArmillary wrote

I have considered that argument, and imo, No "working class" is not an identity.

It is a statement of material economic relations. I cannot opt-out of the "identity" of working class; nor can I choose to identify as "rich, ruling class" because that too is not an identity. These are implicitly terms denoting hierarchical relationships. (Yes, it should be argued that racial and sexed terms also carry hierarchical relationships; this is due to the dynamics of history rather than an inherently unequal situtation; in other words there can be "equality" between whites and blacks, until race itself is abolished once and for all; however there can never be equality between working class and ruling class unless class is abolished).

Arguing that "working class is an identity" can be considered "identity politics reductionism." Ultimately, it whittles down the core of economic anti-capitalist struggle, by making it seem as though it's just an individualized "identity."

−4

celebratedrecluse wrote

I did not know you can opt-out of being black, or that being black is a matter of individuality rather than a group categorization

12

zoochotic wrote (edited )

Class is also due to the "dynamics of history."

You seem to be comparing the most superficial individualized elements of black versus white with the most systemic version of working class versus capitalist, in order to fit your dumbass Marxist model. It's like if I said racism is the most important because of police brutality, economic inequality, and mass incarceration, whereas class is just whether you prefer above-ground pools or BMWs, mountain dew or perrier.

We've got a great decolonial & race theory wiki here, go read some of it.

6

DarkArmillary wrote

Not a marxist. Hi. And yeah all of these social forces of oppression have historical basis and momentum, true.

I think I see where you're getting the interpretation that I'm comparing these things in different ways, one being more superficial than the other, perhaps given my wording. I was trying to convey a lot in parentheses so maybe I'll try again...

Economic class, and race, and sex, (and many other forms of oppression), are all intertwined at the deepest level. So, intersectionality, appropriately applied (which it often is not), is intended to address or at least recognize the interconnected threads of oppression that span this world. okay. By "appropriately applied" I mean looking at the systemic level of these various oppressions, and their material causes and effects (marxists don't have a monopoly on the term); rather than the superficial and individualized (one could say "liberal") version of analysis — which is also part of the reason why I put "equality" in scare quotes above, to signify that it's referring to a watered-down liberal version; that without abolishing race itself and all racial categories, there would not be genuine equality in terms of "race" (a fabricated and fallacious concept anyway).

So it is in considering the liberal notions of "equality" that is superficial. Which is why you never hear liberal institutions advocate for equality amongst classes — of course that goes against their very nature. So for instance, it is commonplace to hear (watered-down) anti-racist and anti-sexist sentiment from institutions and businesses. They know they can integrate it, at least to some extent, superficially. In this respect, in much of our every day life, we hear that there is (or should be, ideally) an equality between races and so on. It's always been superficial coming from institutions, from the constitution to marketing. Conversely, there can never be - even conceptually - an equality between working class and ruling class.

0

zoochotic wrote (edited )

No one here is talking about the liberal versions though, it is being "appropriately applied."

Class is presented in similar ways to gender & race all the time. The democratic party has been treating class as merely a superficial identity for fucking 50 years (or hell, look at the socdems, Bernie certainly isn't talking about the means of production). There's plenty of "working class culture" from the working class themselves as well. Now, I imagine you would say "well they don't mean class in the relation to the means of production sense", but they also don't mean race in the race theory sense either so how is that relevant? You can treat either one as an identity.

3

DarkArmillary wrote

I think Democrats have sold out the working class in both words and deeds for 30+ years. They haven't been making even superficial or empty rhetoric to the working class; they've been moving ever more right-wing and cozying up to financial and tech corps. Maybe you could elaborate on what you see as Dems treating working class as a superficial identity, as opposed to outright ignoring it. It would make more sense to say that the Republicans use working class culture as a superficial identity, and use that manipulation tactic as part of their wedge issue and culture wars appeal.

2

zoochotic wrote

My point was just that class gets used as an identity, the Republican example works just as well.

5

DarkArmillary wrote

I would mainly call those appeals by Republicans to be a manipulation tactic which exploits cultural divides, among other things.

However, I can conceive of a thing called "working class culture" and being generous to terms, I can see how it can be argued that that's an "identity." But of course that understanding comes a superficial level, which is exactly what allows it to be hollowed of all significant meaning (ie, existing class relations), in order to be promoted by the same capitalist business party that sells out working class interests daily.

Because that's what "identity" really is — a superficial thing. It lacks structural analysis.

So, if "Working Class" can get used as an "identity" in a manipulative sense by a capitalist political party, then we can say that this is clearly superficial; and the underlying truth of the matter is deeper than that, it is based on actual material economic relations between working class and ruling class, generally speaking (plus variations for modern day class stratification).

Therefore, to present the argument that "working class is an identity" falls perfectly in line with the hollowed out versions of "working class identity" promoted by capitalist political parties. Meaning: we shouldn't do that. We should demand a deeper, structural understanding.

2

zoochotic wrote

I agree, but the problem is that OP was referring to all the other structural issues (race, gender, etc) as mere identity, and opposing them to the only deeper structural issue of class.

4

DarkArmillary wrote

Hard to say what OP was really saying since he got dogpiled and sidetracked by trolls right away, then banned. Maybe he was saying, maybe he wasn't. Certainly the question is sensitive and they could have worded their position better. Still, it's easy to jump to conclusions and assume "class reductionist" and hey — now its a party, because the ideologues get to gang up on an "other," and that's always fun for them.

Obviously, if one's argument is that anti-racist and anti-sexist (etc) efforts should be opposed or abandoned in favor of economic class struggle, that is class reductionist, at best, and at worst it's actively racist or misogynistic in attempting to shut down those avenues of struggle.

I don't know OP or what views he really holds on this topic, but I can see he mentioned that class struggle is "more important" comparatively, not that other struggles are unimportant — there is a distinction to be made. For example, a lot of serious activists in the 60s (anti-racists, civil rights, black panthers) have made similar arguments, as they did recognize and clearly articulate that economic class and the struggle against capitalism is fundamental and in a sense runs deeper than racism (but in no way does this negate or invalidate anti-racism). Today, internet anarchists would call them class reductionists in order to win a few "i'm radder than you" points.

Of course it all depends on perspective and I've seen good arguments regarding why, for example, patriarchy and sexist oppression came first and is fundamental. The truth is it's all intertwined and needs to be torn down together. But "identity" will always stop short of that.

0

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

We know you're a class reductionist too.

1

DarkArmillary wrote

If you haves problems with reading comprehension, I won't make fun of you. Go ahead and read more of my comments, feel free to ask questions if you get confused.

−1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

If you haves problems with reading comprehension,

Muh ableism.

2

DarkArmillary wrote

No I was sincere, I would be patient if you are trying your best. I've know people with learning disabilities. Just have to patient. If that's not the case though, you're just a troll. You're not engaging in "good faith" here so I have no interest in really explaining things to you, things which you could scroll up and read anyway. My suggestion is that you make this day more fruitful for yourself, rather than being a troll all day. You're mostly wasting your own time, you know.

0

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote (edited )

You're mostly wasting your own time, you know.

Says the white knight crying about female erasure. You're a little child who just wants to be understood. It's okay. 😚

3

DarkArmillary wrote

When you throw out that term, it shows that you have more in common with selfish alt-right thinking than anything else; as if the only reason someone might care about issues not related directly to themselves is so they can get some advantage by doing so. Nothing more to say other than you're wrong, troll.

−1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Because that's what "identity" really is — a superficial thing. It lacks structural analysis.

mfw when I'm sure you don't know what intersectionality is. First you say it's bad then you say anarchists obviously already think this way, but it's still wrong!

2

DarkArmillary wrote

Looks like you've gone and confused yourself with those quotes. As with others on this thread, you seem to be using "identity," "identity politics," and "intersectionality" as interchangable synonyms. They are different concepts that explain different (related) things.

1

A_Boy_and_his_Bean wrote

I think you're confusing varying definitions of what it means to be an identity, because what you're describing are personal identities, or the internalization and personalization of "oneself", how one is defined internally, but this differs from your social identity, or your social face, which is how one is defined externally.

"Working class" is absolutely a social identity, even if you don't "identify" with it, it is a label, a social-face, impounded upon you by your environment; it likewise can be, and oftentimes is, internalized by those labeled as it, this is to say that it can become part of one's personal identity.

1