Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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