You must log in or register to comment.

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Have you thought about how "working class" is an identity?

Yes, it is also a structural position in society reflecting different material conditions?

So, just like race, gender, and the lot of things you lump in with identity?

14

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."

0

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

10

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.

5

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.

1

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.

2

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.

4

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.

0

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.

0

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

If you haves problems with reading comprehension,

Muh ableism.

1

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.

−1

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. 😚

2

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!

1

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.

0

F_x wrote

Intersectionality.

8

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

Just because all forms of discrimination overlaps, that isn't to say there aren't some forms that are more important, such as classism, which hurts all of us, not just certain minority groups.

−6

ziq wrote

How are you defining "more important"? More important to you?

6

Dumai wrote

what's "identity"

7

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

It's when you put individual things such as gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, race above that which unites us collectively (class).

−4

Dumai wrote

none of those things are "individual things"

8

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

Jesus christ everybody, not every statement has to be about everything all at once. I was talking specifically in the context of building a city, one made by women would still be horribly fucked up if built under capitalism. I’m not and never have been a class reductionist.

Can yall relax sometimes and let me explain myself without banning me from the sub?

Seriously, I’m anti-class reductionism, to the point where I’ve saved like twenty long Lenin quotes specifically to turn away Leninists from class reductionism.

Edit: I’m not going to bother explaining myself more, I’m not a class reductionist, period. Leave me alone

4

bloodrose wrote

I was talking specifically in the context of building a city, one made by women would still be horribly fucked up if built under capitalism.

You didn't look at the article posted, clearly. You literally just gut-reacted to the title. The article goes into some of the classic criticisms of cities, bt-dubs. But you know, let's just be class-reductionist instead of reading what people post.

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I did watch the video, it was a mostly fluff video by the BBC, obviously it wouldn’t go into how their liberal solutions can get monetized and exploited by the rich in a way that’s just as harmful to working women as city design is now.

−2

bloodrose wrote (edited )

it was a mostly fluff video

Female Architects talking about how women interact with their environments = fluff piece. Sexist much?

3

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Now I will be honest, using the whole they are 'females,' and then calling Browse sexist isn't a good look no matter how I feel about Browse.

4

bloodrose wrote

My absolute apologies. Thank you for taking the time to point out my poor phrasing. I did not mean to claim femininity or be TERF-y. It was meant to be a call-out of calling pieces about women fluff. I am leaving the phrasing there and not editing the comment to keep it educational for others who see it.

4

Chylan wrote

I am leaving the phrasing there and not editing the comment to keep it educational for others who see it.

Thank you and thanks to /u/tHeErAsEr1. Otherwise I would never know using this phrasing in this context is problematic.

2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I know I’m not cis, so a lot of the things the video talked about don’t apply to me, but I am a woman and I’m not sexist.

Seriously, not every statement has a larger meaning behind it, sometimes comments are just about specific things. And this specific video was a fluff piece. Don’t call me sexist again please.

2

bloodrose wrote

I apologize for using female in my original phrasing. That was bad judgment and not meant to be TERF-y.

However, I think I need you to define fluff piece. Because I don't think talking about the fact that women use cars less and therefore planning around public transport would be women-centric is "fluff". Women's work is often trivialized and called fluff and so I find it a very sexist thing to do, no matter your gender. Women can be sexist as well, my friend. Internalized misogyny is real.

7

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Totally agree with you! I've just dealt with too many TERF's to NOT have gut reactions. 😁

2

bloodrose wrote

I 100% appreciate having my poor language choices pointed out. I do not experience the same crap you do so I am ignorant. Thank you so so much for calling me out and letting me know. <3 You rock!

6

DarkArmillary wrote

bloodrose, you deleted out the descriptor of "female" because someone hinted that it might be "TERF-y"? That's very unnecessary. This dynamic comes about due to the absurdities of authoritarian ideology — "you can't say that, or else you are a heretic, and exiled."

Sometimes it's a perfectly valid word to use, when appropriate. We can determine by context if it's used in a sexist patriarchal manner or as a more neutral/accurate descriptor.

Having someone police your language so that you edit out the word "female" is literally what's called "female erasure" — and it's endemic within patriarchal society; now it's dressed up in "woke" sophistry. You don't have to apologize and prostrate yourself to these ideologues.

−6

zoochotic wrote

It's not authoritarian to point out troubling language. People often want to know how their speech is being interpreted by others and bloodrose explicitly said that they appreciated the response.

7

bloodrose wrote

Absolutely! I should be better educated on this and it is no one's job to educate me on it so I appreciate the free education - someone took time outta their day to educate me. I feel thankful for that. :)

7

DarkArmillary wrote

u/zoochotic: Regarding harmful or "troubling" language: The N-word and the B-word and so on are fine to "call out/in" because they are actively harmful.

In contrast, the word "female" is not actively harmful. It is a descriptor. For the argument to be made that it is somehow harmful, it has to pass through at least two layers of subjective abstraction, based on an individual's interpretation. Again, contrast this subjective interpretation of "female" to actively harmful bigoted words which are well-established as socially harmful in practically every circumstance used.

Notice how none of us here actually have a problem typing out the word "female." We don't have to censor it. That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

"When comparing the badnes of two words, and you can't say one of the words — that's the worse one."

u/bloodrose

−2

zoochotic wrote (edited )

Very bizarre argument you're making here. You seem to be suggesting that we should change our language not to accommodate or communicate better with other individuals we care about, who subjectively have an experience of a word different than our own, but instead to meet some fickle conservative social norms. The N-word is well-established as socially harmful, it wasn't 100 years ago. The B-word is barely established as socially harmful, it wasn't even just 10 years ago. So if 100 years ago someone voiced discomfort with you using the N-word around them you'd object? 10 years ago you'd tell women that the B-word isn't actively harmful? If you aren't making these decisions based on another person's subjective experience of the world, I don't know what the fuck you think you're doing. Like, is your interest here just in complying with social norms like an automaton? That's cop logic.

Notice how none of us here actually have a problem typing out the word "female." We don't have to censor it. That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

That's because of context. If I said, "I was assigned female at birth", there is nothing offensive about that. If I said "trans women cannot use the women's bathroom because they are not females", that is clearly a problem. If I used the word "female" instead of "women", some people will get TERF vibes. For some people the word has connotations with TERFs that you yourself might not be familiar with, but you might want to be sensitive towards to a) make them more comfortable and b) not come across as a complete asshole or TERF.

"When comparing the badnes of two words, and you can't say one of the words — that's the worse one."

Mulaney is talking about the N-word versus "midget". Mulaney is simply saying that the former is worse, whereas you are arguing that calling little people midgets is fine and they should quit complaining - despite the problematic history of the word & the way people have used it towards them throughout their lives. Mulaney is not making the same point as you, and would disagree. And for the love of God please go read one of the books that you desperately need instead of getting your political philosophy from a comedian.

5

DarkArmillary wrote

So now I'm a conservative with cop logic, when earlier you called me a dumbass Marxist. You're all over the map here. I mean pick an insult and commit, buddy. Maybe you need clarification: I'm an anarchist. That's why I'm here, arguing with anarchists ;)

Very bizarre that you ignored key parts of my argument. My argument is not based on fickle norms of today or any other time, but rather a critical assessment of the harm that's actually done or clearly implied by the word. Bigoted words fall in that category. "Female" in itself does not fall into that category, and it is absolutely an absurd argument to say that the word itself is offensive. If it's used in a specifically patriarchally insulting way, then sure; but as a mere descriptor, that's an absurd argument to say it's offensive.

"If I said this then it's acceptable".. "if I said such and such then that is a problem."

What you're really trying to do is police my speech. I see it for what it is, authoritarian.

I have zero tolerance for hate speech and bigoted words. "Female" is not one of them and you will not convince me that it is.

0

zoochotic wrote

How's that all over the map? Most Marxists are conservative cops ;)

The person expressed exactly what the harm is. Harm is subjectively defined. Bigoted words used to not fall into that category, until over time & with much resistance they came to be. Language evolves when individuals voice their subjective experience with the use of language.

No one has said "female" is inherently bigoted. What is being said is that many TERFs use the word female instead of women to make a bigoted point about biology & gender, and it was suggested that the word women be used instead to make it clear that's not what bloodrose is doing. Bloodrose thought about it, and accepted the point as valid. There is no enforcement, punishment, coercion, or exclusion happening here - no policing. One person just spoke up about what the word represents to them and another appreciated the input.

If I were to use those coercive methods to force you to change your language, then you are correct, that would be policing. But I would not do that, and that is not what happened here at all. I don't understand why people, particularly men, have such a difficult time understanding the difference between policing and someone expressing their feelings about something you did.

4

DarkArmillary wrote

No, actually, there was no description of any harm caused, whatsoever. Apparently there was more discussion not on this thread, but as it appears here, the only thing that happened was someone suggested "oh no, you can't use that word, it's TERFy," so though the magic of social pressure (whatever you want to call it), they literally amended their words to erase the word "female." And you act like this rhetorical bullying doesn't happen all over rad-left spaces.

−2

zoochotic wrote

Immediately after that post bloodrose replied that they did not mean to be TERF-y so clearly they understood the harm, as did everyone else. If you didn't understand it, maybe ask the person?

Look, I'm usually the first to tell people to fuck off when it comes to language policing (policing not a simple criticism), but this just wasn't it.

6

Splinglebot wrote

hey using this word can have TERFy connotations in a context like this

hElP I'M bEiNg rHeToriCaLlY bUlLiEd iM vErY oPpReSsEd

4

DarkArmillary wrote

Stupid trolls like you and the other one here degrade the quality of discourse in this entire space. Anarchism is not your personal social club for you to be snarky and get pats on the back from your buddies and some regular clique. I've seen it play out time and time again. It's fucking annoying. People like you give me less hope for Anarchism, as a movement.

−1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

I've seen it play out time and time again. It's fucking annoying.

Yeah, class reductionist TERF's tend to not be treated to well here.

3

DarkArmillary wrote

Anarchist cliques and Anarchist egos and Anarchist snark is what gets played out time and time again. It's petty and toxic. Maybe that's just how humans are.

−2

Anarchox wrote

Thank you, comrade. I was inspired by this to speak up.

2

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

So now I'm a conservative with cop logic, when earlier you called me a dumbass Marxist.

Hate to break to to you, kiddo.

1

bloodrose wrote

Honestly, the word "female" was not the point of my argument. My argument was that often stuff produced by women is treated as fluff and calling something that discussed the hard work of women as "fluff" was inherently sexist. I used female not because I had carefully chosen my words or because it was a necessary word for my case. It was pointed out to me that the word female is often used to exclude trans women from womanhood. Using it in this manner made people feel that was what I was trying to do and distracted from my point. Therefore, I believed it was a poor word choice.

6

DarkArmillary wrote

u/bloodrose

I am familiar with that argument. What I wish to convey to you is that that argument is based on specious reasoning. Words are "exclusive" by their very nature. The very point of words is to define something specific, rather than something else or everything at the same time. Apologies if you find that obvious or insulting, that's not my intention. I'm just trying to show how that's an empty argument, linguistically.

You may have a different idea of what point was embedded in your argument, but in my interpretation of your comment, the word "female" is very relevant, and is in fact the operative word of your argument.

If you erase "female" from your comment, it reads: "Architects talking about how women interact with their environments = fluff piece. Sexist much?"

As it's phrased now, no it's not sexist. Because the descriptor of "female" is what would have made such a dismissive statement ("fluff piece") sexist in the first place. As it reads now, it's just... what, an anti-architect statement. But the fact that female architects were responsible for city planning is relevant, to the article/video and to such dismissive comments related to it.

Erasing the word "female" changed the entire basis of the argument; just as this broader rhetorical move of erasing "female" from political consideration changes the nature of rights affecting females.

−1

bloodrose wrote (edited )

If you erase "female" from your comment, it reads: "Architects talking about how women interact with their environments = fluff piece. Sexist much?"

As it's phrased now, no it's not sexist. Because the descriptor of "female" is what would have made such a dismissive statement ("fluff piece") sexist in the first place.

Is the fact that being dismissive about a piece about women enough to be considered sexist? I thought using "women architects" sounded too clunky. But I thought it was a valid point that people use "female" to mean "biologically female" to mean "those with a vagina." I did not intend to say "Architects who have vaginas" so I thought removing the word made more sense.

Edit to add: I also was comfortable with changing my framing to make those I was conversing with more comfortable talking with me.

5

DarkArmillary wrote (edited )

I think that being dismissive about stories about women could be, and most likely is, a sexist tendency, sure.

[Edit: it's also possible to be dismissive/critical of stories on the basis of media literacy, and being critical of the implicit ideology put forth in the piece.]

I can see your point about clunky wording, but don't you think the fact that those architects are female, is relevant to their influence on city design? Anyway, I think it is relevant. Not much more to add to that and what I've already said. Have a good one.

−1

bloodrose wrote

because someone hinted that it might be "TERF-y"?

Also, want to point out, the user who called me out talked to me off-thread about why the language was problematic. It wasn't just a hint.

5

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

They're really reaching aren't they?

4

bloodrose wrote

Wait until they find out we actually get along quite well. :p

4

Splinglebot wrote (edited )

Sometimes it's a perfectly valid word to use, when appropriate

and that time was not then

5

DarkArmillary wrote

In your opinion. Why do you think it wasn't relevant?

0

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote (edited )

We can determine by context

There is no way in hell you are this lacking in self awareness. I'm kind of concerned... Maybe you deserve the medal.

3

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Gender doesn’t mean shit, class does

0

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

Yes, in the context of building a city. It would probably have many aspects be monetized that men had not thought of before, hence being just as shitty.

Obviously this argument can’t just be used for everything, as there will be many situations where gender does matter very much. This is just not one of them.

1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Gender doesn’t mean shit, class does.

−2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Nuance be like, where ya at

1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote (edited )

"lol i was actually talking about capitalism and thats why I said gender doesnt mean shit only class matters lol"

−2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I wasn’t talking about capitalism, I was talking about building a city under capitalism. My statement wasn’t intended to be a general one.

Seriously, why are you purposefully trying to be obtuse and misconstrue what I’m saying? Does every interaction have to be hostile? Do you have to assume the worst from every comment? I’m trying to explain myself and you clearly don’t want to listen.

1

Splinglebot wrote

I think if you backpedaled any harder you'd be going forwards again

1

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

It’s not a backpedal, it’s an explanation. I’ve been on this forum for awhile, I’ve always been against class-reductionism, always.

1

Splinglebot wrote

Gender doesn’t mean shit, class does

nono wait you see actually this isn't class reductionism I'm anti-class-reductionism!!!!

when your "explanation" contradicts your original statement I think it's safe to call it backpedaling

1

zoochotic wrote

This is a war here kiddo, we can't just go around having discussions and asking people to explain themselves.

−4

mofongo wrote

You're not participating in good faith in several threads here, I'll temp ban you for a couple of days. Think things thru and read a little.

4

DarkArmillary wrote

Yo, u/mofongo, if OP got banned for not participating in good faith, why are trolls like u/Splinglebot & u/tHeErAsEr1 still here? Trolls like that degrade the quality of discourse on this thread and others, bringing down the value of this site more broadly (to anarchists, as a place for discussion).

−4

Larde wrote

I second this and call for the same standards to be applied to all users.

1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote (edited )

How about not idolizing dead anarchists who don't matter?

3

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

Kropotkin doesn't matter to anarchism??

−1

Splinglebot wrote

nowhere near as much as most ancoms seem to think

6

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

I'm starting to wonder if this is even a site for radicals to be perfectly honest with you.

−3

Splinglebot wrote

it's a site for modern radicals not late 19th century ones

8

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

Why do you people hate Kropotkin? I don't get it.

1

Dumai wrote

i, for one, don't hate kropotkin. he's an important part of the history of the anarchist movement even if he's not really what you'd call a sophisticated theorist, and there's a lot that he wrote that is quite clearly of its time

he's also not my idol, and deifying him does justice to nobody, let alone him. but if you're saying gender is an "individual thing" then you might want to check what he has to say about the emancipation of women in the conquest of bread

and if you're about to say class struggle will simply do away with gender divides, let me tell you that it's necessary but not sufficient

7

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Out-dated humanistic drivel.

1

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

Humanistic? So you reject humanity?

−1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

I reject anthropcentric humanism, yes.

6

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

How could humanism not be anthropocentric? Are we supposed to put the needs of horses above our own?

−3

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Nope. Not one single bit. His anarchism has zero interest to me and my needs.

1

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

But it does to anarchists.

1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Who are 'the Anarchists,' you speak of?

1

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

All anarchists (except ancaps of course).

1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote (edited )

You're already creating a hierarchy.

0

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

Because I exclude ancaps? Oh come on... Now you're just being silly.

2

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Who said anything about ancaps, besides you? Shut up and take this pill.

−2

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

Now you're just trolling.

2

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

I'm not surprised you would take my honesty as trolling.

−2

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

Why is your username "feminazi"?

−1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

Because I'm your worst nightmare, kiddo.

−2

Peter_J_Kropotkin OP wrote

I think you're an alt right troll.

−2

DarkArmillary wrote

Since this could be a discussion about the shortcomings of "identity" or "identity politics," here's an interesting post-left scroll about such ponderins.

It's called "Against Identity Politics" — though it could more accurately have been titled "Against Identity Politicians," as it highlights the ways in which concepts of "identity" are misused and manipulated, particularly within rad-left spaces. It draws from and references Stirner a lot, but you don't necessarily have to have read his writings to get the gist of what's laid down.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity-politics

BBBBBONUS TRACK

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/27/identity-politics-book-asad-haider/

"In “Mistaken Identity,” Asad Haider argues that contemporary identity politics is a “neutralization of movements against racial oppression” rather than a progression of the grassroots struggle against racism. Haider, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, puts the work of radical black activists and scholars in conversation with his personal experiences with racism and political organizing. He charts out the process through which the revolutionary visions of the black freedom movement — which understood racism and capitalism as two sides of the same coin — have been largely replaced with a narrow and limited understanding of identity.

Identity, he argues, has become abstracted from our material relationships with the state and society, which make it consequential to our lives. So when identity serves as the basis for one’s political beliefs, it manifests in division and moralizing attitudes, instead of facilitating solidarity."

1

F_x wrote

Clearly you haven't read Dragonowl as they don't preach class above all else and they are intersectionalist.

−1

DarkArmillary wrote

Okay then. I'm not sure why that had to be said aggressively, but thank you for the footnote.

−2

F_x wrote

Aggressively lol

The point being that you use dragonowl's writing to defend your point when they don't even agree with your stance.

0

DarkArmillary wrote

And what do you think is my point or stance, exactly?

−2

F_x wrote

Your stance is that class isn't idpol, and not understanding that intersectionality is a criticism of focusing on one single issue.

It's fine to shed light on an issue but that topic is connected to others therefore the need for intersectionality.

1

DarkArmillary wrote

Clearly you haven't read DarkArmillary (my comments elsewhere on this very thread), or you would realize that I support an intersectional anarchist approach — which is essentially redundant anyway since any anarchist should recognize there are multiple forms of oppression.

Intersectionality isn't a synonym for Identity Politics, though many seem to think they are interchangable terms. Intersectionality does expand focus beyond one single issue (/identity marker) as you mentioned, and importantly, it does so with a structural analysis, unlike the shallower Identity Politics.

−1

F_x wrote

No "working class" is not an identity.

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."

-- DarkArmillary

"I agree with intersectionality but class is more important than any other issues because class is not an identity" lol

I think I've read you alright.

3

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote (edited )

Imagine going through all these mental gymnastics to just be a class reductionist.

Obviously being working class is a divine decree set in stone written by the gods of marxism.

3

DarkArmillary wrote

It looks like you still want to conflate terms such as "identity," "identity politics," and "intersectionality." They are different terms. Feel free to spend more time researching them each individually.

0

F_x wrote

It looks like you bleehrhhghghheghhgheghehg hhhhgehghh braaaaaiiiiinnnnnnnn blereerllhegghhhgghhh.

2