Do capitalism and identity politics support one another?

[Tahuti]

Ok, I have lately seeing an upsurge in former left-wingers defecting from traditional left-wing parties (such as the Democrats, Labour), both on the net and in daily life, because they don't like identity politics within left-wing groups, which they often derogaterily refer as 'SJWs'. They may consider themselves moderates though often end up supporting Right-Wing populists espousing a Eurocentric version of identity politics like Trump and Wilders, who despite their right-wing viewpoints offer generous social benefits in combination with welfare chauvinism (simply put: Exclusivism in regard to social benefits).

Now, does the ignorance of some people of European descent cause capitalism and identity politics to work in each others favor? Does identity politics have accidentally caused Balkanisation among the left, then marginalising the left, then increasing the influence of economistic legislation in national politics?

For the record, I think voter ignorance is much more to blame than identity politics, because it has creation the conditions where identity politics has such as a side effect. Ignorant voters lack the insight to distinguish personal preference from personal benefit when to comes to voting, where it actually is highly dangerous, given the support right-wing populists are receiving because of it.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Now, does the ignorance of some people of European descent cause neoliberalism and identity politics to work in each others favor?

A lot of people may vote the other way from oneself and often have good reasons, it is a mistake to assume that it is due to ignorance.

Does identity politics cause Balkanisation among the left, then marginalising the left, then increasing the influence of neoliberal legislators in national politics?

Yes, for instance in the UK, there is now a split between the metropolitan urban typically BAME Labour voters and the disadvantaged white working class Labour voters elsewhere.

 

[Arent11]

I myself was member of the green party until ~2003. I left them because I noticed that their "antiracism" was not honest. After 9/11 I saw that some of them were happy about the attacks. Others even proceeded to circulate conspiracy theories because they couldn't bear that "capitalists" could be innocent victims.

I understand that left wing/socialists tend to blame everything on the "capitalist" west. But first of all that is a highly distorted world view. And second, I will not tolerate extreme groups that basically openly state that they want to destroy western, enlightened countries just because of some conflicting economic/money distribution views.

Simply make good suggestions how to create a better society & the people will follow you. If you try to create conflicts & strife just because you don't get your way, they will hate you.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I've never really seen what's with the big deal with so called SJWs. If the worst the left can generate is pretentious postmodern nonsense in colleges and on tumblr, honestly, that's not much of a boogieman and incredibly easy to ignore.

Although in the case of Trump and co, it just seems like people have rejected one kind of identity politics for another kind.

 

[luiz]

I don't know if identity politics and "neoliberalism" (mostly a boogeyman, but ok) complement each other, but I think it's beyond dispute that the emphasis on identity politics has taken away the focus from many more traditional left-wing causes.

If leftists are spending their energy policing how many non-white characters are there in TV shows and videogames, or shaming some celebrity who said something they deem offensive, than they're spending less energy on left-wing causes. Which is probably why the establishment, from banks to mass media, has so eagerly embraced identity politics : it's a very convenient and non-threatening way to be a "progressive".

 

[Akka]

I've never really seen what's with the big deal with so called SJWs.

They are fragmenting the left, ridiculing it, stiffling political debate through shaming and hysterics, creating rifts and strife because they apply their dogmatism even when it isn't applicable and causing reactionary apathy or even counter-effect.

Also, a very important point :

If leftists are spending their energy policing how many non-white characters are there in TV shows and videogames, or shaming some celebrity who said something they deem offensive, than they're spending less energy on left-wing causes. Which is probably why the establishment, from banks to mass media, has so eagerly embraced identity politics : it's a very convenient and non-threatening way to be a "progressive".

SJW are the neo-liberalism best friends, in facts if not in ideology.

 

[metatron]

Ok, I have lately seeing an upsurge in former left-wingers defecting from traditional left-wing parties (such as the Democrats, Labour), both on the net and in daily life, because they don't like identity politics, which they often derogaterily refer as 'SJWs'. They may consider themselves moderates though often end up supporting Right-Wing Populists like Trump and Wilders, who despite their right-wing viewpoints offer generous social benefits in combination with welfare chauvinism (simply put: Exclusivism in regard to social benefits).

Now, does the ignorance of some people of European descent cause neoliberalism and identity politics to work in each others favor? Does identity politics cause Balkanisation among the left, then marginalising the left, then increasing the influence of neoliberal legislators in national politics?

1. People drop out of the mainstream of left-of-centre politics in all directions. They often enough become left-wing-libertarians or more hardened leftists of some socialist prescription among other things.
2. That's a very reasonable thing to do because contemporary "intersectional feminism" - let's call the evil by its name - is a hateful, violent, totalitarian ideology.
3. This ideology is not universal to the left at all. Clinton said hateful, ignorant things all the time that say Senator Warren curiously never has to say (you know, because the latter is preper mra planted by the klan, shoring up that prescious deplorable vote, in Massachusetts).
4. There is obvious cause in the above observation. Real leftists can run on actual policy. Centrist have to pander, have to fear- and hate-monger.

If you vehemently disagree with what i just said - i suspect that you will - that's not a matter of "balkanisation".
It would rather be a case of you, not i, being at the wrong address and i would kindly ask you to please vacate the premises.
Admit your conservatism, and judge people by inate categories all you want. Maybe have another crack at banning porn or something. That's allways a hoot.

 

[Tahuti]

1. People drop out of the mainstream of left-of-centre politics in all directions. They often enough become left-wing-libertarians or more hardened leftists of some socialist prescription among other things.

I would rather not place my political position in a quadrant, though it can best be described as left-wing libertarianism to concisely explain it to others.

2. That's a very reasonable thing to do because contemporary "intersectional feminism" - let's call the evil by its name - is a hateful, violent, totalitarian ideology.

Explain that one like I'm five.

3. This ideology is not universal to the left at all. Clinton said hateful, ignorant things all the time that say Senator Warren curiously never has to say (you know, because the latter is preper mra planted by the klan, shoring up that prescious deplorable vote, in Massachusetts).
4. There is obvious cause in the above observation. Real leftists can run on actual policy. Centrist have to pander, have to fear- and hate-monger.

If you vehemently disagree with what i just said - i suspect that you will - that's not a matter of "balkanisation".
It would rather be a case of you, not i, being at the wrong address and i would kindly ask you to please vacate the premises.
Admit your conservatism, and judge people by inate categories all you want. Maybe have another crack at banning porn or something. That's allways a hoot.

Identity politics is a tendency, not a coherent ideology. In some ways, Trump is practising White identity politics with all the ugliness that it brings. It's the name. However, there are still plenty of instances where identity politics plants the seeds for liberation.

I don't know if identity politics and "neoliberalism" (mostly a boogeyman, but ok) complement each other, but I think it's beyond dispute that the emphasis on identity politics has taken away the focus from many more traditional left-wing causes.

I'm curious which ones would you mention as examples. (And you're right about neoliberalism; it's a boogeyman to describe a 20th century tendency to increase the influence of capitalism, the ideology of the accumulation of capital as a political good. It's not quite the same as market relations, though it is a necessity for it.)

If leftists are spending their energy policing how many non-white characters are there in TV shows and videogames, or shaming some celebrity who said something they deem offensive, than they're spending less energy on left-wing causes. Which is probably why the establishment, from banks to mass media, has so eagerly embraced identity politics : it's a very convenient and non-threatening way to be a "progressive".

Poor expressions of a particular train of thought is not evidence that the train of thought itself is bad.

 

[luiz]

I'm curious which ones would you mention as examples. (And you're right about neoliberalism; it's a boogeyman to describe a 20th century tendency to increase the influence of capitalism, the ideology of the accumulation of capital as a political good. It's not quite the same as market relations, though it is a necessity for it.)

Traditional left-wing causes would be stuff like nationalization of key industries, reduction of the work week, stricter labor standards, and so on and so forth. Not saying any of them are good or bad, nor that all left-wingers have to supprt all of them, but they are more identifiably left-wing than counting non-white characters at Game of Thrones.

Poor expressions of a particular train of thought is not evidence that the train of thought itself is bad.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Lexicus]

People not distinguishing between identity politics properly situated in their original context of radical critique and (neo)liberal co-optation of identity politics makes for terrible discourse

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Every single US president over the last 60 years (and probably longer, I'm just not familiar enough with farther back elections) has won in large part due to identity politics. From Nixon's explicit attempts to cater racist whites in the south, to Lee Atwater, the Willie Horton ad, to Obama, to Trump. The fact that it is demonized as fracturing the left when it is way, way more significant on the right, where the base largely votes out of religious and ethnic in-grouping (and not policy), tells you all you need to know about which side gets the benefit of the doubt. I guess my point is; we ask these question on the left a lot recently, and that's fine, healthy debate is always welcome. But this idea that it is dooming the left when it has been an absolutely integral part of American politics and the success of the right is sort of silly. To the general thread title question; identity politics goes hand in hand with right wing populism, or traditional conservatism, or progressivism, or anything, really, because it still goes hand in hand with politics in totality.

 

[luiz]

Every single US president over the last 60 years (and probably longer, I'm just not familiar enough with farther back elections) has won in large part due to identity politics. From Nixon's explicit attempts to cater racist whites in the south, to Lee Atwater, the Willie Horton ad, to Obama, to Trump. The fact that it is demonized as fracturing the left when it is way, way more significant on the right, where the base largely votes out of religious and ethnic in-grouping (and not policy), tells you all you need to know about which side gets the benefit of the doubt. I guess my point is; we ask these question on the left a lot recently, and that's fine, healthy debate is always welcome. But this idea that it is dooming the left when it has been an absolutely integral part of American politics and the success of the right is sort of silly. To the general thread title question; identity politics goes hand in hand with right wing populism, or traditional conservatism, or progressivism, or anything, really, because it still goes hand in hand with politics in totality.

You didn't answer the OP at all, though. You just said "but the right started it!" The question he posed is: are identity politics helping "neoliberalism"?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

You didn't answer the OP at all, though. You just said "but the right started it!" The question he posed is: are identity politics helping "neoliberalism"?

No, I didn't say the right started it, mostly that it's immaterial. I don't think it helps or hurts, it just is. It can be used to defend neo-liberalism, or progressivism, or socialism, or whatever. That was the point I was trying to get at, and maybe I didn't flesh it out enough. But it helps whoever is wielding it. Their political policy doesn't matter elsewise. Maybe it's different outside the states. But it's an incredibly powerful tool for any ideology here.

 

[luiz]

No, I didn't say the right started it, mostly that it's immaterial. I don't think it helps or hurts, it just is. It can be used to defend neo-liberalism, or progressivism, or socialism, or whatever. That was the point I was trying to get at, and maybe I didn't flesh it out enough. But it helps whoever is wielding it. Their political policy doesn't matter elsewise. Maybe it's different outside the states. But it's an incredibly powerful tool for any ideology here.

Gotcha. That makes sense, and I agree. But isn't its inherently divisive nature also a political statement on its own? I wouldn't call it left or right, as both can be divisive, but certainly it's "anti-universalist". As such it's not just an apolitical tool.

 

[Angst]

... As often happens, I answer Tovergeiter with "yes" and probably agree with him, but also, as often happens, my solution is probably different. Been a while since we talked.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Gotcha. That makes sense, and I agree. But isn't its inherently divisive nature also a political statement on its own? I wouldn't call it left or right, as both can be divisive, but certainly it's "anti-universalist". As such it's not just an apolitical tool.

I'm not sure it's inherently divisive. Or maybe that's the wrong way to put it; I suppose it'll be inherently divisive, at least in the current world, but I'm not sure it's always inherently without purpose or without justified aim. I'm not going to, for instance, criticize black Americans, who came out in record numbers to support Obama, because they saw in him someone who had first hand knowledge and experience with what it meant to be black in America, something no other major presidential candidate before could say. Likewise, as much as I disagree with, say, the Evangelical base, it's not hard to see why they universally support a party who has, at the very least, marketed themselves as upholding passionate religious ideology. I suppose the real question is when identity politics crosses from sympathy and a sort of shared understanding (which I think you could easily make the case for Obama) to something more tribalistic and threatening, which has helped to create a significant white grievance plank in the Republican party over the decades. Or maybe it's as simple as some identity politics are good and some are bad. At which point the debate becomes a lot less harder to ever win.

 

[Archon_Wing]

They are fragmenting the left, ridiculing it, stiffling political debate through shaming and hysterics, creating rifts and strife because they apply their dogmatism even when it isn't applicable and causing reactionary apathy or even counter-effect.

I hear this a lot, but it sounds awfully vague to me. Are their any prominent figures that have gained real power as opposed to people that write dumb stuff about how every video game and book is a tool of the patriarchy? Yes, I know there are those that would want to get rid of men and white people, but would anyone in power be advocating for such a policy? The left generally ostracizes extremists like that (not that it is much of an accomplishment, mind you)

I always thought it was kind of a meme, not an actual platform. I've always had sympathy for that lone white male conservative that dared express free market opinions in social studies classes in college, but really, I just don't see the wide spread problem because it sounds like hysteria itself.

I mean when people burn stuff to silence people like antifa, I can see a threat. When I see people punching people for voting Trump, that is a threat. Right now, this falls in line with calling Trump a fascist.

It really depends on what you consider to be the left, I guess. From my point of view, the Democrats that represent the left here seem utterly unable to unite under common causes even though their opponent is antithetical to practically anything a mainstream liberal, an SJW, or SSJW, or an attack helicopterphille would hold.

I generally do not vote for Democrats (never voted for Obama) but I thought Trump would be such a bad idea, so it seemed like Hillary would have been a better choice, if certainly not ideal. I'm not really sure why a lot of the actual Democrats could not decide to unite under a single banner. So was Hillary too much or too little of a Social Justice patron?

It honestly just sounds like a scapegoat (used by multiple factions)

I mean, I think I get the idea that all these intersectional based naratives cause divide and conquer, whereas people fight to win the Oppression Olympics and society devolves into who complains the loudest. But that's not just an "SJW" thing. Then again SJW is a term that is generally not self applied.

 

[Akka]

I hear this a lot, but it sounds awfully vague to me. Are their any prominent figures that have gained real power as opposed to people that write dumb stuff about how every video game and book is a tool of the patriarchy? Yes, I know there are those that would want to get rid of men and white people, but would anyone in power be advocating for such a policy? The left generally ostracizes extremists like that (not that it is much of an accomplishment, mind you)

The problem of the whole SJW movement is not (yet) about having someone elected put their bullcrap in practice, but about the consequences of their hysterics and the influence of modern-day social media into shaping opinions and astroturfing. There is a real dictatorship in what has become "acceptable" to say in public, or risk being subject to some sort of social with-hunt (pretty reminiscent of a kind of McCarthism-lite). And all this garbage is negatively affecting the left, increasing partisanship and hamstringing the real job to do about the concentration of wealth and power.

It really depends on what you consider to be the left, I guess. From my point of view, the Democrats that represent the left here seem utterly unable to unite under common causes even though their opponent is antithetical to practically anything a mainstream liberal, an SJW, or SSJW, or an attack helicopterphille would hold.

Isn't it kinda an example and an evidence of what I was saying ?

I mean, I think I get the idea that all these intersectional based naratives cause divide and conquer, whereas people fight to win the Oppression Olympics and society devolves into who complains the loudest. But that's not just an "SJW" thing. Then again SJW is a term that is generally not self applied.

Seems you answered yourself the question here

 

[Archon_Wing]

The problem of the whole SJW movement is not (yet) about having someone elected put their bullcrap in practice, but about the consequences of their hysterics and the influence of modern-day social media into shaping opinions and astroturfing. There is a real dictatorship in what has become "acceptable" to say in public, or risk being subject to some sort of social with-hunt (pretty reminiscent of a kind of McCarthism-lite). And all this garbage is negatively affecting the left, increasing partisanship and hamstringing the real job to do about the concentration of wealth and power.

Hmm, so in the end, they're just a bunch of internet nobodies that create a lot of noise but are ultimately irrelevant as I suspected. I must admit it is quite sad the Left can be fragmented so easily by them.

Isn't it kinda an example and an evidence of what I was saying ?

Yea, I'm trying to connect the dots. But the greater conclusion I'm coming at is it appears to be a symptom of a problem (Something about lacking a spine)

Seems you answered yourself the question here

So are the alt-right SJWs too? Seem to have had a bit more success lately.

Note: left as in American Democrats, lest people get upset again.

 

[inthesomeday]

Is the narrative here that Leftists are becoming disenfranchised with the Dems because of social justice idpol? Because that's an almost laughable distortion of the truth.

The Left is disenfranchised with the Dems because a lot of folks who were tricked into thinking liberalism was for them have come to realize that moderatism is ineffectual and weak, and that the compromise of criminals for slightly less horrible criminals is quickly becoming a useless strategy. Regardless of how much the right-wing media might blow a bunch of nonsense out of proportion, we really aren't "divided" by whatever great societal threat everybody seems to think "SJW"ism poses, if anything because the threat is imaginary.

Anybody who sits there and watches Charlottesville or killer cop after killer cop get pardoned, and then thinks to themselves that the real danger is black liberation or gender wokeness, is frankly disturbed and foolish. The entire idea that is immediately invoked when people say or hear the phrase SJW-- some sort of dangerous, mentally unstable child who both cries when they don't get their way and has the power of mind control over authority figures-- is a well-designed propaganda boogieman that scares the Alt-Right youth and the freeze peach neocons alike into a united body of corporate storm troopers. Yes, SJWism is an idea that feeds into the corporate power structure-- not because there are a bunch of SJWs out there dividing the left, but because it provides a convenient enemy for the right wing to unite against.