Lessons posted:also isn't JMP some sort of academic? why is he going on about people being petit-bourgeois
for real. When I was subscribed to his blog I used to read alot about his "union" and the "strike" he'd been a part of and then later i figured out that by union he meant grad student union lol
the innnnnnn-ter-nation-al-ay
unites the the whole human raace"
wait wait wait. it sounded like you didn't use a "y" in the word "humyn." fuck off forever bigot *returns to playing videogames 14 hours a day*
tpaine posted:Goethestein posted:every time i think about identity politics people filling the role of a revolutionary class i literally chuckle irl
okay guys so there is no protest today because half the demonstrators were too depressed to go outside and another quarter decided that marching is ableist and fat-shaming*police turn on firehoses* IM HYDROPHOBIC!!! IM HYDROPHOBIC!! *runs off, never to engage politically again*
think about all the homestuck cosplay bodypaint running into the gutters. an environmental catastrophe
deadken posted:ok correct me if im wrong but isnt intersectionality just althsserian overdetermination with more anime girls and fat people
intersectionality (afaik) is much more stupid than that, it's basically people saying every sphere of oppression matters and that they can intersect, which is such a trite useless truism that it holds no power at all
discipline posted:Lessons posted:mccaine also wrote an article about identity politics recently, which was good and way clearer than JMP's but also kinda muddled and with a ton of unnecessary hedging
he's going to write a shorter, more concise version for MY BLOG
the thing on his blog is so fucking long lol
discipline posted:elemennop posted:intersectionality (afaik) is much more stupid than that, it's basically people saying every sphere of oppression matters and that they can intersect, which is such a trite useless truism that it holds no power at all
intersectionality as it's sold by the tumblr crowd is very stupid, irl it's not so stupid. it basically says that class intersects with gender and race, etc and that's true. A poor white woman is different than Michelle Obama it's true
i agree, it's absolutely true. i also think it's something literally nobody has argued against. i mean, we should certainly be vigilant of trivializing other forms of oppression implicitly, but uh, as a theoretical construct it gives no real power.
deadken posted:ah yes, the famous "five-layered shit puff pastry" rhetorical technique
"FEMINISM, I MUST WARN YOU: MY FLAME THROWER IS LOADED AND YOU HAVE DISAPPOINTED ME. My cats would be delighted to pee on you."
elemennop posted:i agree, it's absolutely true. i also think it's something literally nobody has argued against. i mean, we should certainly be vigilant of trivializing other forms of oppression implicitly, but uh, as a theoretical construct it gives no real power.
to be fair alot of bric a brac marxists literally cannot work their way through a position like this unless it is about white men so it does come from a legitimate place its just the sweeping up into the world of academic nosense that has destroyed that simple point and turned it into a mess
elemennop posted:i agree, it's absolutely true. i also think it's something literally nobody has argued against. i mean, we should certainly be vigilant of trivializing other forms of oppression implicitly, but uh, as a theoretical construct it gives no real power.
if the only problem is "this doesn't say enough" then it's not really a problem, is it? it's fine for different concepts to work on different theoretical levels, (e.g. for example the article in the OP emphasizes "unity" which is an equally 'trivial' 'truism' in the sense you're saying). the most serious critiques i've seen leveled include stuff like, "intersectionality resists theorization", "intersectionality privileges cultural politics and thereby minimizes the role of social relations" and "intersectionality has historically downplayed the role of class". there's other stuff too but i don't think the "well duh" objection is enough on its own, and certainly won't convince people who think it's important.
Lessons posted:elemennop posted:i agree, it's absolutely true. i also think it's something literally nobody has argued against. i mean, we should certainly be vigilant of trivializing other forms of oppression implicitly, but uh, as a theoretical construct it gives no real power.
if the only problem is "this doesn't say enough" then it's not really a problem, is it? it's fine for different concepts to work on different theoretical levels, (e.g. for example the article in the OP emphasizes "unity" which is an equally 'trivial' 'truism' in the sense you're saying). the most serious critiques i've seen leveled include stuff like, "intersectionality resists theorization", "intersectionality privileges cultural politics and thereby minimizes the role of social relations" and "intersectionality has historically downplayed the role of class". there's other stuff too but i don't think the "well duh" objection is enough on its own, and certainly won't convince people who think it's important.
i don't think i'm trying to convince people of anything? i mean in general, we judge abstractions by the two both their truth and power.
I mean it being true is nice, but there are lot of things that are "true" but don't affect anything. I mean, it's the same fundamental problem that economists fall into when they claim that all humans are motivated by self-interest and then retroactively redefine every action people make as something made in self-interest. I mean, it's certainly a self-consistent theory and can't be contradicted, but it's also not saying anything then because there's absolutely no predictive power, they can only post-facto identify things as having been in the person's self-interest.
So intersectionality is almost trivially true, but now that we've accepted it, how does it help us?
elemennop posted:i don't think i'm trying to convince people of anything? i mean in general, we judge abstractions by the two both their truth and power.
I mean it being true is nice, but there are lot of things that are "true" but don't affect anything. I mean, it's the same fundamental problem that economists fall into when they claim that all humans are motivated by self-interest and then retroactively redefine every action people make as something made in self-interest. I mean, it's certainly a self-consistent theory and can't be contradicted, but it's also not saying anything then because there's absolutely no predictive power, they can only post-facto identify things as having been in the person's self-interest.
So intersectionality is almost trivially true, but now that we've accepted it, how does it help us?
i think it's more useful to look at it historically and how theories of intersectionality emerged out of the activist and theoretical struggles of various emancipatory movements in the 1970s and 80s. it was never really intended to be a predictive, explanatory model but rather a conceptual framework for resolving the problems of cohesion that feminism, socialism, black activism, lgbt etc. faced in the west. in other words it's more practical than theoretical and it's not really fair to judge it as such, the same way you wouldn't judge Capital by the standards of natural science.
in any case these problems do have to be solved, so just attacking intersectionality as atheoretical isn't sufficient. you have to provide a positive alternative otherwise you're essentially arguing to replace it with nothing.
"While it may be unfashionable in certain academic circles to make this claim, the only basis of revolutionary unity is still the basis of social class since a given mode of production, as well as the momentum of history, is determined, in the last instance, by class struggle."
I do appreciate this article but this seems like it is derived from Althusser without discussing criticisms of Althusser.
I want to help clarify the debate so I will try to give my take on it:
Althusser's claim that class struggle determines history in the last instance was accepted as problematic by Althusser himself, given that "the last instance never arrives". That is, events are overdetermined by a variety of factors (gender, race, etc.), such that the relationship between class and a given event is not necessarily straightforward.
Laclau and Mouffe's response to this is that there is no necessary priority for any given aspect of identity. This does not necessarily mean that class is unimportant (although Laclau does think it is diminishing in importance, which I disagree with). What they argue is that ordering is done through an imaginary, which is situated in a context, not simply a given through some sort of scientific investigation. The imaginary they propose is radical democratic pluralism, which articulates a politics that suggests a common struggle against oppression as harmful subordination. The argument they make is that (liberal-)democracy is a way of allowing people to express their own priorities with regards to their own problems. That is, by agreeing on certain "rules of the game", people can negotiate their differences in a less violent way than alternatives.
The main argument against that seems to me to be Zizek's argument that the resulting imaginary need not be a (bourgeois) liberal one, but rather a radical class struggle one. The argument is that the "new social movements" represent dimensions of class oppression, not alternative oppressions to class oppression. In other words, class anchors identity (in our society) in such a way that issues such as gender are class issues. Gender is not a subsidiary or alternative issue but defined in terms of class. These issues are articulated together within class, and the aim of class struggle is to end the oppressive features of class through radical democracy. Which is to say, within this imaginary, the proper place of politics is to attempt to negate/transcend itself through class struggle (the state being an instrument of class struggle). Such structure inheres at the level of the Real, so this is materialist. I guess one could say, then, that oppressions form a unity within class, rather than intersecting per se.
Now the question from that might be: "What is radical democracy under class struggle?" My answer would be that it is a democracy for people who agree on the basic aims of class struggle. The problem with this is that we are forced to act in a terribly dangerous world where oppressions have concrete effects on our ability to introduce "rules of the game". If the bourgeoisie didn't resist with every tool at its disposal then maybe liberal-democracy would be nice. Since it doesn't, reformism doesn't seem to work. We probably need to seize power when we can, and hold it through mass democratic pressure, limiting the exercise of power to people who are engaged in progressive class struggle.
I'm not really suggesting something wildly different, I'm just narrating my perspective.
----
which is actually amateurish jumble but I GOTTA LIVE MY LIFE
elemennop posted:So intersectionality is almost trivially true, but now that we've accepted it, how does it help us?
the non-facebook non-tumblr internet is not even a microcosm of Marxism its a irrelevant self fetishing sore which has as much relevance as the few people in it who interact with the rest of the world
etc etc therefore not everyone has accepted it
like literally multiple times in the past fortnight have i had to talk about it (though never really using the word "intersectionality" more just historical moments and different forms of oppression etc) to people at various levels from young comrades from different organisations about ladies to people i am attempt to destroy tv for about islam
its no where near a done deal but i do for sure think that keeping it simple works alot better because it gives it alot more flexibility around the central point (not that I know the advanced bits to be fair)
Lessons posted:getfiscal, gimenez addresses/incorporates althusser's overdeterminism either in the paper i linked or one of her other ones, and criticizes thinkers who reject the centrality of class struggle on that account. iirc her language is markedly similar JMP's with something like "race and gender find their expression in class". i'm not sure if it entirely works or not, esp. since i know next to nothing about althusser but it might be something to look at.
cool thanks
Lessons posted:elemennop posted:i don't think i'm trying to convince people of anything? i mean in general, we judge abstractions by the two both their truth and power.
I mean it being true is nice, but there are lot of things that are "true" but don't affect anything. I mean, it's the same fundamental problem that economists fall into when they claim that all humans are motivated by self-interest and then retroactively redefine every action people make as something made in self-interest. I mean, it's certainly a self-consistent theory and can't be contradicted, but it's also not saying anything then because there's absolutely no predictive power, they can only post-facto identify things as having been in the person's self-interest.
So intersectionality is almost trivially true, but now that we've accepted it, how does it help us?i think it's more useful to look at it historically and how theories of intersectionality emerged out of the activist and theoretical struggles of various emancipatory movements in the 1970s and 80s. it was never really intended to be a predictive, explanatory model but rather a conceptual framework for resolving the problems of cohesion that feminism, socialism, black activism, lgbt etc. faced in the west. in other words it's more practical than theoretical and it's not really fair to judge it as such, the same way you wouldn't judge Capital by the standards of natural science.
in any case these problems do have to be solved, so just attacking intersectionality as atheoretical isn't sufficient. you have to provide a positive alternative otherwise you're essentially arguing to replace it with nothing.
i'm not attacking intersectionality as a pedagogical tool as a reminder to not fall for the same mistakes made in the past, but intersectionality is pushed as a theory by more than few, and i've seen it used to attack orthodox marxism, which is just incomprehensible since it fails as a theory for the reason i've said above. maybe there's more depth to it Krenshaw and Collins's writings, but i'm not interested enough to check it out.
getfiscal posted:I guess one could say, then, that oppressions form a unity within class, rather than intersecting per se.
yeah, thats my general impression. a unity with a lack in it (or perhaps a tension), the proletarian preternatural subject, which must come into being with class struggle
getfiscal posted:Now the question from that might be: "What is radical democracy under class struggle?" My answer would be that it is a democracy for people who agree on the basic aims of class struggle. The problem with this is that we are forced to act in a terribly dangerous world where oppressions have concrete effects on our ability to introduce "rules of the game". If the bourgeoisie didn't resist with every tool at its disposal then maybe liberal-democracy would be nice. Since it does, reformism doesn't seem to work. We probably need to seize power when we can, and hold it through mass democratic pressure, limiting the exercise of power to people who are engaged in progressive class struggle.
and so: it is important to kind of remember that this 'radical democracy' is for the creation of such a proletarian subject, which sort of picks up on the echoes of itself in history, and mediated through its leadership (here I think the party), and comes into its being as the end of Capitalism.
The owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the coming of the dusk.
SariBari posted:big ups to all the white men in here who spend so much time with black or female workers every month that they don't understand why they shouldn't be involved in women only or poc only meetings that could be going on right now at this very moment.
were you thinking about this thread http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/4506/?page=3 ?
angelbutt_dollface posted:what lives at the intersection of "fuck" and "destroy"?
"fuck and destroy"
elemennop posted:were you thinking about this thread http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/4506/?page=3 ?
please to explain to my small female brain?