babyhueypnewton posted:

Grunderisse

tpaine? nothing on this?? no comment at all?

aerdil posted:

And this is what's funny...every second that fools troll my site, complaining about how I take up all the antiracist space so they can't be heard, is a moment they aren't setting up their own website, blog, or writing their own book...but they wanna blame me for why no one knows who they are...it's not on me sweetheart..plenty of people of color get book deals and speaking gigs each year...if u didn't its not on me...it's cuz u havent said anything that anyone finds valuable...deal with that rather than wasting time trolling...Maybe another POC blew up your spot rather than me...ever think of that? No, of course not...cuz that would require critical thought rather than simplistic hater bs and stuff u can put on tumblr...seriously, it's time for people to be told to step off...feel free to jump off the page trolls....or I can bounce you...and would love to...trust me, u will lose this beef..badly...

aerdil posted:

Here's what...if you're spending time trolling my page, arguing about my role in the work, u are not doing the work yourself...u r living off the words of others...that's parasitical behavior, and if u r letting me bother u by saying this, then u r losing the battle to have your voice heard...ever think about writing something yourself? I mean, something that wasn't about critiquing me or others u don't like? Oh, and did u ever think about maybe using one font size and color for your homepage? That might help people take u seriously (if u r the individual for whom this statement is intended, I'm pretty sure you'll know it...kisses)...

tim wise is finally responding to his critics?

littlegreenpills posted:

i feel weird about actually weighing in with an opinion here but i think it's been said a lot that these forms of identity (the "boxes that capitalism forces us into") are important in generating streams of consumption which is surely an element as important as labor in reproducing modern capitalism. as in the act of going to the store and selecting a product becomes a form of "labour" for want of a better word, and you may well be doing that because you're a homosexual. or a woman or a hair stylist, or rather capital has told you to be one. it's not quite the same thing as merely having a job you specialize in or belonging to a community of like-minded human beings surely

The only problem is that most people (or households anyway) spend money on roughly the same big things: housing, utilities, insurance, transportation, food, healthcare, education. There's some, but not a whole lot of variety of consumption here, and I would bet geography has equal or more influence over spending than personal identity. It might be that hair dressers prefer one type of car over another–I don't know – but is there a hair dressers' auto insurance or a hair dresser's duplex? My point is that the things people spend most of their money on aren't things that can advertise a personal identity, even if advertisers wish it were otherwise.

swirlsofhistory posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

i feel weird about actually weighing in with an opinion here but i think it's been said a lot that these forms of identity (the "boxes that capitalism forces us into") are important in generating streams of consumption which is surely an element as important as labor in reproducing modern capitalism. as in the act of going to the store and selecting a product becomes a form of "labour" for want of a better word, and you may well be doing that because you're a homosexual. or a woman or a hair stylist, or rather capital has told you to be one. it's not quite the same thing as merely having a job you specialize in or belonging to a community of like-minded human beings surely

The only problem is that most people (or households anyway) spend money on roughly the same big things: housing, utilities, insurance, transportation, food, healthcare, education. There's some, but not a whole lot of variety of consumption here, and I would bet geography has equal or more influence over spending than personal identity. It might be that hair dressers prefer one type of car over another–I don't know – but is there a hair dressers' auto insurance or a hair dresser's duplex? My point is that the things people spend most of their money on aren't things that can advertise a personal identity, even if advertisers wish it were otherwise.

http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Tourism

When we talk about solving capitalist crisis by creating new markets, we're not just talking about imperialist takeover, primitive accumulation, or dumping over-accumulated capital in some new bubble. We're talking about all acts of creation under capitalism, which includes the creation of identity and the creation of desire.

Homosexuals represent 600 billion dollars in spending power, and if we take into account the recent marketing of straight allies and pro-gay purchasing habits among the general population we're talking about a lot of money.

Homosexuality was not specifically created as a marketing opportunity, however the concept of identity was as a consequence of the production of desire.

AmericanNazbro posted:

how does creating a new market of consumption aimed at homosexual self identity help solve capitalist crisis? i don't really get that. it seems like they would be consuming already at a certain level dictated by their class, not their sexual identity. it doesn't really seem to follow.

i could see the argument, for say like the charity industrial institution thats arising now, as it does some things to combat the contradictions of capital that is consuming itself. but still, ehhhhhhh, i think it's pretty tenuous

well it's not necessarily "solving" the crisis, it's more corporations and factions of capital fighting for consumption. companies like disney exploited gays and the much larger community who are "allies" which just means they want to be ethical capitalists. however this can apply to countries or even economic blocs, there are "gay friendly" countries and "gay friendly" politics which encourage imperialist invasion. I would tie this into geographical displacement of crisis, taking Harvey's analysis further to say ideology (in this case 'identity') always accompanies primitive accumulation and dispossession.

that bbc documentary 'the century of the self' was pretty shit but the part about Edward Bernays was pretty fascinating, how modern capitalism came to be through creating demand before supply and advertising through politics. the example they use was selling cigarettes to feminists by making smoking into a subversion of the cigarette phallic symbol. those feminists are basically the same as the modern day LBGT movements who spend or boycott 'ethically'. sorry this is a jumble of thoughts but its 6 am here -__-

babyhueypnewton posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

i feel weird about actually weighing in with an opinion here but i think it's been said a lot that these forms of identity (the "boxes that capitalism forces us into") are important in generating streams of consumption which is surely an element as important as labor in reproducing modern capitalism. as in the act of going to the store and selecting a product becomes a form of "labour" for want of a better word, and you may well be doing that because you're a homosexual. or a woman or a hair stylist, or rather capital has told you to be one. it's not quite the same thing as merely having a job you specialize in or belonging to a community of like-minded human beings surely

The only problem is that most people (or households anyway) spend money on roughly the same big things: housing, utilities, insurance, transportation, food, healthcare, education. There's some, but not a whole lot of variety of consumption here, and I would bet geography has equal or more influence over spending than personal identity. It might be that hair dressers prefer one type of car over another–I don't know – but is there a hair dressers' auto insurance or a hair dresser's duplex? My point is that the things people spend most of their money on aren't things that can advertise a personal identity, even if advertisers wish it were otherwise.

http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Tourism

When we talk about solving capitalist crisis by creating new markets, we're not just talking about imperialist takeover, primitive accumulation, or dumping over-accumulated capital in some new bubble. We're talking about all acts of creation under capitalism, which includes the creation of identity and the creation of desire.

Homosexuals represent 600 billion dollars in spending power, and if we take into account the recent marketing of straight allies and pro-gay purchasing habits among the general population we're talking about a lot of money.

Homosexuality was not specifically created as a marketing opportunity, however the concept of identity was as a consequence of the production of desire.

this just goes to demonstrate my point

swirlsofhistory posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

i feel weird about actually weighing in with an opinion here but i think it's been said a lot that these forms of identity (the "boxes that capitalism forces us into") are important in generating streams of consumption which is surely an element as important as labor in reproducing modern capitalism. as in the act of going to the store and selecting a product becomes a form of "labour" for want of a better word, and you may well be doing that because you're a homosexual. or a woman or a hair stylist, or rather capital has told you to be one. it's not quite the same thing as merely having a job you specialize in or belonging to a community of like-minded human beings surely

The only problem is that most people (or households anyway) spend money on roughly the same big things: housing, utilities, insurance, transportation, food, healthcare, education. There's some, but not a whole lot of variety of consumption here, and I would bet geography has equal or more influence over spending than personal identity. It might be that hair dressers prefer one type of car over another–I don't know – but is there a hair dressers' auto insurance or a hair dresser's duplex? My point is that the things people spend most of their money on aren't things that can advertise a personal identity, even if advertisers wish it were otherwise.

the focus on identity is less about the dollar volume of purchases it helps move, but rather targeting and narrowing the specialized media streams people consume, designed to more effectively be able to tailor and market Capital's imperialist ruling class ideologies to the specific concerns of liberals and trots

Squalid posted:

I finished the essay and it seems the authors conclusion is that you can strugge for issues relevant to your own unique identity so long as you remember that, get-this, your identity intersects with other identities that also require struggle. This article was poorly written so I dunno if I understood anything but can someone explain what is advocated by the intersectionality and ID politics people that the author took issue with? I can't tell where the point of dispute is.

Is she just taking issue with certain identity groups selling out? Does she propose a way to prevent single-identity groups, which she explicitly states have a place in the left, from pursuing their own interests when those are contrary to the goal of class struggle?

Yes.

babyhueypnewton posted:

Homosexuality was not specifically created as a marketing opportunity, however the concept of identity was as a consequence of the production of desire.

I didn't understand the articles point about creating the Homosexual, could you go into more detail about desire production and identity?

So far I'm not convinced about the claims of a particular capitalist identity for women or race, even if I accept that the particular manifestation of these phenomena changed in the context of capitalism. It would be helpful if someone could share how these identities changed under state-capitalist or communist states, because everything I've heard suggests these groups survived virtually intact, although obviously the manifestations of oppression must have been very different.

I'd especially like to hear how the Soviet Union handled the issue of unpaid reproductive labor, if anyone has any details to share. I mean the obvious solution is to pay women for children-rearing or to replace motherly care with state institutions, the latter choice being something I've heard was seriously attempted on a small scale in Romania, with disastrous results.