Thank you for the excellent take down of the liberal-conservative alliance!
As I was considering the analysis, I wished there were a couple of forward looking statements about how those of us, who advocate for an openminded and radical egalitarian world, might envision a multidimensional perspective combining class, race, and gender together. My hunch is that if we scraped the Internet to see how many texts proactively managed to address the multidimensionality of exploitation (understood in the neo-Marxist sense as the extraction of surplus value by owners from wage labor), oppression (understood in the neo-Marxist sense of dehumanization in regard to other social relations), alienation, and commodification, we would get a very low score. If this is actually the case, what does it tell us about how socialization works? People are either disinclined to envision a multidimensional perspective or they are shaped to disaggregate the roles society asks them to play, or a combination of both including other modes of conformity. This is basically the fallacy of composition, attributing the cause of something to a part rather than the whole. While I am skeptical of systems theory, there are some intriguing approaches, such as paradox theory, that allow for multidimensionality to not always be entirely congruent.
But in my view, you are right on in calling out the ways in which identity politics have ended up as a channel for certain groups to bypass other groups. When we hear the mantra about inclusion, diversity, and equity, inclusion for some seems to take a back seat. When inclusion is left out, diversity and equity become exclusive to the in-group. In other words, those of us who are dehumanized, oppressed, and exploited are not fully free until all of us are free. That's why in my opinion MLK ended up gravitating toward anti-capitalism and democratic socialism.
I guess from a certain perspective, they can be labelled as befits a given world view. Whether we agree with classical Marxist analysis, or neo-Marxist analysis, or none of the above, it behooves us to consider class and labor in some way, shape, or form. Perhaps distinctions are ultimately irrelevant. Perhaps distinctions help us to unravel the cause and nature of social disease. Thanks for drawing attention to society's stinky parts!
The last thing we need is "intersectionality". We need identity politics to go away and everyone to unite around class concerns.
Anyone can read between the lines of this diatribe and can see you're woke af and aren't down to sacrifice your largely abstract privileges/gains for the material benefit of all.
"diversity and equity become exclusive to the in-group. In other words, those of us who are dehumanized, oppressed, and exploited are not fully free until all of us are free."
This is woke nonsense. Believing that people are oppressed/disadvantaged by virtue of being in a "minority". Even that qualifying pretext isn't required when it comes to women (who are a majority).
Which tangible policies are identity politics fighting for? Can you clue me in? And do they impact people as much as healthcare, housing, wages, prisons and the endless slew of material policies a class-based approach would prioritise?
Thank you for the excellent take down of the liberal-conservative alliance!
As I was considering the analysis, I wished there were a couple of forward looking statements about how those of us, who advocate for an openminded and radical egalitarian world, might envision a multidimensional perspective combining class, race, and gender together. My hunch is that if we scraped the Internet to see how many texts proactively managed to address the multidimensionality of exploitation (understood in the neo-Marxist sense as the extraction of surplus value by owners from wage labor), oppression (understood in the neo-Marxist sense of dehumanization in regard to other social relations), alienation, and commodification, we would get a very low score. If this is actually the case, what does it tell us about how socialization works? People are either disinclined to envision a multidimensional perspective or they are shaped to disaggregate the roles society asks them to play, or a combination of both including other modes of conformity. This is basically the fallacy of composition, attributing the cause of something to a part rather than the whole. While I am skeptical of systems theory, there are some intriguing approaches, such as paradox theory, that allow for multidimensionality to not always be entirely congruent.
But in my view, you are right on in calling out the ways in which identity politics have ended up as a channel for certain groups to bypass other groups. When we hear the mantra about inclusion, diversity, and equity, inclusion for some seems to take a back seat. When inclusion is left out, diversity and equity become exclusive to the in-group. In other words, those of us who are dehumanized, oppressed, and exploited are not fully free until all of us are free. That's why in my opinion MLK ended up gravitating toward anti-capitalism and democratic socialism.
Aren't those paleo-Marxist understandings?
I guess from a certain perspective, they can be labelled as befits a given world view. Whether we agree with classical Marxist analysis, or neo-Marxist analysis, or none of the above, it behooves us to consider class and labor in some way, shape, or form. Perhaps distinctions are ultimately irrelevant. Perhaps distinctions help us to unravel the cause and nature of social disease. Thanks for drawing attention to society's stinky parts!
The last thing we need is "intersectionality". We need identity politics to go away and everyone to unite around class concerns.
Anyone can read between the lines of this diatribe and can see you're woke af and aren't down to sacrifice your largely abstract privileges/gains for the material benefit of all.
"diversity and equity become exclusive to the in-group. In other words, those of us who are dehumanized, oppressed, and exploited are not fully free until all of us are free."
This is woke nonsense. Believing that people are oppressed/disadvantaged by virtue of being in a "minority". Even that qualifying pretext isn't required when it comes to women (who are a majority).
Which tangible policies are identity politics fighting for? Can you clue me in? And do they impact people as much as healthcare, housing, wages, prisons and the endless slew of material policies a class-based approach would prioritise?