Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
HorseLord
Aug 26, 2014

ronya posted:

well

I don't think it's productive to argue this with you, in the particular, but for the sake of wider discussion, I'll point out that an ideology that crystallized in the 1930s was remarkably successful in implementing civil rights as understood in the 1930s (mass secular education and abolishing polygamy in a hurry are not small achievements, as a cursory inspection of central and east asia will show. compare south asia.)

but it was unsurprisingly not terribly enthusiastic about further evolutions in feminism or ethnic identity. that's not really its fault, as it were, save for the aspect where only liberal societies (virtually by definition) have a characteristically raucous and rancorous open discourse

You're actually disgraceful in dismissing Communist efforts in civil rights as merely "mass secular education and abolishing polygamy". They were literally the first people in power anywhere to ban racial segregation, guarantee equal rights in law, and provide actively fight marginalisation of minority ethnic groups. They were literally granting in the 1920s what people were being killed for asking in 1960s America. This is why, surprise surprise, the 20th century civil rights struggle in America was absolutely full of communists.

This is why your original point is loving stupid. You suggest that Liberal countries having mass movements that fought racist governments in the 1960s is a sign of how progressive liberalism is, compared to Socialist countries, which didn't have them because the governments were extremely anti-racist to the point of open racism being punishable with ten years in a goddamned labour camp. The USSR did not generate it's own Malcolm X to fight The Man, because The Man there was teaching that Malcolm X was correct.

HorseLord fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Aug 1, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jedit
Dec 10, 2011

Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Zephro posted:

Are you sure the changes are retroactive?

Yes.

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

XMNN posted:

I hate this country and i want it to burn to the ground and everyone involved to die,

how much closer is that beautiful dream since I gave up on politics to spend more time with my family drugs and alcohol ~two weeks ago?

well the vote to renew trident means we'll still have the means to do so

Tigey
Apr 6, 2015

'And you are lynching negroes'

HorseLord
Aug 26, 2014

Tigey posted:

'And you are lynching negroes'

Apparently the phrase anticommunists use when they're mistaking an attempt to establish evaluative symmetry for a tu quoque

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

That liberal democracy has recently begun to fight some forms of social discrimination does not debunk my assertion that it has very little interest in ending economic inequality. I did say that social liberalism is very keen on laws to prevent some forms of discrimination, while simultaneously enshrining economic inequality as a virtue.

ThomasPaine
Feb 4, 2009

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.
I really cba getting into a longwinded debate but if anyone is unsure about the problems of liberalism they could do a lot worse than read the book 'liberalism: a counter history' that ober recommended a while back.

In short classical liberalism is not so much about the freedom of each individual but about the protection of property. That property has historically been expanded to include slaves and servants and whatnot - even a paid labourer can be reduced to property because by the terms of his contract his labour is owned by his employer.

Contrast that with modern social liberalism which is less concerned with property per se and more with certain freedoms to act however makes you happy (so long as it doesn't infringe on the ability of others to do the same).

That last bit is important because it acknowledges that sometimes freedom must be limited for the collective good. Classical liberalism has no such provision - property is sacred. You have to understand it as an ideology of the bourgeoisie - a direct reaction to the ability of monarchs to deprive wealthy citizens of their property. It never cared about the needs of the masses.

I think there probably does need to be a clear distinction in terminology here because it can get confusing - and some classical liberals are very clever at obfuscating the difference. I'd suggest 'libertarian' if it hasn't been co-opted by the worst of the free marketeers already, so the best term to use is anyone's guess.

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

The efforts of socialists, anarchists and communists who participated in the civil rights movement, the campaign for women's suffrage, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, decolonization and the gay rights movement have been largely written out of popular history and it's kind of hilarious how liberals have colonised and appropriated these struggles and their narratives to their own propagandistic ends.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

I think "Liberalism" on its own quite aptly describes the general continuous trend which tries to conflate economic and social liberalism.

"Social Liberalism" serves quite nicely for the more modern civil-rights oriented set of ideas which can exist quite easily within, or I suppose, without the former.

As for the idea that the general good is best served by limiting the freedom of people to control others, through money or otherwise, I guess you could call that egalitarianism or something?

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

OwlFancier posted:

Liberals have been, and are, primarily concerned with the freedom of the wealthy, even modern liberals who buy into the concept of social liberalism are overwhelmingly concerned with what the law allows people to do, or ending "social ills" like racism, but if you suggest that a major attack on racism would be to just hand out money to black people in America because one of the most material effects of racism in America is that race correlates strongly with poverty, they will cry about taxes and people needing to get jobs.

I think the more modern form of liberalism (and the kind people itt are mad about) is the kind where people care about expanding freedoms and the principle of extending them to everyone, but they're less interested in creating equality of opportunity. So liberals tend to support positive changes that will only materially affect and benefit fairly privileged people, but often resist the social policies necessary to actually bring those benefits to everyone else. Usually because those policies involve them 'losing out' to some degree, even if it's just an idea of unfairness that something focuses on helping one group (e.g. poor people, or a minority) at the exclusion of others.

So obviously leftists share some liberal ideals, the difference is that leftists want them to also be universal in practice, and see that inequality as the bigger problem that needs to be addressed. Ideals like social liberalism are easy to share, because for liberals they're 'cheap' - changing the law or general attitudes doesn't involve any loss or compromises. You can choose to campaign against racism, if you like, and that will benefit everyone. But actually tackling the root causes of the problem, that's inherently a tradeoff where one group benefits and another does not. It's an attempt to increase equality through inequality, which liberals are often against as a principle - especially when it affects them personally

see also: my free speech, I should be able to say what I want

tooterfish
Jul 13, 2013

TomViolence posted:

The efforts of socialists, anarchists and communists who participated in the civil rights movement, the campaign for women's suffrage, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, decolonization and the gay rights movement have been largely written out of popular history and it's kind of hilarious how liberals have colonised and appropriated these struggles and their narratives to their own propagandistic ends.
The role of prominent suffragettes in British fascism is written out too, so it kinda evens out.

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
its probably easier to just talk about identity politics than liberalism all the time

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Jose posted:

its probably easier to just talk about identity politics than liberalism all the time

dismissing minorities' issues as 'identity politics' is pretty drat liberal imo, if you're saying they're the same thing

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
no i'm saying that identity politics is generally effective which is why liberals adopt it as times change and things are more acceptable

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

Identity politics is good and great and fine as long as one of those identities is based on socioeconomic class and is recognised as intersecting with the others.

Barry Foster
Dec 24, 2007

What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

XMNN posted:

I hate this country and i want it to burn to the ground and everyone involved to die,

how much closer is that beautiful dream since I gave up on politics to spend more time with my family drugs and alcohol ~two weeks ago?

You doing alright, pal?

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Jose posted:

no i'm saying that identity politics is generally effective which is why liberals adopt it as times change and things are more acceptable

Well sure but lots of people who aren't liberals 'adopt' it too

I have to use scare quotes because it's always come across as a pejorative used by people who want minorities to shut up with their issues and focus on the wider struggle, which doesn't address their problems

Namtab
Feb 22, 2010

Jedit posted:

Good news, public sector pensions are no longer linked to final salary but against an average of your salary during your employment! Good news unless you're a public sector worker approaching retirement age, that is, as you've spent all those years paying into a scheme thinking it would suffice only to be told the terms have changed and you've lost most of it.

In nursing at least people above a certain age got offered the choice

Nobody I ever met chose the new pension.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

baka kaba posted:

Well sure but lots of people who aren't liberals 'adopt' it too

I have to use scare quotes because it's always come across as a pejorative used by people who want minorities to shut up with their issues and focus on the wider struggle, which doesn't address their problems

I genuinely don't know what it means because I only ever hear it used in that context.

ThomasPaine
Feb 4, 2009

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

TomViolence posted:

Identity politics is good and great and fine as long as one of those identities is based on socioeconomic class and is recognised as intersecting with the others.

No, identity politics is poison because it's individualist bullshit that directly harms a proper socialist reading. All discrimination is rooted in class, and by attributing essential significance to social groups (e.g. 'woman', 'black person', 'homosexual') you immediately buy into into a classic misdirection and harm the cause of real solidarity. Identity politics is the reason self-proclaimed progressives can merrily cheer on someone like Clinton becoming president. Socialism incorporates all that is necessary for all liberation and provides a consistent and convincing framework. Try arguing this as a white guy in some circles though and just lol.

ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Aug 1, 2016

JFairfax
Oct 23, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
divide and conquer is a great strategy

Tigey
Apr 6, 2015

Namtab posted:

In nursing at least people above a certain age got offered the choice

Nobody I ever met chose the new pension.

This was the case back in 2002/03 when a new average salary pension scheme was being pushed in the civil service department I worked in. It was mandatory for new staff, whilst existing staff had the option of moving over to it or staying on their existing final salary legacy scheme.

The only way in which the new pension scheme was even slightly better than the old, was that it provided a fractionally higher 'one-off' death benefit payment to spouses (about £100 higher). In all other areas it was several orders of magnitude worse. Existing staff treated the offer with literal contempt - no-one transferred to it.

Jrbg
May 20, 2014

ThomasPaine posted:

No, identity politics is poison because it's individualist bullshit that directly harms a proper socialist reading. All discrimination is rooted in class, and by attributing essential significance to social groups (e.g. 'woman', 'black person', 'homosexual') you immediately buy into into a classic misdirection and harm the cause of real solidarity. Identity politics is the reason self-proclaimed progressives can merrily cheer on someone like Clinton becoming president. Socialism incorporates all that is necessary for all liberation and provides a consistent and convincing framework. Try arguing this as a white guy in some circles though and just lol.

Problem with this line of thinking is just that I find it very hard to imagine why I was the subject of homophobic bullying if it was anything to do with class conflict and capitalism. It just seems a huge stretch, and it sounds very conveniently like mental gymnastics.

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

ThomasPaine posted:

No, identity politics is poison because it's individualist bullshit that directly harms a proper socialist reading. All discrimination is rooted in class, and by attributing essential significance to social groups (e.g. 'woman', 'black person', 'homosexual') you immediately buy into into a classic misdirection and harm the cause of real solidarity. Identity politics is the reason self-proclaimed progressives can merrily cheer on someone like Clinton becoming president.

Dismissing issues of race, gender and sexuality as bourgeois distractions doesn't sound like authentic solidarity to me. It plays directly into the atomising, individualised divide and conquer dynamic you seem so sure identity politics creates. The erasure of socioeconomic class from the discourse and its colonisation by economically agnostic liberals seems like a much greater factor in hamstringing the workers' movement than them gays and coloureds finally having a voice.

GEORGE W BUSHI
Jul 1, 2012

Identity politics provide a convenient cover for left wing political parties to become liberal parties while still holding onto their supporters who are motivated by social justice. That doesn't mean that identity politics aren't important and necessary and that minority groups don't get marginalised by organisations with otherwise correct politics.

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal

TomViolence posted:

Identity politics is good and great and fine as long as one of those identities is based on socioeconomic class and is recognised as intersecting with the others.
The problem with postmodern 'identity politics' as opposed to say 'civil rights struggle' is that a lot of it tends to have been taken on by the liberal bourgeois let's just call them shitters to avoid terminology paralysis, by the shitter class to stifle any talk of class struggle, and also to confine any expression of identity to 'acceptable' outlets like finding their own groups and meeting places. It's built as a construct where it is very good to 'tolerate' another person's differences as long as doing so does not inconvenience the shitters themselves, and any complaints about this by the workers (who are already being inconvenienced by the economic system) can thus be written off as "the racist plebs". As soon as any identity starts demanding things that do inconvenience the shitter, they then become a 'special interests group' or 'fundamentalists' unless they have the ready money to make it worth their while.

Which is not to say that racism etc. does not exist among the working class, it does, but when the shitters immediately blame that on the inherent racism of that class rather than on the economic pressures that they create, and then say "if only the workers could be cool and enlightened like me" then it drives a wedge between the workers and the 'metropolitan elites', which is how we end up with things like the Brexit results and the chicken coups and the popularity of UKIPs.

It's also how you end up with things like trad. Marxist-Leninists sounding a bit like UKIP with "immigrants and PC gone mad" speeches, until they do a 180 and come out with solutions like:

quote:

Of course, you find racism in the white working class, but you cannot fight it through condescending moral campaigns carried out by the liberal upper class or its neoliberal left twin. Racism in the working class can only be defeated through joint class struggle by proletarians of various ethnic origins. Together.
(And also how you end up with random transphobia in the Morning Star, but presented without radical inclusive solutions.)

Labour movements have managed to incorporate identity politics in the past, and have managed to apply Marxian dynamics to explain oppression along race and gender lines, so there doesn't need to be a class/identity split like that, it just seems like a lot of identity politics is being stolen away from economic justice and leaving the proletariat as a mass movement feeling divided and ignored.

e: ^^^ Hey, I think Baron Corbyn said the exact same thing in a lot less words. :haw:

Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Aug 1, 2016

feedmegin
Jul 30, 2008

Just got a text:

'Jeremy Corbyn here. I'm running for leader to build a Labour movement serious about winning power. Will you back me? Reply YES, NO or MAYBE. Or STOP to opt out.'

At least Our Jezza doesn't text in the middle of the night like your needy ex.

Barry Foster
Dec 24, 2007

What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

feedmegin posted:

Just got a text:

'Jeremy Corbyn here. I'm running for leader to build a Labour movement serious about winning power. Will you back me? Reply YES, NO or MAYBE. Or STOP to opt out.'

At least Our Jezza doesn't text in the middle of the night like your needy ex.

I got one like that from Owen Smith recently as well. I suspect a trap, and refuse to answer, lest they somehow find a way to disenfranchise me for voting incorrectly

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

ThomasPaine posted:

No, identity politics is poison because it's individualist bullshit that directly harms a proper socialist reading. All discrimination is rooted in class, and by attributing essential significance to social groups (e.g. 'woman', 'black person', 'homosexual') you immediately buy into into a classic misdirection and harm the cause of real solidarity. Identity politics is the reason self-proclaimed progressives can merrily cheer on someone like Clinton becoming president. Socialism incorporates all that is necessary for all liberation and provides a consistent and convincing framework. Try arguing this as a white guy in some circles though and just lol.

I feel like this is an argument in favour of 'pure' socialism and not one that reflects the current state of society. You can easily say that 'woman', 'black person' etc are already classes, that division has already happened and been exploited, so the socialism that undoes that has to address their concerns, not dismiss them. It has to actually be inclusive and universal in practice, but of course the struggle is a long and gradual one, and there's a tendency to expect everyone to focus on a narrower movement that benefits the privileged more than everyone else. It's an expectation of solidarity with the promise of equality later, if at all

Don't get me wrong, I can see how it can divide efforts (and be exploited to do so), but that was the whole point of divide-and-rule in the first place. That's why a unified movement has to erase those divisions within the class, to repair that weakness. Saying 'it'll be fixed when we succeed' doesn't sound like a recipe for success

I'm not sure that Hillary Clinton is the best example here, seeing as US conservatives are heavily adopting the 'all lives matter/it shouldn't just be about black people' mantra to dismiss the very real issues black people are facing in that country. Obviously they're not pushing a socialist agenda

ThaumPenguin
Oct 9, 2013

feedmegin posted:

Just got a text:

'Jeremy Corbyn here. I'm running for leader to build a Labour movement serious about winning power. Will you back me? Reply YES, NO or MAYBE. Or STOP to opt out.'

At least Our Jezza doesn't text in the middle of the night like your needy ex.

'Do you think we could get together again? Reply YES, NO or MAYBE. Or STOP to opt out.'

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

I've not found it especially hard to reconcile my sexuality with my economic class, both are methods of oppression (and frankly, the latter rather more serious in my case) but I don't really feel a need to pick one or another. A purely economic solution won't solve the former and a socially liberal solution won't help me with the latter.

A socialist manifesto can guarantee equality in more ways than economic.

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

'The PLP here. We need a leader to build a Labour movement serious about winning power. Will you run for leader? Reply YES, NO or MAYBE. Or STOP to opt out.'

ThomasPaine
Feb 4, 2009

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

TomViolence posted:

Dismissing issues of race, gender and sexuality as bourgeois distractions doesn't sound like authentic solidarity to me. It plays directly into the atomising, individualised divide and conquer dynamic you seem so sure identity politics creates. The erasure of socioeconomic class from the discourse and its colonisation by economically agnostic liberals seems like a much greater factor in hamstringing the workers' movement than them gays and coloureds finally having a voice.

Of course they're not irrelevant, but they need to be understood through a socialist framework to be meaningful. The colonisation of superficially progressive identity politics by the dominant liberal class, the attribution of essential significance to the identity itself (as opposed to the social-economic forces resulting in its oppression) and the erosion of socialist thinking within such groups go hand in hand.

Noxville
Dec 7, 2003

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/760190568018305024

These things do seem a little better attended than Owen Smith's.

JFairfax
Oct 23, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Noxville posted:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/760190568018305024

These things do seem a little better attended than Owen Smith's.

look just because he is popular doesn't mean he's popular

thespaceinvader
Mar 30, 2011

The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!
Just a tad bit, yes.

The argument that it's all just Labour party members seems more than a little suspect.

communism bitch
Apr 24, 2009

TomViolence posted:

The efforts of socialists, anarchists and communists who participated in the civil rights movement, the campaign for women's suffrage, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, decolonization and the gay rights movement have been largely written out of popular history and it's kind of hilarious how liberals have colonised and appropriated these struggles and their narratives to their own propagandistic ends.

Ding ding.
Most socially liberal concessions won from classically liberal stares are extorted at knifepoint by mass agitation. Bourgeois society only extended the franchise, outlawed slavery, repealed restrictions on ethnic, sexual, or religious minorities as concessions to popular agitation - often after decades (or more) of pressure.

Don't give the state the credit for victories won from it through popular struggle you fuckerrrzz

Pork Lift
Oct 9, 2007

Winner of the 2012
:dong: Highway Traffic :dong:
Prediction Razzies

baka kaba posted:

'The PLP here. We need a leader to build a Labour movement serious about winning power. Will you run for leader? Reply YES, NO or MAYBE. Or STOP to opt out.'

Angela Eagle managed to select all of the above

ThomasPaine
Feb 4, 2009

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

baka kaba posted:

I feel like this is an argument in favour of 'pure' socialism and not one that reflects the current state of society. You can easily say that 'woman', 'black person' etc are already classes, that division has already happened and been exploited, so the socialism that undoes that has to address their concerns, not dismiss them. It has to actually be inclusive and universal in practice, but of course the struggle is a long and gradual one, and there's a tendency to expect everyone to focus on a narrower movement that benefits the privileged more than everyone else. It's an expectation of solidarity with the promise of equality later, if at all

Don't get me wrong, I can see how it can divide efforts (and be exploited to do so), but that was the whole point of divide-and-rule in the first place. That's why a unified movement has to erase those divisions within the class, to repair that weakness. Saying 'it'll be fixed when we succeed' doesn't sound like a recipe for success

I'm not sure that Hillary Clinton is the best example here, seeing as US conservatives are heavily adopting the 'all lives matter/it shouldn't just be about black people' mantra to dismiss the very real issues black people are facing in that country. Obviously they're not pushing a socialist agenda

I think it's important to distinguish between 'privilege' and 'class'. I wouldn't say that women/LGBT people/PoC etc etc constitute classes in their own right. Instead, they constitute less privileged demographics as a result of their divergence from the predominant makeup of the dominant class (historically rich white straight men).

Class on the other hand I tend to take a fairly orthodox line on - who pays the bills by selling labour and who by exploiting it. The dominant class here effectively, though their control of the direction of debate (via the media/politics etc) are able to determine the privilege or lack thereof attributed to various demographics and exert a huge influence on the general culture of society.

Now things are obviously changing as we see historically marginalised groups begin to gradually enter the sphere of the dominant class. There are plenty of women business owners now for example (though still a minority, a substantial one). This I would say is fundamentally related to the push to have feminism (or name any other liberation movement) be much more accepted within mainstream culture. And so it has become, but - very importantly - shorn of its class consciousness. So people clap and sob and cheer at Clinton likely being the next US president, but all that has happened is the network of exploiters has become a little more diverse and the privilege makeup of society has shifted slightly. Nothing has happened to benefit the people meaningfully at all.

My issue with identity politics isn't the identities themselves - because they're as real as your experience of them. The problem is 'identity politics' today has been almost wholly gutted of meaningful progressive content. If a poor black guy looks at Obama and thinks 'oh hey a black guy in the white house, what a great achievement for progress' as many such groups would have them do, they directly undermine the socialist cause (often very deliberately I imagine). By encouraging people to associate themselves primarily with an identity, they obfuscate the fact that, for example, the poor black guy watching Obama has way more in common with the poor white guy watching Obama than either do with Obama. And it then becomes very easy to accuse anyone making the argument that, actually, women or PoC or LGBT people in positions of power aren't an inherently good thing of being bigoted in one way or another.

e: The less than cheery fate of working class suffragettes is very instructive in this case I think, despite the apparent 'victory' of the movement.

ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Aug 1, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Darth Walrus
Feb 13, 2012

thespaceinvader posted:

Just a tad bit, yes.

The argument that it's all just Labour party members seems more than a little suspect.

Then again, considering how fast the party's growing... :v:

  • Locked thread