9 ms·

It already happened, and was called "Occupy Wallstreet". Then identity politics came around and occupied the left.

deogeo 7y ago
I heard (and take this with a bucket of salt) that the aim of the ruling class is to de-economize politics, and de-politicize the economy. I.e. don't let pesky democracy get in the way of capital. Matches reality rather well.
spamizbad 7y ago
All politics is identity politics. The difference is the left embraced it without trying to sugar coat it. It’s too bitter and now there’s some backlash.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >All politics is identity politics. That's only true if you define the term broadly enough to be useless. What about, say, anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam?
  - User23 7y ago
    Parent should have been more specific: all politics is identity politics in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. The USA of the Vietnam war no longer exists, and isn't comparable to the USA of today. In a nation state, politics tend to be divided more on ideological and regional lines, because everyone shares an identity.
    - scroblart 7y ago
      This is very weird comment. Are you saying that the USA was not a multi-ethnic/multi-religious state in the 1960s? In a nation state, politics tend to be divided more on ideological and regional lines, because everyone shares an identity. There has never been a "nation" where everybody shares an identity in the sense discussed above.
      - hyperdunc 7y ago
        The comment makes sense, but the US isn't best example. Although last century the US was somewhat dominated by one identity (which is now waning and leaving room for others to grow) it has always been multi-ethnic and multi-religious. A better example would be European nations like Hungary, which have reinforced their national identities in the face of the recent migrant crisis.
        User23 7y ago
        That is a lie, but charitably I assume you’re deceived and not a liar. Up until the early 20th century the US was overwhelmingly Christian and overwhelmingly American, which is an ethnic group of British origin. This is a scientific fact easily verified with modern genetic profiling. These are simple matters of historical fact, 1984 style history rewriting notwithstanding. I’m aware that in contemporary usage American means anyone who manages to reside in the USA, which is of course intentional because erasing the former dominant ethnic group’s identity is necessary to displace them. The Education of Henry Adams is a wonderful autobiography by one of the old Americans who saw his people were losing their political power at that time. Edit: yes I’m aware there were Germans, Dutch, Jews, and West Africans, among other ethnic groups present in the USA. They were however tiny minorities and not at all comparable to the post 20th century mass immigration populations. That was when the USA became a multi-ethnic and eventually multi-religious state.
        selimthegrim 7y ago
        Uh, Pennsylvania Dutch much? Regular Dutch in NY, for that matter? German as the national language being a possibility? If you want to mourn the WASPs Stewart Alsop might ring your bell better.
        spamizbad 7y ago
        If you define "British origin" to include Irish Protestants, which is reasonable.. But the country was barely 50 years old by the time that cultural hegemony started eroding as German, Dutch, Irish-Catholics, etc poured into the country. There's even an infamous 1899 political cartoon that asks "Why should I let these freaks cast whole votes when they're only half American?"[1] The fact is, the US has spent a majority of its existence feeling like there's an immigration and/or integration crisis, starting in the mid-1800s with Irish-Catholics and stretching to the modern day with Latin-American immigrants. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Hyphenated_Americans_Voting_Cartoon_1899.jpg/1280px-Hyphenated_Americans_Voting_Cartoon_1899.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Hy...
  - spamizbad 7y ago
    It’s less literal than that. You can think of the whole cosmopolitan urban vs salt-of-the-earth rural aspect of American politics as one example. Or southern identity/culture. “As a veteran who served”/“As a parent”, or the cross-denomination “moral majority”— it’s all based around the idea that your lived experience as something shapes your political perspective and is intrinsically valuable to the political conversation. And even Occupy: was occupy simply making a statement about economic politics or was it the identity of “the 1%” or “Bankers” vs the rest of Americans? These categories were somewhat arbitrary and basically represented which group you identified with.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      That's what I mean by defining the phrase so broadly it becomes useless. You can say, "I am, and I have an identity, therefore my politics is identity politics." However, identity politics is specifically when the tribal motivations exceed and dominate all other motivations. It's similar to how islands are not called bodies of water even though soil contains water.
      - spamizbad 7y ago
        > However, identity politics is specifically when the tribal motivations exceed and dominate all other motivations. Then the term "identity politics" shouldn't be applied. But even if we accept that extremely narrow view: there are numerous political segments that are notorious for doing what you describe across the political spectrum. Most notable the rural Scotch-Irish, often criticized for routinely voting against their self-interest and instead choosing to vote for pols who simply provide them cultural validation and do nothing to address their material concerns.
- tracker1 7y ago
  Really? One thing that is starkly contrasted today vs. even 10 years ago. People used to be able to listen, understand, empathise and compromise with those that they don't agree with. Showing a due amount of respect for people. This has been sorely lost with the tail end of the Millennial generation, and it shouldn't be surprising that nothing of value is being accomplished at all imho. I may not agree with all politicians, but there are some I feel that I genuinely respect. Those who lean on identitarian tribalism are not in the list.
  - spamizbad 7y ago
    Singling out a generation: That's identity politics.
    - idpol 7y ago
      Meh. Recognizing an identity is not identity politics and rejecting identity politics is not rejecting identity.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      Generally speaking, which generation ... * Force ever expanding identitarianism view * Force corporations to align with their views * Make anti-semetic statements while supporting other religions * Seek to ignore the foundations of government and the press * Work to displace government * Are willing to use physical violence to accomplish their goals ?
- higherpayusa 7y ago
  >All politics is identity politics. This is probably as true today as at any time in the past. What has changed, for the worse, is the definition of "other" identities (those that are not our own). What did "rural america" mean to "city dwellers" in the 1970s? What does it mean now? I'd guess the definitions most of us carry in our minds have narrowed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Well, there were mass arrests of hundreds of people at a time. Accusations of spying and subterfuge happening to the leaders. COINTELPRO happened with virtually no one being punished. Not understanding that it has and will happen again is to not learn from history.

I heard (and take this with a bucket of salt) that the aim of the ruling class is to de-economize politics, and de-politicize the economy. I.e. don't let pesky democracy get in the way of capital. Matches reality rather well.

spamizbad 7y ago

All politics is identity politics. The difference is the left embraced it without trying to sugar coat it. It’s too bitter and now there’s some backlash.

whatshisface 7y ago
>All politics is identity politics. That's only true if you define the term broadly enough to be useless. What about, say, anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam?
- User23 7y ago
  Parent should have been more specific: all politics is identity politics in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. The USA of the Vietnam war no longer exists, and isn't comparable to the USA of today. In a nation state, politics tend to be divided more on ideological and regional lines, because everyone shares an identity.
  - scroblart 7y ago
    This is very weird comment. Are you saying that the USA was not a multi-ethnic/multi-religious state in the 1960s? In a nation state, politics tend to be divided more on ideological and regional lines, because everyone shares an identity. There has never been a "nation" where everybody shares an identity in the sense discussed above.
    - hyperdunc 7y ago
      The comment makes sense, but the US isn't best example. Although last century the US was somewhat dominated by one identity (which is now waning and leaving room for others to grow) it has always been multi-ethnic and multi-religious. A better example would be European nations like Hungary, which have reinforced their national identities in the face of the recent migrant crisis.
      - User23 7y ago
        That is a lie, but charitably I assume you’re deceived and not a liar. Up until the early 20th century the US was overwhelmingly Christian and overwhelmingly American, which is an ethnic group of British origin. This is a scientific fact easily verified with modern genetic profiling. These are simple matters of historical fact, 1984 style history rewriting notwithstanding. I’m aware that in contemporary usage American means anyone who manages to reside in the USA, which is of course intentional because erasing the former dominant ethnic group’s identity is necessary to displace them. The Education of Henry Adams is a wonderful autobiography by one of the old Americans who saw his people were losing their political power at that time. Edit: yes I’m aware there were Germans, Dutch, Jews, and West Africans, among other ethnic groups present in the USA. They were however tiny minorities and not at all comparable to the post 20th century mass immigration populations. That was when the USA became a multi-ethnic and eventually multi-religious state.
        selimthegrim 7y ago
        Uh, Pennsylvania Dutch much? Regular Dutch in NY, for that matter? German as the national language being a possibility? If you want to mourn the WASPs Stewart Alsop might ring your bell better.
        spamizbad 7y ago
        If you define "British origin" to include Irish Protestants, which is reasonable.. But the country was barely 50 years old by the time that cultural hegemony started eroding as German, Dutch, Irish-Catholics, etc poured into the country. There's even an infamous 1899 political cartoon that asks "Why should I let these freaks cast whole votes when they're only half American?"[1] The fact is, the US has spent a majority of its existence feeling like there's an immigration and/or integration crisis, starting in the mid-1800s with Irish-Catholics and stretching to the modern day with Latin-American immigrants. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Hyphenated_Americans_Voting_Cartoon_1899.jpg/1280px-Hyphenated_Americans_Voting_Cartoon_1899.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Hy...
- spamizbad 7y ago
  It’s less literal than that. You can think of the whole cosmopolitan urban vs salt-of-the-earth rural aspect of American politics as one example. Or southern identity/culture. “As a veteran who served”/“As a parent”, or the cross-denomination “moral majority”— it’s all based around the idea that your lived experience as something shapes your political perspective and is intrinsically valuable to the political conversation. And even Occupy: was occupy simply making a statement about economic politics or was it the identity of “the 1%” or “Bankers” vs the rest of Americans? These categories were somewhat arbitrary and basically represented which group you identified with.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    That's what I mean by defining the phrase so broadly it becomes useless. You can say, "I am, and I have an identity, therefore my politics is identity politics." However, identity politics is specifically when the tribal motivations exceed and dominate all other motivations. It's similar to how islands are not called bodies of water even though soil contains water.
    - spamizbad 7y ago
      > However, identity politics is specifically when the tribal motivations exceed and dominate all other motivations. Then the term "identity politics" shouldn't be applied. But even if we accept that extremely narrow view: there are numerous political segments that are notorious for doing what you describe across the political spectrum. Most notable the rural Scotch-Irish, often criticized for routinely voting against their self-interest and instead choosing to vote for pols who simply provide them cultural validation and do nothing to address their material concerns.
tracker1 7y ago
Really? One thing that is starkly contrasted today vs. even 10 years ago. People used to be able to listen, understand, empathise and compromise with those that they don't agree with. Showing a due amount of respect for people. This has been sorely lost with the tail end of the Millennial generation, and it shouldn't be surprising that nothing of value is being accomplished at all imho. I may not agree with all politicians, but there are some I feel that I genuinely respect. Those who lean on identitarian tribalism are not in the list.
- spamizbad 7y ago
  Singling out a generation: That's identity politics.
  - idpol 7y ago
    Meh. Recognizing an identity is not identity politics and rejecting identity politics is not rejecting identity.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    Generally speaking, which generation ... * Force ever expanding identitarianism view * Force corporations to align with their views * Make anti-semetic statements while supporting other religions * Seek to ignore the foundations of government and the press * Work to displace government * Are willing to use physical violence to accomplish their goals ?
higherpayusa 7y ago
>All politics is identity politics. This is probably as true today as at any time in the past. What has changed, for the worse, is the definition of "other" identities (those that are not our own). What did "rural america" mean to "city dwellers" in the 1970s? What does it mean now? I'd guess the definitions most of us carry in our minds have narrowed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

Well, there were mass arrests of hundreds of people at a time. Accusations of spying and subterfuge happening to the leaders. COINTELPRO happened with virtually no one being punished. Not understanding that it has and will happen again is to not learn from history.