3 ms·
That's why I said intersectionality is distinct from identity politics. IDPOL is actually the norm in most modern politics (e.g. NIMBY). As for Marx, Engels an
by hnbad 6y ago
That's why I said intersectionality is distinct from identity politics. IDPOL is actually the norm in most modern politics (e.g. NIMBY).
As for Marx, Engels and the Irish: their position wasn't that Ireland was only divided along class lines which merely "happened to" mostly follow the British-Irish divide, at least not as they learned more about Ireland and British colonialism in Ireland. Instead they argued that Ireland should be granted independence and then join a socialist Wales, England and Scotland as a socialist federation. This is literally an intersectional understanding of the problem: Britishness and Irishness played a part, but so did the class divide.
BTW, you're mixing jargon by referring to Marx while also talking about "the lower classes". Marx only knows two classes: the working class (who have to perform wage labor to survive) and the owning class (who rent out their private property or pay workers to use it to produce goods for surplus value). The distinction of "citizens" and farmers is as meaningless in a Marxist context as you claim other distinctions to be.
You're right that capitalists will try to pit groups against each other and this is what IDPOL is. But there is a significant difference between liberal IDPOL and leftist intersectionality. Division is not created by pointing out the existence of differences but rather the creation of power imbalances along those dividing lines. It's naïve to think that racism will automatically go away if we can overcome capitalism even if capitalism is actively reinforcing racism to divide the working class.
To pick up on your example of All Lives Matter: the claim of BLM isn't that Black Lives Matter And Others Don't. Their claim is that Black Lives Matter But Others Treat Them Like They Don't. The slogan "All Lives Matter" was intentionally pushed by white supremacists as a counter to remove the focus on "Black Lives" specifically. The point wasn't to say other lives don't matter, in general, but that right then, right there, this is putting "Black Lives" front and center for once because nobody is paying attention to their suffering. "Blue Lives Matter" went even further: since one of the core complaints of BLM was police killings of Black people, the substitute of "Blue" for "Black" was a direct inversion shifting the support from the oppressed to the oppressor. MLK most certainly wouldn't be rolling in his grave.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoRight, thanks, I'll have to look more into the difference between intersectionality and identity politics. ---- "Racism" seems now to me to be a very bad term (in a way, it's racist itself) - we have many examples of similar kind of strife wrongly called racist, while it should probably called "ethnicist" (?) instead : - (Protestant ?) White North Americans vs (Catholic ?) White Central & South Americans. - Muslim Semites vs Jewish Semites. ---- My main point is that BLM shot themselves in the foot by using this slogan - something like "Black Lives Matter too !" wouldn't have allowed their opponents to claim this kind of Orwellian inversion of terms.