Where would you put a line on what is in the domain of intersectionality and what is in the domain of identity politics?
Is it possible for people to confuse one with the other? I’ve felt a lot that the criticism of identity politics eventually leads to some people branding intersectional approach as IdPol, which I personally thing might have reactionary roots.
Are there good sources for the distinction, how would you define the difference?
You must log in or register to comment.
There was a recent discussion about it thought it was a shitshow: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13059680
You can start there. I left a comment there. It’s elementary but not completely useless: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13059680/8847285
Other replies are much better. The term I talk about not being able to remember there is “class reductionism”.
I’m getting an error for some reasom
My bad. The post was deleted. I didn’t realise. I’m really sorry.
This is a great video on this topic, a bit long but very well thought out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp9VBvAslyU
Women, Race and Class by Angela Davis I think very well uses intersectionality. I think the essential part of intersectionality for marxists is to expand the definition of what the ‘oppressed class’ looks like, to include other historically marginilised groups (that experience marginalisation in more ways than just eceonomic class based). Identity politics rejects the primacy of class struggle, but that doesnt mean that we should reject all intersectionality and advocate for a “marxist” idpol but around some “”“pure”" “worker” identity. As you pointed out that comes from reactionary, chauvinist roots.
Yes, that’s what I’m thinking as of recently. Thank you for answering
Intersectionality is a liberal feminist concept to be sure, but this correction in a direction opposed to “identity politics” is embarrassingly bad as well. It is important to recognize the ways in which oppression acts along multiple axes, but both these tendencies make the same mistake, that is, thinking that class is an axis which is distinct from the others. Rather, these other axes are component pieces of what we understand as class. It is absolutely crucial to investigate a message based on its contents rather than who it is coming from. However, the message from many “leftists” so often boils down to trying to convince oppressed minorities to ignore their oppression and ally with people who only promise that this oppression will be dealt with in the future. Obviously this ignores the opportunist history of the white “left” like the multiple betrayals of the Black working class by the white American working class.
The line is simple: a correct message is correct regardless of who is delivering it. However, a person delivering a message is not a neutral entity, and their identity plays into the message that they are likely to deliver. So yes, while we shouldn’t assume that all members of an oppressed minority group are correct by merely being part of that group, neither should we assume that the answer to this is to form some imaginary class alliance which will immediately sell out the struggles of their minority groups once their own reformist needs are met.
I am sorry for not using the language that best communicates this (am ESL so I am not gonna be good at using the “correct” language). What I mean is I see time to time see sexism, homophobia, racism etc being discarded completely while almost recultantly recognized as agendas. I am myself a minority in my own country, and I’ve encountered problems that I really only got understaning from people with similar oppression (racialized, etc) and almost complete dismissal from everyone else, to the point of agreeing with right wingers but because they think what we say is undermining eveything. To the point that my distaste with being called slurs was deemed as idpol immediately.
And a lot of leftists over here assume that just because they’re leftists, they’re exempt from propaganda and reactionary ideas and what spaces they create are as such as well, where everyone is already equal, like a pocket dimension. And sometimes it’s coated in “left language”, they can even cite the works out of context to justify why they exclude racialized people. etc. So I developed intense frustration and am not sure what I’m doing wrong
Your english is fine. You’re correct to identify this as a problem, and people like this, far from being allies, are social fascists and the enemies of communism. I am immediately wary of anyone that talks about “identity politics”. What this really reveals is the class interest of these so-called socialists, that they expect the question of liberation for minorities to be left to the future. This is a perspective I can understand within a national liberation movement, as the contradictions of imperialism weigh more on the nationally oppressed than the contradictions within the national liberation movement itself. That being said, it doesn’t sound like you’re involved in a national liberation movement, but perhaps a first world “working class” one.
For further context, I am an ethnic minority in Russia and depending on whether Russia is considered “developed” or “developing” you answer might wary, I am also trans, and local trans community is represented by ethnic Russian ajority which will gladly demonize and exclude you for being Muslim raised, or, which is more insidious, say you’re “not like them”, which is until you have a slight disagreement with them.
And speaking of which, the position by itself is what I find myself too vulnerable even in Marxist circles, oftentimes Russian chauvinism goes unchecked in the country, but any talks about them will either get used against me to destroy both mine and ethnic Russian’s lives (but mine first, of course), or get peer pressured into silence for the same reason
Then there is nothing that I can tell you which you don’t already know about the people you’re involved with or the task of communists in your country. The weaponization of “identity politics” is used by chauvinists who call themselves marxists to reduce marxism into a reformist battle rather than a truly liberationist one. That being said, the struggle looks different in different places. The needs of the moment are dependent on your material reality. I can’t tell you what to do because I don’t live where you do. I can just tell you that with the dominance of westerners on the english speaking side of the internet, you can not assume that even if they have the correct line for their conditions (and most do not), that you can simply copy amd paste this on to your own conditions.
This is true, I am just starting to put my hands down at the lack of voice I get. Thank you for thoughtful answers.
Class Struggle by Losurdo and Marxist-Leninist Perspectives on Black Liberation and Socialism by Chapman both give a really thorough perspective on class reductionism
It is not wholely incorrect to say that there is a specific type of “identity politics” that is anti-marxist and dangerous. For example, the United States had a black woman as their UN representative for quite a while, and I think that was very clearly for the purpose of deflecting criticism away from the racist and colonial positions put forth at the UN by the US by saying “but look a black person is our representative!” However, it is absolutely reactionary to respond to this by saying that we shouldn’t have an intersectional approach. Rather, it is a part of the mission of communists to fight tirelessly against all froms of oppression (and also to remember that fostering things like racism and sexism and various other sorts of social oppression is a tactic the ruling class uses against the working class, so even just out of our own class interest we must oppose these things). Basically I would say this: if a specific person who is of a marginalized identity is an enemy of the working class, then of course we oppose them as we would any enemy of the working class. But we should not get caught up in class reductionism, and we must not dismiss the very real struggle against all forms of chauvinism, even chauvinism cloaked in “leftist” language.
