Conflicts of interest within identity politics? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14862017
Some minority groups like LGBT seem to be oppressed(subject to bigotry and social exclusion) but not systematically exploited for power and profit. Do groups that are oppressed but not exploited have a much more limited set of objectives and a much broader pool of potential political allies than groups which are both oppressed and exploited? And if so, wouldn't the oppressed but not exploited groups also likely have very different priorities and be open to a range of compromises the oppressed and exploited could not agree to? Also, wouldn't some of the potential political allies of the oppressed but not exploited be natural enemies of the oppressed and exploited?
#14862020
Yes. But you also can't find political power in those who are truly exploited because if they are truly exploited, they must have been successfully exploited to the point where they would have no significant political power.

To put this another way before the virtue signalers file in, if someone has power then attempts to exploit them have clearly failed to some degree.

My conclusion of course is that identity politics and the politics of victimization are fundamentally fake. An ongoing exploitation can never be the justification for power because its existence is the antithesis of any kind of power.
#14862034
Hong Wu wrote:Yes. But you also can't find political power in those who are truly exploited because if they are truly exploited, they must have been successfully exploited to the point where they would have no significant political power.


That's ridiculous, a group can be exploited while possessing a degree of political power. It's not a simple either/or.
#14862038
It depends. For one it depends a lot on what letter you happen to fall into in the alphabet soup (trans people have it far worse than anyone else).

I'd argue it certainly can make you more exploitable economically through things like worker protection laws being lacking, or being thrown into the streets by your family when young, or denied housing etc. etc.

There's also intersectional aspects which can compound and assist exploitation of exploited groups like african americans.

On the other hand white gay dudes who aren't outwardly challenging gender norms in their behavior can often be barely effected if they live in the right place.

So I'd say it isn't perfectly clear that LGBT people as a group are or aren't exploited as a group.

As for the "is there a conflict of interest" issue. Well that depends too. A rich white gay dude is going to have a very narrow set of interests that aren't going to transcend to addressing economic class issues, it will tangentially address the marginal exploitation of gay people over the background of whatever other groups they are in.

Ultimately no LGBT right is going to address what you or other marxists are ultimately interested in.

So in some sense we are not opposed by and can be supported by interests that would not support "fixing" class interests in a Marxist sense.

I'd argue that it doesn't make LGBT issues or fighting LGBT issues unimportant or counterproductive to dealing with economic issues. Gay marriage and whatever else doesn't hurt working class straight people. I also don't see why it not being opposed by or it being supported by people and groups antithetical to the Marxist cause strengthens them. they are already empowered.
#14862255
mikema63 wrote:It depends. For one it depends a lot on what letter you happen to fall into in the alphabet soup (trans people have it far worse than anyone else).

I'd argue it certainly can make you more exploitable economically through things like worker protection laws being lacking, or being thrown into the streets by your family when young, or denied housing etc. etc.


That would be more incidental than systematic. For a lot of other groups resolving social oppression wouldn't necessarily alleviate economic exploitation in the same way.

So I'd say it isn't perfectly clear that LGBT people as a group are or aren't exploited as a group.


I agree, but would it be fair to say LGBT aren't as systematically exploited as groups like blacks or women? Just to be clear, I don't want to suggest that the plight of LGBT in this society is any less difficult, on the contrary, groups that aren't readily exploitable often suffer far more brutal forms of abuse simply because their oppressors have no stake at all in their well-being.

As for the "is there a conflict of interest" issue. Well that depends too. A rich white gay dude is going to have a very narrow set of interests that aren't going to transcend to addressing economic class issues, it will tangentially address the marginal exploitation of gay people over the background of whatever other groups they are in.

Ultimately no LGBT right is going to address what you or other marxists are ultimately interested in.

So in some sense we are not opposed by and can be supported by interests that would not support "fixing" class interests in a Marxist sense.

I'd argue that it doesn't make LGBT issues or fighting LGBT issues unimportant or counterproductive to dealing with economic issues. Gay marriage and whatever else doesn't hurt working class straight people. I also don't see why it not being opposed by or it being supported by people and groups antithetical to the Marxist cause strengthens them. they are already empowered.


I think that pretty well answers the question. The bulk of oppressed and exploited minority populations won't meaningfully benefit from social equality without a corresponding political and economic equality. Bourgeois liberalism will leave most of us behind.
#14862353
That would be more incidental than systematic. For a lot of other groups resolving social oppression wouldn't necessarily alleviate economic exploitation in the same way.


I mean oppression against gay people, particularly outside of gay white guys, is definitely systematic. Worker protection laws lacking a clause about sexuality and gender identity is certainly systematic for instance.

If oppression against gay people dissapeared then certainly we wouldn't be exploitable in the same way that african americans or women are. Then against if racial discrimination against a group dissapeared (the Irish for instance in the US) then they wouldn't be exploitable in the same way.

All other forms of social oppression could dissapear and it wouldn't fundamentally be any different than the end of oppression against LGBT people in so far as it wouldn't address economic class issues.

There are working class and rich LGBT people, there are working class and rich women, there are even working class and rich minorities. Undoing those other forms of social oppression would make working class and rich oppressed peoples lives better and wouldn't solve working class issues in and of themselves sure, but it still would disproportionately help the working class people in those groups.

I agree, but would it be fair to say LGBT aren't as systematically exploited as groups like blacks or women? Just to be clear, I don't want to suggest that the plight of LGBT in this society is any less difficult, on the contrary, groups that aren't readily exploitable often suffer far more brutal forms of abuse simply because their oppressors have no stake at all in their well-being.


It's difficult to measure something like that, I would argue that the experience is simply fundamentally different and comparisons between race and sexuality in terms of oppression are just really iffy and hard to draw properly.

I think that pretty well answers the question. The bulk of oppressed and exploited minority populations won't meaningfully benefit from social equality without a corresponding political and economic equality. Bourgeois liberalism will leave most of us behind.


Gay people are no more or less working class for having gay rights than minorities or women would be any more or less working class for having social equality with their working class peers.

There is nothing about women lib, or racial justice, or gay rights that upends the class system. It simply improves those peoples lives.

At best I could point out that such social equality would remove those lines between working class people that often confound solidarity on economic issues. Race for instance is something that clearly splits many working class whites from ever being willing to stand with african americans for stuff you want to see happen on the working class front.

My main contention with marxists on this issue is not that I believe this type of social justice is all that matters. It's that marxists want to dismiss these issues as identity politics meant to distract from economic issues when these issues are very real and make economic issues harder to address so long as they exist. I contend that you can't solve class issues without dealing with social issues not because solving social issues will solve economic issues but because enough of humanity is happy to accept whatever else as long as they get to stand over an oppressed minority. They will and have rejected even minor moderate wellfare programs for fear of welfare queen black women with a million kids for instance.

These issues are real and not something that can be dismissed to address class issues and indeed wont be addressed solely through addressing class issues. I'd further argue that until you address these cultural hatreds and inequalities you are going to be spinning your wheels on class issues.
#14863319
mikema63 wrote:All other forms of social oppression could disappear and it wouldn't fundamentally be any different than the end of oppression against LGBT people in so far as it wouldn't address economic class issues.


That's just not true, some groups are oppressed largely for the purpose of exploitation. LGBT is oppressed solely for cultural reasons. All forms of social oppression could disappear and it wouldn't make any fundamental difference to the oppressed and exploited.

My main contention with marxists on this issue is not that I believe this type of social justice is all that matters. It's that marxists want to dismiss these issues as identity politics meant to distract from economic issues when these issues are very real and make economic issues harder to address so long as they exist.


I don't think "marxists" contend that economic justice is all that matters and they certainly don't dismiss minority issues, that's just sophistry. It is clear though that identity politics is the means by which liberals attempt to progressify their bourgeois politics and protect their class interests by dividing the third estate into identitarian factions.


I contend that you can't solve class issues without dealing with social issues not because solving social issues will solve economic issues but because enough of humanity is happy to accept whatever else as long as they get to stand over an oppressed minority.


The only bunch claiming we should address one and neglect the other is fucking liberals, the left is all over both.
#14863321
If you are just going to start accusing me of sophistry and claiming that we should only address social issues when that is clearly not true then I think what was a surprisingly pleasant discussion is over.
#14863331
mikema63 wrote:If you are just going to start accusing me of sophistry and claiming that we should only address social issues when that is clearly not true then I think what was a surprisingly pleasant discussion is over.



Well I don't want it to take a nasty turn but when you say "marxists" are only interested in class issues I take that as sophistry because I know you know better. On the other hand you don't think it's fair to say that identity politics is used cynically by the liberal establishment? If we're going to have a pleasant discussion then we both have to be charitable and converse in good faith.
#14863336
Well I don't want it to take a nasty turn but when you say "marxists" are only interested in class issues I take that as sophistry because I know you know better.

There are many marxists that I've met on PoFo and in real life who do not take social issues seriously and dissmiss them as solved by just addressing class issues.

On the other hand you don't think it's fair to say that identity politics is used cynically by the liberal establishment?


The liberal establishment are, well, liberals. They don't have a marxist view about class issues. They simply don't see the struggle between the workers and the capitalists as a real thing ideologically. So no I don't think it's cynicism that makes them focus on class issues which they think are real and serious while pushing for moderate liberal forms of social welfare.

If we're going to have a pleasant discussion then we both have to be charitable and converse in good faith.


I'm perfectly happy to converse in good faith. I didn't start lobbing around allegations of sophistry the first time you badmouthed liberals.
#14863351
Well I guess I owe you another apology, I wasn't aware that you had encountered marxists that deny racism and bigotry is a problem in itself. I all I can say is that most on the left do not hold that view.

I do disagree with you that liberals don't use identity cynically, but I suppose I should make that case rather than just asserting it. Look forward to a thread on that.
#14863358
Well, to be fair most of the Marxists I've met like that have tended to be a certain college type that may not represent what a lot of Marxists or you think and I was painting you all with the same brush.

So I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

I do disagree with you that liberals don't use identity cynically, but I suppose I should make that case rather than just asserting it. Look forward to a thread on that.


Some may certainly. Particularly politicians when they need to appeal to certain groups of voters.

I'm not sure how much Marxist political structures free you from hypocrites though, since those too have social relationships and political structures that need to be navigated regardless of the particular rules of the system.
#14863368
mikema63 wrote:I'm not sure how much Marxist political structures free you from hypocrites though, since those too have social relationships and political structures that need to be navigated regardless of the particular rules of the system.


In theory maybe :D
#14863386
I still haven't read a good explanation as to how the white working class became the bourgeoisie while academians, upper class people supported by international bankers and people who scam the welfare system to do as little work as possible are now the proletariat. Seems backwards to me. Almost like the upper class does exactly what the bourgeoisie were accused of in Communism, only replace religion and tradition as manipulation tools with disembodied communist ideology.

The best answer I remember reading is that working professionals have been "proletariazed" by more demanding working conditions but that only answers one part of a six part (or so) question even if we accept that idea.
#14863433
Hong Wu wrote:I still haven't read a good explanation as to how the white working class became the bourgeoisie


The white working class is exploited but not oppressed. The white working class is just stupid, but I guess they have a plausible excuse for that.
#14864140
Sivad wrote:Maybe you should take a closer look at that photo and see if you can't spot the irony.


There's no irony, the Cop is literally riding on his political high horse... He has left the middle class behind a long time ago and is now doing the bidding of his corporate and political masters....

He's a fucken Scrub...
#14864156
colliric wrote:There's no irony, the Cop is literally riding on his political high horse... He has left the middle class behind a long time ago and is now doing the bidding of his corporate and political masters....


That cop is a working class white man. If the white working class is politically divided then it's in its own way. There are no political or social barriers a white working class majority couldn't easily overcome. The only reason the white working class is exploited is because the majority of white working class people passively accept exploitation. There are no masters or rulers over the white man, it's just stupidity and apathy keeping the white man down.

To be fair to the white working class, no other group has managed to figure out what's in their own best interests either, or who their allies and enemies are. They're all just as bamboozled and apathetic.
#14864568
Sivad wrote:Some minority groups like LGBT seem to be oppressed (subject to bigotry and social exclusion) but not systematically exploited for power and profit.


This is true in many western white nations, maybe even most. So, this is true for most PoFoites.

Do groups that are oppressed but not exploited have a much more limited set of objectives and a much broader pool of potential political allies than groups which are both oppressed and exploited?


Well, all marginalised, oppressed, and/or exploited people all really want one objective: an end to whatever hierarchical system that is making the society and relationships unequal.

If we accept this as the end goal, then we can also logically assume that some groups are closer than others.

As for potential allies, I think it would be better to look at potential enemies. LGBT groups do not threaten the economic system, so the capitalist power structure does not see them as the enemy. On the other hand, groups like Marxists and indigenous groups do threaten that system, so the capitalist system is invested in their continued oppression.

And if so, wouldn't the oppressed but not exploited groups also likely have very different priorities and be open to a range of compromises the oppressed and exploited could not agree to?


Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the specific conditions that each group was going through.

Also, wouldn't some of the potential political allies of the oppressed but not exploited be natural enemies of the oppressed and exploited?


Yes. And no.

The obvious example is Hillary Clinton. She supports equality for LGB people. Maybe even trans people. She is also involved in exploiting and opppressing indigenous communities and foreign countries.

But before we assume that LGBT people are therefore enemies of non-US people sitting on resources, we should look carefully at the relationship between Clinton and LGBT people. Clinton’s support for LGBT people is clearly a ploy to get more votes. But that has no bearing on the position of LGBT people in regards to indigenous communities. The relationship between these two oppressed groups is not affected by Clinton’s ploys.

On the other hand, when Trump tries to get votes from the white working class by appealing to racism, he effectively divides the working class along racial lines, and so the supposed ally of the white working class (i.e. Trump) is also the natural enemy of the entire working class.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

I think future vice-president Kushner has the fact[…]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]

I (still) have a dream

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with[…]

Jared Kushner is inspired by the real estate pote[…]