[wat0n]

Cute -- now you're conflating objective (physical) reality, with objective *social* reality.


[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

I want to see just how far your subjectivism gets to.

Okay, let's nail down some definitions here....

Obviously my position *conflicts* with the TERF position, since any transphobic position, like the TERF one, is *reactionary*.

It is indeed, but so what? Your position on transracialism is also reactionary then.

So you concur with the reactionary TERF position that gender identity is a lifestyle choice, and is not involuntary.

I don't think it's an important question.

I'm not addressing your imaginary hypothetical scenario -- I'm here for the politics, which is all-about the 'should'.

I'm not 'complaining' about anything on this thread, contrary to your imputation. (What am I "complaining" about, or are you just using a caricature / stereotype of my politics in a wantonly disparaging way?)

I don't agree with the TERF accusation of transgendered-based opportunism.

Why are the TERF wrong? Or, instead, why would one assume similar types of foul-play when some person is claiming to be Black?

And so I have -- I've said repeatedly that gender identity is involuntary, and I referenced Wikipedia.

Indeed, but not everyone would agree about that. Even on the left.

The far left position (nominally) is to provide government benefits for *all*, regardless of social identity, so that one's particular identity and/or work history has no bearing on one's experienced standard of living.

Interesting, finally a much more consistent position. Then tell me, why would it matter if someone declares to be transracial? After all, there are no government benefits involved here.

I do not see a reason to care about how one identifies as if this has no bearing on how the government, acting on behalf of the taxpayer, will treat that person or others. If the government is kept out of this issue in all ways, and whatever standard will be applied in a non-discriminatory way, then I have no problems with any trans-identity you may want to claim.

[ckaihatsu]

I want to see just how far your subjectivism gets to.

Well, it wouldn't be *politics*, then -- subjectivism, in the postmodernism sense, may as well be artistic or fictional since there's no attempt to *generalize* across people's life experiences in *common*.


---

Obviously my position *conflicts* with the TERF position, since any transphobic position, like the TERF one, is *reactionary*.

It is indeed, but so what? Your position on transracialism is also reactionary then.

No, it's not, it's *tolerant* -- here's what I said:

I don't think that any whites being 'transracial' (necessarily culturally), are *benefitting* from their intentional step-down in (bourgeois-)power-structure social status. So where's the harm?

I'll note that there's a difference between being *cultural*, and being cultural-*imperialist*, which is when one materially *benefits* from opportunistic actions and power differentials in a cultural context.


---

[T]here are voluminous examples for people choosing to subscribe to cultures, including racial ones, that are other than their own biologically.

And same thing could apply to genders, it seems.

So you concur with the reactionary TERF position that gender identity is a lifestyle choice, and is not involuntary.

I don't think it's an important question.

Your continued insistence on conflating (necessarily-involuntary) gender identity with (necessarily-intentional) cultural / racial identity means that you're willing to lump *all* social-minority identities into the cultural 'lifestylism' camp, to then poke and prod at social minorities with accusations of choosing the 'wrong' lifestyle and identity -- grist for your right-wing *culture wars*, in other words, to displace *real* politics and *real* struggles.

Why are the TERF wrong? Or, instead, why would one assume similar types of foul-play when some person is claiming to be Black?

Your entire politics really boils down to *this*, doesn't it -- that social minorities with real-world needs are 'getting-too-much' from the government, when government expenditures could instead be used for bailing out the stock market, for tax breaks for the wealthy, and for beefed-up nationalist defense / warfare spending.

Are you a military Keynesianist?


---

And so I have -- I've said repeatedly that gender identity is involuntary, and I referenced Wikipedia.

Indeed, but not everyone would agree about that. Even on the left.

Aren't you glad you're here, then? Here we are, working all of this stuff out. This is better than the gym -- ! (grin)


---

The far left position (nominally) is to provide government benefits for *all*, regardless of social identity, so that one's particular identity and/or work history has no bearing on one's experienced standard of living.

Interesting, finally a much more consistent position. Then tell me, why would it matter if someone declares to be transracial?

I see no problematic with someone identifying with a culture that's foreign to their received, biological one -- call it 'transracial' if you like.

After all, there are no government benefits involved here.

Okay, but, again, *everyone* should get COVID-like benefits, 24/7/365, with the remainder of societal and work issues to be worked-out *after* that baseline of living standards is established for all.

I do not see a reason to care about how one identifies as if this has no bearing on how the government, acting on behalf of the taxpayer, will treat that person or others. If the government is kept out of this issue in all ways, and whatever standard will be applied in a non-discriminatory way, then I have no problems with any trans-identity you may want to claim.

*I'm* not claiming any trans-identity *myself* since I'm not transgendered. Again, I'm here for the *politics*, and my own personal details are rarely relevant here at PoFo.

[wat0n]

No, it's not, it's *tolerant* -- here's what I said:

I'll note that there's a difference between being *cultural*, and being cultural-*imperialist*, which is when one materially *benefits* from opportunistic actions and power differentials in a cultural context.

So if I get this straight, you'd have no issues with a transracial identity from white to black (WtB), as long as the person doesn't claim benefits that are reserved to the latter?

Your continued insistence on conflating (necessarily-involuntary) gender identity with (necessarily-intentional) cultural / racial identity means that you're willing to lump *all* social-minority identities into the cultural 'lifestylism' camp, to then poke and prod at social minorities with accusations of choosing the 'wrong' lifestyle and identity -- grist for your right-wing *culture wars*, in other words, to displace *real* politics and *real* struggles.

Or maybe it's because anyone can claim to be oppressed in some way, particularly if there's some way to profit out of it. And it would also seem that your view on this matter is not really universal in your own camp.

Your entire politics really boils down to *this*, doesn't it -- that social minorities with real-world needs are 'getting-too-much' from the government, when government expenditures could instead be used for bailing out the stock market, for tax breaks for the wealthy, and for beefed-up nationalist defense / warfare spending.

Are you a military Keynesianist?

Does it? The only thing I'm asking you is why is your argument about transracialism all that different from those from TERFs about transgenderism. You may say TERFs are wrong, but honestly I find it hard to make a case either way. I don't think the science on transgender identities is all that clear, and neither are the biological mechanisms involved therein (if any). In truth, there is little we know about transgender identities at a biological level at least.

Aren't you glad you're here, then? Here we are, working all of this stuff out. This is better than the gym -- ! (grin)

Indeed.

I see no problematic with someone identifying with a culture that's foreign to their received, biological one -- call it 'transracial' if you like.

More than culture I would say the right word is perhaps genealogy. I'm mentioning this because transracial people don't simply change their culture but also how they look - and this can also include e.g. skin surgery.

Okay, but, again, *everyone* should get COVID-like benefits, 24/7/365, with the remainder of societal and work issues to be worked-out *after* that baseline of living standards is established for all.

I don't quite agree with this position, but it's at least consistent. I'll give you that.

*I'm* not claiming any trans-identity *myself* since I'm not transgendered. Again, I'm here for the *politics*, and my own personal details are rarely relevant here at PoFo.

I'm not directing that "you" to you

My only point, is that I honestly couldn't care less about how people identify as, so long this doesn't involve the government and that's mostly because the government is funded by the public at large and has coercive powers to force people to take a position on these matters. Beyond that, I think it's one's right to regard themselves as one wishes.

[ckaihatsu]

So if I get this straight, you'd have no issues with a transracial identity from white to black (WtB), as long as the person doesn't claim benefits that are reserved to the latter?

People can claim all *kinds* of stuff -- it's all right because if they're really buffoons then people will *see* that, and it won't make any difference in the larger sphere of things. I personally don't care *what* benefits people get from the government, for their personal use, because what's government supposed to be *for*, anyway, if not for people's lives and health and well-being.

The aspect that's of concern is *cultural imperialism*, where an oppressed culture is opportunistically *exploited* -- think Native Americans, indigenous, black cultures, etc. -- due to the lack of justice for such perpetrators (femicide in border towns of Mexico comes to mind).

Or maybe it's because anyone can claim to be oppressed in some way, particularly if there's some way to profit out of it. And it would also seem that your view on this matter is not really universal in your own camp.

No, you're trying to relativize *oppression*, which is quite clear-cut -- people have suffered horrendously and those people tend to be working class, and people of color / social-minorities.

Does it? The only thing I'm asking you is why is your argument about transracialism all that different from those from TERFs about transgenderism. You may say TERFs are wrong, but honestly I find it hard to make a case either way. I don't think the science on transgender identities is all that clear, and neither are the biological mechanisms involved therein (if any). In truth, there is little we know about transgender identities at a biological level at least.

Okay, more relativizing, but again you're still missing the point -- gender identity isn't *voluntary*, just as skin tone isn't and neither is biological sex.

Please stop belaboring the point. I've made myself clear several times over now but you still want to 'lifestylize' *everything*, including oppressed social minorities like transgendered people.

Indeed.

More than culture I would say the right word is perhaps genealogy. I'm mentioning this because transracial people don't simply change their culture but also how they look - and this can also include e.g. skin surgery.

Okay -- disturbing and damning of overall social mores / values, but certainly allowable and tolerable if people are that caught-up in their oppressed social identity. (Think Michael Jackson here.)

I don't quite agree with this position, but it's at least consistent. I'll give you that.

Well, it's reliant on bureaucracy, in a Stalinism-like way, while capitalism still exists, but the ultimate point of far-leftism is workers collective control of industrial mass production, ending the rule of private property over production.

I'm not directing that "you" to you

My only point, is that I honestly couldn't care less about how people identify as, so long this doesn't involve the government and that's mostly because the government is funded by the public at large and has coercive powers to force people to take a position on these matters. Beyond that, I think it's one's right to regard themselves as one wishes.

I don't think you, or anyone else, can *avoid* the role of government in such matters, because government is, in essence, the 'rules of the game', or 'social order', or 'how we get along' (etc.).

The public-bathroom thing is a rather trivial example, but is still an *instructive* one -- what if someone *did* object to a transgendered person using the "wrong" bathroom? Then it's suddenly a socio-political issue and a governmental one as well. Annnnnd we're back.

[wat0n]

People can claim all *kinds* of stuff -- it's all right because if they're really buffoons then people will *see* that, and it won't make any difference in the larger sphere of things. I personally don't care *what* benefits people get from the government, for their personal use, because what's government supposed to be *for*, anyway, if not for people's lives and health and well-being.

The aspect that's of concern is *cultural imperialism*, where an oppressed culture is opportunistically *exploited* -- think Native Americans, indigenous, black cultures, etc. -- due to the lack of justice for such perpetrators (femicide in border towns of Mexico comes to mind).

I'm seeing a disconnect between these two paragraphs. I mean, what is more opportunistic than to claim eligibility for a government subsidy meant to compensate a group of people for whatever reason?

No, you're trying to relativize *oppression*, which is quite clear-cut -- people have suffered horrendously and those people tend to be working class, and people of color / social-minorities.

No, because once you come up with trans-identities anyone can claim to belong to an oppressed group. In fact, even refusal to even accept that claim can be regarded as a form of continuing oppression, regardless of the merits of the claim.

Accepting trans-identities is by itself a way of relativizing the identity class at hand. It's amazing if you think about it.

Okay, more relativizing, but again you're still missing the point -- gender identity isn't *voluntary*, just as skin tone isn't and neither is biological sex.

Please stop belaboring the point. I've made myself clear several times over now but you still want to 'lifestylize' *everything*, including oppressed social minorities like transgendered people.

My point is that not everyone would agree gender identity isn't voluntary. Or perhaps even more importantly, some people may legitimately involuntarily have their gender identity be different from their biological sex, but others may just pose as being in this situation for personal gain - which is a slightly softer version of what the TERFs say. This can of course apply to race as well.

Okay -- disturbing and damning of overall social mores / values, but certainly allowable and tolerable if people are that caught-up in their oppressed social identity. (Think Michael Jackson here.)

Hmmm but Michael Jackson legitimately had vitiligo. But yes, I get your point, in the sense that it shouldn't matter all that much.

I don't think you, or anyone else, can *avoid* the role of government in such matters, because government is, in essence, the 'rules of the game', or 'social order', or 'how we get along' (etc.).

The public-bathroom thing is a rather trivial example, but is still an *instructive* one -- what if someone *did* object to a transgendered person using the "wrong" bathroom? Then it's suddenly a socio-political issue and a governmental one as well. Annnnnd we're back.

You could make a third, unisex bathroom. But yeah, in practice governments will tend to be dragged into these conflicts no matter what.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm seeing a disconnect between these two paragraphs. I mean, what is more opportunistic than to claim eligibility for a government subsidy meant to compensate a group of people for whatever reason?

Why do you conceive of government subsidies to be so either-or at the individual level?

Haven't we seen a precedent set in this time of the coronavirus -- that, for the sake of public health, workplace exposure can be minimized and people at home can be subsidized by the government for their household expenses -- ?

I'd say that such medical-type subsidies should extend to a blanket 'Medicare-for-All'-type approach to health care, etc.

You're playing divide-and-conquer, by choice, for whatever reason, over government subsidization for people's general well-being.

No, because once you come up with trans-identities anyone can claim to belong to an oppressed group. In fact, even refusal to even accept that claim can be regarded as a form of continuing oppression, regardless of the merits of the claim.

Well, this *is* the identity-politics thread, I guess, so perhaps I should have *expected* this kind of line of argumentation, but I'm quickly tiring of this tit-for-tat approach of yours to the demographics of oppressed social minorities.

You're basically touting the reactionary 'welfare cheat' line here, and I'm going to ask you now to *stop* it. It's not productive in any way considering that national budgets can *easily* afford to provide humane infrastructure to *everyone* on the planet, and that government expenditures *don't* have to go to the militarization of the police, or the militarization of the planet.

Accepting trans-identities is by itself a way of relativizing the identity class at hand. It's amazing if you think about it.

*Or*, it's *not* either-or, just like the racism of killer cops -- killer cops kill those of the working class, whites and blacks, and blacks *disproportionately*, making police brutality *racist*, and also against the working class as a whole. Ditto for trans people, etc.

My point is that not everyone would agree gender identity isn't voluntary. Or perhaps even more importantly, some people may legitimately involuntarily have their gender identity be different from their biological sex, but others may just pose as being in this situation for personal gain - which is a slightly softer version of what the TERFs say. This can of course apply to race as well.

You previously indicated some kind of governmental *oversight* needing to be in place, perhaps like that for drivers licenses, so as to make transgenderism more orderly and regulated. I'd have no objections to this kind of approach of *standards*.


---

skin surgery

Okay -- disturbing and damning of overall social mores / values, but certainly allowable and tolerable if people are that caught-up in their oppressed social identity. (Think Michael Jackson here.)

Hmmm but Michael Jackson legitimately had vitiligo. But yes, I get your point, in the sense that it shouldn't matter all that much.

Okay, you're correct, and I just did a little research, and found the following clarification regarding Jackson's unchanged racial identity:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10889998/m ... ng-fiennes


Yes, I think you're too caught-up with the *interpersonal* and social-psychological scale of things, while it's the *institutional*-scale matters, like governmental policy and expenditures, that are at the core of politics.

You could make a third, unisex bathroom. But yeah, in practice governments will tend to be dragged into these conflicts no matter what.

Okay, I'm sensing some 'libertarianism' here -- you're *grudgingly* allowing a role for government, when I think what's more to the point is what *flavor* of government it happens to be at any given time.

So, from my side of things, I'm *open* to socially-progressive-type government reforms, but I don't think that Stalinism-like government bureaucracy is the be-all, end-all endgame here. It *has* to be workers power and the overthrow of private capital control of mass industrial production, to redirect such productivity to solidly *humane* ends, worldwide.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

[wat0n]

Why do you conceive of government subsidies to be so either-or at the individual level?

Haven't we seen a precedent set in this time of the coronavirus -- that, for the sake of public health, workplace exposure can be minimized and people at home can be subsidized by the government for their household expenses -- ?

I'd say that such medical-type subsidies should extend to a blanket 'Medicare-for-All'-type approach to health care, etc.

You're playing divide-and-conquer, by choice, for whatever reason, over government subsidization for people's general well-being.

Well, this *is* the identity-politics thread, I guess, so perhaps I should have *expected* this kind of line of argumentation, but I'm quickly tiring of this tit-for-tat approach of yours to the demographics of oppressed social minorities.

You're basically touting the reactionary 'welfare cheat' line here, and I'm going to ask you now to *stop* it. It's not productive in any way considering that national budgets can *easily* afford to provide humane infrastructure to *everyone* on the planet, and that government expenditures *don't* have to go to the militarization of the police, or the militarization of the planet.

I'm not the one doing that. It's the people who want to compensate people based on their identity categories who are playing that game.

If you accept that for instance women have been historically oppressed and are therefore deserving of special governmental aid in some way, including social welfare, then why wouldn't there be a room for opportunism for some males to claim a trans identity to claim welfare eligibility?

*Or*, it's *not* either-or, just like the racism of killer cops -- killer cops kill those of the working class, whites and blacks, and blacks *disproportionately*, making police brutality *racist*, and also against the working class as a whole. Ditto for trans people, etc.

I'm not sure how that negates what I mentioned. The moment that identity becomes fluid in some way, it also becomes relativized.

You previously indicated some kind of governmental *oversight* needing to be in place, perhaps like that for drivers licenses, so as to make transgenderism more orderly and regulated. I'd have no objections to this kind of approach of *standards*.

Yes, if you were to accept the legitimacy of the governmental action I mentioned above, then that would be the most logical choice. However, even that kind of thing is being opposed in some postmodern quarters. So what gives?

What happens, then, is that if everyone can claim whatever identity categories one wants, make it fluid and have no standards at all, then everyone will just maximize their governmental welfare claims. In practice that means that the fluid trans-black, trans-female lesbian population will shoot up

Okay, I'm sensing some 'libertarianism' here -- you're *grudgingly* allowing a role for government, when I think what's more to the point is what *flavor* of government it happens to be at any given time.

So, from my side of things, I'm *open* to socially-progressive-type government reforms, but I don't think that Stalinism-like government bureaucracy is the be-all, end-all endgame here. It *has* to be workers power and the overthrow of private capital control of mass industrial production, to redirect such productivity to solidly *humane* ends, worldwide.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

Well, I'm a liberal (not libertarian, who would not accept that there may be a governmental role at all) so it's not that surprising. My option though is a fairly mild, middle of the road one.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not the one doing that. It's the people who want to compensate people based on their identity categories who are playing that game.

If you accept that for instance women have been historically oppressed and are therefore deserving of special governmental aid in some way, including social welfare, then why wouldn't there be a room for opportunism for some males to claim a trans identity to claim welfare eligibility?

I'm going to reiterate that such liberal, affirmative-action-type programs are *insufficient*, regardless, and so there should be a *baseline* of government support for *everyone's* individual biological and social needs, as a basis for individual-discretionary social coordination and production.


---

Accepting trans-identities is by itself a way of relativizing the identity class at hand. It's amazing if you think about it.

*Or*, it's *not* either-or, just like the racism of killer cops -- killer cops kill those of the working class, whites and blacks, and blacks *disproportionately*, making police brutality *racist*, and also against the working class as a whole. Ditto for trans people, etc.

I'm not sure how that negates what I mentioned. The moment that identity becomes fluid in some way, it also becomes relativized.

You said that 'accepting trans-identities is by itself a way of relativizing the identity [of] class'.

I argued that race-or-gender-or-whatever identity does *not* have to be counterposed to one's empirical class status at all -- that one's class demographic can exist side-by-side with whatever identities or other demographic categories one may be a part of as well.

Please recall that one's class is defined *empirically*, in terms of one's relationship to the means of mass industrial production -- either one has the (class) *means* to materially influence social production, as through equity ownership, or else one doesn't.

This material class status is not "relativized" by whatever identity claims one may make.

Yes, if you were to accept the legitimacy of the governmental action I mentioned above, then that would be the most logical choice. However, even that kind of thing is being opposed in some postmodern quarters. So what gives?

I'm not familiar with postmodernist objections to state regulation of gender identity, but it should suffice to say that governmental oversight is almost always controversial due to its arguably nominally separatist administrative institutional interests and nominal 'middleman' 'compromiser' role between the two classes, the working class, and the ruling class.

What happens, then, is that if everyone can claim whatever identity categories one wants, make it fluid and have no standards at all, then everyone will just maximize their governmental welfare claims. In practice that means that the fluid trans-black, trans-female lesbian population will shoot up

You seem to find all of this to be *amusing*, but I'll remind that some people really *identify* with their social identities, to the point of socially commodifying themselves that way.

I also continue to wonder why you're so focused on hair-splitting over government subsidies to individuals, for whatever individual reasons.

Well, I'm a liberal (not libertarian, who would not accept that there may be a governmental role at all) so it's not that surprising. My option though is a fairly mild, middle of the road one.

[wat0n]

I'm going to reiterate that such liberal, affirmative-action-type programs are *insufficient*, regardless, and so there should be a *baseline* of government support for *everyone's* individual biological and social needs, as a basis for individual-discretionary social coordination and production.

Sure. But what about government support beyond that baseline?

You said that 'accepting trans-identities is by itself a way of relativizing the identity [of] class'.

I argued that race-or-gender-or-whatever identity does *not* have to be counterposed to one's empirical class status at all -- that one's class demographic can exist side-by-side with whatever identities or other demographic categories one may be a part of as well.

Please recall that one's class is defined *empirically*, in terms of one's relationship to the means of mass industrial production -- either one has the (class) *means* to materially influence social production, as through equity ownership, or else one doesn't.

This material class status is not "relativized" by whatever identity claims one may make.

I didn't mean identity "of" class. I meant identity class, in the same way American law speaks of "protected class". Social class could be an example of an identity class, and you can indeed see some of the same dynamics in play (i.e. people pretending to belong to a different social class).

I'm not familiar with postmodernist objections to state regulation of gender identity, but it should suffice to say that governmental oversight is almost always controversial due to its arguably nominally separatist administrative institutional interests and nominal 'middleman' 'compromiser' role between the two classes, the working class, and the ruling class.

It would seem to me they want complete freedom to decide gender identity, but also want government benefits based on it. Both are, in practice, going to be under constant tension with each other.

You seem to find all of this to be *amusing*, but I'll remind that some people really *identify* with their social identities, to the point of socially commodifying themselves that way.

Indeed, some do in fact sincerely do. Which is why it sucks for them, too, but those are the incentives that are being put in place.

I also continue to wonder why you're so focused on hair-splitting over government subsidies to individuals, for whatever individual reasons.

Because these can change behavior as means to be eligible.

[Pants-of-dog]

Advocates of identity politics use threats of violence to prevent a political candidate from running for office.

[ckaihatsu]

Sure. But what about government support beyond that baseline?

Okay, what are you alluding to? Can you provide an example?

I didn't mean identity "of" class. I meant identity class, in the same way American law speaks of "protected class". Social class could be an example of an identity class, and you can indeed see some of the same dynamics in play (i.e. people pretending to belong to a different social class).

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

It would seem to me they want complete freedom to decide gender identity, but also want government benefits based on it. Both are, in practice, going to be under constant tension with each other.

Well, again, my own politics are such that I wouldn't hair-split over what *individuals'* claims are, because any given individual can only eat so much food, and can only use so many rooms, and could use public transportation and socialized medicine, etc., so the official formalities of individuals' claims to such resources don't interest me in the least.

Indeed, some do in fact sincerely do. Which is why it sucks for them, too, but those are the incentives that are being put in place.

---

I also continue to wonder why you're so focused on hair-splitting over government subsidies to individuals, for whatever individual reasons.

Because these can change behavior as means to be eligible.

Okay, well, then, I'll *step out of your way* and you can launch forth with whatever treatment you may have here, for this.

[wat0n]

Okay, what are you alluding to? Can you provide an example?

For instance, if the government decided that women should be paid reparations due to the centuries long oppression by the patriarchy.

Well, again, my own politics are such that I wouldn't hair-split over what *individuals'* claims are, because any given individual can only eat so much food, and can only use so many rooms, and could use public transportation and socialized medicine, etc., so the official formalities of individuals' claims to such resources don't interest me in the least.

But this doesn't really stop the dynamics of capital accumulation, right?

Okay, well, then, I'll *step out of your way* and you can launch forth with whatever treatment you may have here, for this.

I don't think you can do it while keeping everyone happy. So I guess I'd just be an accelerationist and let the whole thing collapse under its own weight, when people claim identities based on self-interest.

I think it will be a good thing, if it means reducing the role of government (particularly spending) in these issues and if it also irremediably harms the prestige of the postmodern politicians.

[ckaihatsu]

For instance, if the government decided that women should be paid reparations due to the centuries long oppression by the patriarchy.

But this doesn't really stop the dynamics of capital accumulation, right?

I tend to think that the full satisfaction of everyone's basic human needs, worldwide, would be such a *qualitative* paradigm shift that capitalist private property and its bourgeois nation-state administrations, would immediately become *superfluous* and would have no social basis for existence.

If you'll entertain an illustrative scenario -- consider that 3D printing and hobbyist AI approaches now allow people to set up hands-off automated gardens. Taking this trend to its logical conclusion, what if almost *everyone* soon could afford to get their own auto-gardens, to the point where anyone could easily be 'off-grid' and 100% self-sufficient 24/7/365.... What would happen to capitalist government and corporations *then*? Would they continue to have any basis for existence?

I think past bourgeois histories would be *moot* in a world that can no longer be *blackmailed* by bourgeois governments. What would be the hook? Fossil fuels? New overkill smartphones?

I don't think you can do it while keeping everyone happy. So I guess I'd just be an accelerationist and let the whole thing collapse under its own weight, when people claim identities based on self-interest.

I think it will be a good thing, if it means reducing the role of government (particularly spending) in these issues and if it also irremediably harms the prestige of the postmodern politicians.

Oh, you're using a simple linear extrapolation, and I'm positing a punctuated-equilibrium *paradigm shift*, on the other hand. I'd argue it's *already happened* for the most part, in that people today no longer have any kind of interpersonal / social *dependency*, due to the now-sufficient supply of individual-empowering technology, *finally*. (It's taken *decades* to get here, unfortunately, under capitalism's incrementalist pace of technological development.)

And soon we'll have full automation so that bourgeois governments will have no further socio-political role in people's lives whatsoever, and no social legitimacy for further existence. Civil society is finally emerging to the forefront of social life (social media, etc.), and late capitalism is becoming unfit-for-purpose politics and economics, as seen particularly in Myanmar these days.

[Stevex]

Do you believe that it is leading towards harmony and understanding, or would you consider it destructive/disruptive?

(the prerogative/demand to have what you 'Identify' yourself as as being respected)

Doesn't it depend on whether or not Identity Politics has been weaponised?
Isn't intent something to be considered?
If Identity Politics is turned into a power game, then I suggest it has become toxic.