ckaihatsu wrote:I have *no problem* with the use of government spending to pay off everyone's student debts, and to provide free community college, etc. Again, it's about *social priorities* in funding -- the *money* is already there, so if it's not for the *social good* altogether, then what *should* it be for? 'Tax the rich' is unobjectionable to me.
Police brutality / killer-cops, which affects the BIPOC demographic disproportionately, and which *never* is directed at the wealthy.
Name one issue that's commonly identified with the 'woke agenda'.
I *do* advocate for the defunding of police, to be replaced by social workers, for reasons I've already covered.
Well I think we are starting to see how vastly different political agendas you and me will advocate, and I think a lot of it has to do with looking at it from different class interests.
In the long run, I advocate free education. But to now use the working classes tax money to pay off student debt for an educated middle class? That is not the kind of policies I would advocate in a working class movement. This is not a moral issue, it is a material conflict.
Replacing police with social workers? I am sorry, I think this will lead to a complete disaster for the people living in poor areas with a lot of criminality and this is the opposite of what I would advocate. I am advocating spending more money on education of police, gradually increasing the standards of how they act. An educated and well financed police is neccessary to keep crime down and to end unjustified police violence.
The complex of ideas thats often called woke or identity politics and so on is extremly hard to define in a post like this. Woke seems to be a broader term, mainly an umbrella term to encompass over certain discourses, ideas, theories, claims and so on which is used in, somewhat, everyday language. Identity politics is usually used in a similar way, but I think it is at least possible to see some kind of ideological content that can be adressed.
So what should be observed when talking about any ideology is this: what kind of issues in society is it adressing and kind of issues is it ignoring? But if we start with the ideas themselves, I think the essential ingredience in all identity political theory is standpoint epistemology, that the position and perspective of an individual as a subject within the hierachy of society creates knowledge that cannot be transferred to other individuals that doesnt share the same kind of subjective position and perspective.
This creates an ideology obsessed on identifying more and more unique positions of different forms of unique subjective positions in society exposed to opression only they can know. So it is important to keep in mind that ideology is not something we are aware of, as Slavoj Zizek says we enjoy our ideology, therefore it is almost tragic to see people like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson trying to adress this with rational arguments - as if politics is a competition between idea.
No, what is important to focus on with identity politics as an ideology, just as it is with neo-liberalism, is the class interests it serves by looking at what issues it shifts focus to, in what issues it ignores or obfuscate and in what solutions for society seems rational within the inherent logic of the ideology.
This is where I come from when I claim that identity politics as an ideology is incompatible with working class interests. The working class interests lies within the field of universal solutions based on classic values such as solidarity with your class within a nation, where ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on is not relevant leading to goals such as the ones I wrote about above.