"Identity politics is the handmaiden of neoliberalism"

[Trotskylvania]

Sure, but how does this relate to Marxism? You can argue for the Frankfurt School's influence and its importance to the rise of "post-Marxist" thought, but how does that relate to Marxism?

Because their objective was to gradually transform society from within and create a Marxist State, hence why it is called Cultural Marxism. Did it work? Not really. That's why identity politics and multiculturalism are a thing, and not the usual "workers owning the means of production" and whatnot.

No.

Of the three main founders of Frankfurt School critical theory, only Marcuse really still believed in The Cause. Horkheimer and Adorno both came to the conclusion that the door had closed on proletarian socialism. They were ultimately just tame academics, critical of the currents of "Western" civilization as well as Soviet communism.

[Olerand]

Sure, but how does this relate to Marxism? You can argue for the Frankfurt School's influence and its importance to the rise of "post-Marxist" thought, but how does that relate to Marxism?

Because their objective was to gradually transform society from within and create a Marxist State, hence why it is called Cultural Marxism. Did it work? Not really. That's why identity politics and multiculturalism are a thing, and not the usual "workers owning the means of production" and whatnot.

The Frankfurt School developed the critique of mass culture. One can argue that mass culture is "Western culture", but they're not synonymous. The Frankfurt School itself did not theorize multiculturalism, nor did it support its implementation in an effort to establish any Marxian goal.

So, what does Marxism have to do with it?

Not to mention the gradual drifting away from Marxism and Marxist topics that the School underwent over its development.

[Sanctissima]

Because their objective was to gradually transform society from within and create a Marxist State, hence why it is called Cultural Marxism. Did it work? Not really. That's why identity politics and multiculturalism are a thing, and not the usual "workers owning the means of production" and whatnot.

No.

Of the three main founders of Frankfurt School critical theory, only Marcuse really still believed in The Cause. Horkheimer and Adorno both came to the conclusion that the door had closed on proletarian socialism. They were ultimately just tame academics, critical of the currents of "Western" civilization as well as Soviet communism.

Eh, tomato-tomatoe.

Point being, they still wanted to create a version of Marxism that could change a relatively liberal society from within. They all played an instrumental role in the creation of the New Left, which was extremely prominent in the riots and protests of the 60's and 70's, eventually spewing out the modern phenomenons of identity politics and multiculturalism.

[Olerand]

No.

Of the three main founders of Frankfurt School critical theory, only Marcuse really still believed in The Cause. Horkheimer and Adorno both came to the conclusion that the door had closed on proletarian socialism. They were ultimately just tame academics, critical of the currents of "Western" civilization as well as Soviet communism.

Eh, tomato-tomatoe.

Point being, they still wanted to create a version of Marxism that could change a relatively liberal society from within. They all played an instrumental role in the creation of the New Left, which was extremely prominent in the riots and protests of the 60's and 70's, eventually spewing out the modern phenomenons of identity politics and multiculturalism.

And the New Left, what we call la Deuxième Gauche, was very far from what Marxism was and had been.

To the point that most of its representatives and organizations were no longer Marxist.

[Ariddia]

One opens the thread by talking about how he's speaking from a superior French perspective

No, I did not. But go on, keep up with your smears and misrepresentations. That's about all you've done so far.

ANd without the two Frenchmen (one of whom opened the topic itself) and the commie, only Sanctissima is left in this thread. What's the point of the forums if it's a two person conversation? Those can just as well be carried on by TG.

Indeed. If Conserative Morality doesn't feel capable of debating with anyone else, and doesn't feel capable of understanding or addressing the topic of the thread, he can go and converse somewhere else. There's a rule against derailing threads.

The op-ed has, predictably, stood the notion on its head, and proceeded to knock down a straw man.

How was it "predictable"? Do I know you?

The whole notion of the modern intersectional identity politics is that identity is not something that is chosen. It is something socially imposed on categories of people, often for completely arbitrary reasons. And with that imposition of an identity seperate from the "norm" comes exclusion.

Yes. The question, though, is how to respond to that. I don't think that responding to (degrees of) exclusion by resorting to self-segregation and narrow communitarianism is anything other than self-defeating.

I would also suggest that with identity politics, minority identities are, albeit in part only, chosen. That's part of the point. Reaffirming agency in self-definition. So far, so good: It is legitimate for people to reflect on who they are and wrest back the right to define themselves. But when it becomes a closing-in on oneself, and a claim that people from "other communities" (specifically the "majority") have no shared stake in common issues of disempowerment, then it seems to me that the process is both self-hindering and factually incorrect.

Also, it amounts to some extent to confirming ascribed identities, by stating that "communities" are indeed to be viewed as categorically different, and as being entities as such, downplaying or denying the liberal concept of a trans-communal individual civic identity.

As I wrote in the OP, I'm viewing this from a foreign perspective, so if I'm misinterpreting aspects of what's going on, do correct me. And as a Frenchman, I admit my ideal is one (which we sadly haven't achieved here either) of a pre-eminently civic identity, within which a diversity of cultural communal identities may exist but wouldn't be people's primary expression of self-identification.

[Zottistan]

I still don't get what "identity politics" is anyway.

Like Marxist class analysis but without the materialism. Replaces economic exploitation of different economic classes with social oppression of different classes of identity.

But tbh comparing the idpol crowd with old-school marxists is probably giving them a little bit too much credit.

[Improved werpland]

No.

Of the three main founders of Frankfurt School critical theory, only Marcuse really still believed in The Cause. Horkheimer and Adorno both came to the conclusion that the door had closed on proletarian socialism. They were ultimately just tame academics, critical of the currents of "Western" civilization as well as Soviet communism.

Eh, tomato-tomatoe.

Point being, they still wanted to create a version of Marxism that could change a relatively liberal society from within. They all played an instrumental role in the creation of the New Left, which was extremely prominent in the riots and protests of the 60's and 70's, eventually spewing out the modern phenomenons of identity politics and multiculturalism.

The New Left actually was anti-Adorno.

For the summer semester Adorno planned a lecture course entitled "An Introduction to Dialectical Thinking," as well as a seminar on the dialectics of subject and object. But at the first lecture Adorno's attempt to open up the lecture and invite questions whenever they arose degenerated into a disruption from which he quickly fled: after a student wrote on the blackboard "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease," three women students approached the lectern, bared their breasts and scattered flower petals over his head.[45] Yet Adorno continued to resist blanket condemnations of the protest movement which would have only strengthened the conservative thesis according to which political irrationalism was the result of Adorno's teaching. After further disruptions to his lectures, Adorno canceled the lectures for the rest of the seminar, continuing only with his philosophy seminar. In the summer of 1969, weary from these activities, Adorno returned once again to Zermatt, Switzerland, at the foot of Matterhorn to restore his strength. On August 6 he died of a heart attack.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, tomato-tomatoe.

Point being, they still wanted to create a version of Marxism that could change a relatively liberal society from within. They all played an instrumental role in the creation of the New Left, which was extremely prominent in the riots and protests of the 60's and 70's, eventually spewing out the modern phenomenons of identity politics and multiculturalism.

And the New Left, what we call la Deuxième Gauche, was very far from what Marxism was and had been.

To the point that most of its representatives and organizations were no longer Marxist.

Eh, perhaps not classical Marxists, but I don't believe one could consider them to be entirely non-Marxist. Their successors created something entirely new, sure, but the Frankfurt School philosophers still considered themselves to be Marxists, right up until the end.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, tomato-tomatoe.

Point being, they still wanted to create a version of Marxism that could change a relatively liberal society from within. They all played an instrumental role in the creation of the New Left, which was extremely prominent in the riots and protests of the 60's and 70's, eventually spewing out the modern phenomenons of identity politics and multiculturalism.

The New Left actually was anti-Adorno.

For the summer semester Adorno planned a lecture course entitled "An Introduction to Dialectical Thinking," as well as a seminar on the dialectics of subject and object. But at the first lecture Adorno's attempt to open up the lecture and invite questions whenever they arose degenerated into a disruption from which he quickly fled: after a student wrote on the blackboard "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease," three women students approached the lectern, bared their breasts and scattered flower petals over his head.[45] Yet Adorno continued to resist blanket condemnations of the protest movement which would have only strengthened the conservative thesis according to which political irrationalism was the result of Adorno's teaching. After further disruptions to his lectures, Adorno canceled the lectures for the rest of the seminar, continuing only with his philosophy seminar. In the summer of 1969, weary from these activities, Adorno returned once again to Zermatt, Switzerland, at the foot of Matterhorn to restore his strength. On August 6 he died of a heart attack.

Indeed it was, but that's kind of my point. The whole thing backfired on them, and developed into something they hadn't intended.

[Improved werpland]

The New Left actually was anti-Adorno.

For the summer semester Adorno planned a lecture course entitled "An Introduction to Dialectical Thinking," as well as a seminar on the dialectics of subject and object. But at the first lecture Adorno's attempt to open up the lecture and invite questions whenever they arose degenerated into a disruption from which he quickly fled: after a student wrote on the blackboard "If Adorno is left in peace, capitalism will never cease," three women students approached the lectern, bared their breasts and scattered flower petals over his head.[45] Yet Adorno continued to resist blanket condemnations of the protest movement which would have only strengthened the conservative thesis according to which political irrationalism was the result of Adorno's teaching. After further disruptions to his lectures, Adorno canceled the lectures for the rest of the seminar, continuing only with his philosophy seminar. In the summer of 1969, weary from these activities, Adorno returned once again to Zermatt, Switzerland, at the foot of Matterhorn to restore his strength. On August 6 he died of a heart attack.

Indeed it was, but that's kind of my point. The whole thing backfired on them, and developed into something they hadn't intended.

Can you demonstrate this influence they supposedly had though? I think a major problem in this argument is that you can't, you can only describe/imagine it.

[Olerand]

And the New Left, what we call la Deuxième Gauche, was very far from what Marxism was and had been.

To the point that most of its representatives and organizations were no longer Marxist.

Eh, perhaps not classical Marxists, but I don't believe one could consider them to be entirely non-Marxist. Their successors created something entirely new, sure, but the Frankfurt School philosophers still considered themselves to be Marxists, right up until the end.

Which still doesn't give credence to the idea of Cultural Marxism. The whole thing draws a connection to Marxism that does not exist. Marx did not invent it, the mostly "Post-Marxists" of the Frankfurt School did not invent it. If anything, "it" (which does not exist as it is meaningless) was invented by people inspired by the barely Marxist Frankfurt School, but who were not Marxist themselves.

The degrees of separation are far too long to make an association with Marxism. Particularly one so blatant as to be called "cultural Marxism", as if it is simply Marxism applied to culture, which is not true.

[Sanctissima]

Indeed it was, but that's kind of my point. The whole thing backfired on them, and developed into something they hadn't intended.

Can you demonstrate this influence they supposedly had though? I think a major problem in this argument is that you can't, you can only describe/imagine it.

Yes, I can. Every single one of the Frankfurt School philosophers played a prominent role in fostering and introducing Socialist influences into American colleges and universities. Call it Post-Marxist or otherwise, the intent was to gradually transform a Capitalist State into a Marxist one by influencing as many levels of society as possible with Socialist principles.

[Geilinor]

Problems like lack of legal representation or health insurance were not created by neoliberalism. If that's the thesis, it is flat wrong.

[Alizeria]

This is a great thread (I almost never say this) and I agree with the OP and the general premise contained herein.

I've argued multiple times (including in published articles which I won't be linking to so as to protect my identity) that the new political cleavage is no longer between left and right, or fought along economic/class grounds, but between populist/nationalist and elitist/globalist factions, or as Tony Blair (a man who is generally anathema to everything I stand for) described it "Open" versus "Closed".

It may or may not be the case that identity politics is an insidious plot by neoliberals to divide and conquer the economically disadvantaged, although if that is the case then the privileged have unfortunately divided themselves in the process.

Either way, I suspect we're actually going back to the 19th century political cleavage - "Whig" versus "Tory" rather than left/right or socialist/capitalist.

If this is the case, it's actually good news for the working class.

While throughout the 20th century the divide was between the rich capitalist class, and the socialistic working class, with both groups having to appeal to the middle class "swing voter" in order to gain or maintain power; in the 19th century the divide was between the aristocratic, conservative Tories and the capitalistic, liberal Whigs - with both groups having to appeal to the working class to maintain power.

As such, if identity politics leads to return of Whiggism and Toryism in the 21st century, I for one welcome it.

[Alizeria]

Problems like lack of legal representation or health insurance were not created by neoliberalism. If that's the thesis, it is flat wrong.

Do you mind elaborating? I'm happy to be persuaded, but for the moment I suspect it may be you who is flat wrong.

[Olerand]

Can you demonstrate this influence they supposedly had though? I think a major problem in this argument is that you can't, you can only describe/imagine it.

Yes, I can. Every single one of the Frankfurt School philosophers played a prominent role in fostering and introducing Socialist influences into American colleges and universities. Call it Post-Marxist or otherwise, the intent was to gradually transform a Capitalist State into a Marxist one by influencing as many levels of society as possible with Socialist principles.

What socialist influences were introduced to American colleges by the Frankfurt School, whose influence in America I believe you are greatly amplifying?

[Sanctissima]

Yes, I can. Every single one of the Frankfurt School philosophers played a prominent role in fostering and introducing Socialist influences into American colleges and universities. Call it Post-Marxist or otherwise, the intent was to gradually transform a Capitalist State into a Marxist one by influencing as many levels of society as possible with Socialist principles.

What socialist influences were introduced to American colleges by the Frankfurt School, whose influence in America I suspect you are highly amplifying?

I... uh...

This man is a Communist! Arrest him!

[Napkiraly]

See how they flock together? It's almost like a twisted form of s-solidarity?

See this is why people don't want to talk to you, you lash out at everyone.

I haven't seen a single person say they do not want to talk to him or have indicated that they do not want to talk to him in any way.

[Geilinor]

Problems like lack of legal representation or health insurance were not created by neoliberalism. If that's the thesis, it is flat wrong.

Do you mind elaborating? I'm happy to be persuaded, but for the moment I suspect it may be you who is flat wrong.

Those problems have always existed if we're speaking about America specifically, unless you think those problems would have been solved in the absence of "neoliberalism", which is difficult to define in the first place.

[Napkiraly]

What socialist influences were introduced to American colleges by the Frankfurt School, whose influence in America I suspect you are highly amplifying?

I... uh...

This man is a Communist! Arrest him!

Get the cross! Get the bloody cross!

[Geilinor]

I still don't get what "identity politics" is anyway.

It's a cynical political movement by the modern "left" who claim to represent "oppressed" minorities against the evil white male. Their primary premise lays on the fundamental belief that racism, sexism, religionism and just about every other ism they can come up with is absolutely 100% true. Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and others are, according to them, fundamental properties a person which define him much more than upbringing, culture or individual personality ever will.

If you've ever seen Star Trek this concept might be familiar to you. All Klingons are warriors, all Vulcans are scientists.... Well now apply that to All Women and All Muslims and All homosexuals... Or if you are like me and like pointing out the obvious parallel All Jews

Therefore, they argue, they can just clump everyone in these categories into neat groups that they can than claim to hate or represent depending on how close or far they fall from the white heterosexual male. Their tools are doublethink, thought crime, emotional manipulation and shaming and a burning desire to reject reality and substitute their own moral truth in place of the scientific one. They use words such as "privilege" and "patriarchy" and the only thing they hate more than white males are members of minorities that they claim to represent but which disagree with them.

Nobody is trying to apply that to All Women and All Muslims and All homosexuals anyway.

[Sanctissima]

I... uh...

This man is a Communist! Arrest him!

Get the cross! Get the bloody cross!

Titus, get the cross!

Vae victis, divide et impera, Communism is the root of all evil and McCarthy was right about everything! Frankfurt school was full of literal demonspawn who masterminded the downfall of America! All assertions to the contrary are Marxist propaganda and must be dealt with accordingly.

[Catochristoferson]

My relationship with identity politics is kind of strange.

I realize that many identity based movements can be very beneficial. Black movements against institutional racism, feminist movements against patriarchy and institutional sexism, pretty much every working class related movement ever against capitalism, and other such movements even today have brought many important issues to light in mainstream politics. So identity politics isn't ideally bad.

The problem is many people who get into identity politics (especially liberals) see identiy based problems (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ect.) as existing by themselves, in their own separate bubbles.

This isn't uncommon with liberalism, liberals, liberal politicians or liberal governments, as this is their exact strategy. Taking all social and economic issues, and solving them separately. Despite the fact that many of these problems are interconnected.

But this isn't necessarily limited to liberalism, as many radical left wing groups or movements succumbed to this mindset as well. There were still sexists and racists in many working class movements and protests.. There were still sexists in many black and minority movements and protests. And there were still racists in many feminist movements in the early 1900s.

As a result of this "divide" people start arguing over which issue is more important to solve, over who is more oppressed rather than actually solving problems dealing with oppression.

Some modern socialists have considered a more intersectional approach. But in other movements, the "divide" is still there. Especially now that liberalism is trying to get involved in these types of issues.

Some feminist groups have neglected to discuss anything related to class or race, as they feel it's against their struggle. Same goes for some black or minority based race groups. As many of them neglect to discuss class or sex based issues.

Some at least attempt to bring up the issues, but they still act like none of these issues overlap (or intersect). They bring up everything, but pretend that these issues are individual problems that exist in a vaccum, and never overlap. If they're liberals, it's even worse as Liberalism ignores class politics entirely.

As a result of this disconnection, many people start associating with an identity, eventually growing really attached to it. It becomes a war of "us vs them", the "truly oppressed vs those trying to undermine our struggle". The echo chamber of the internet certainly doesn't help.

Eventually it gets to the point where all of these groups become seriously offended at the tiniest things, and it kind of becomes a contest of "who's more oppressed" rather than "let's stop oppression of all forms, together".

This form of identity politics I cannot defend. But at the very least most left wing groups are adopting an intersectionalist mindset. I cannot say the same thing for liberalism, as liberalism rejects class as an identity. So trying to add intersectionality to liberalism would be impossible.

[Geilinor]

By the way, it was the Civil Rights Movement that created identity politics, not neoliberalism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/#HistScop

[Threlizdun]

Identity politics do not reinforce neoliberalism, rather the inability to take an intersectional approach to identity politics and recognize the manner in which capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and colonialism work together to create a multifaceted system of oppression stronger than that of class oppression alone is the cause of its adoption by neoliberals. Offering token recognition of the suffering of marginalized groups and pretending the equality or justice are somehow possible under the auspices of rainbow capitalism serves to undermine the true revolutionary potential that still exists within identity politics. To state that oppression manifests itself the same way for the poor across boundaries of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, ability, religion, or nationality is disingenuous. We must recognize both the similarities and the differences in how oppression manifests itself among different groups, and how these forces reinforce one another.