"Identity politics is the handmaiden of neoliberalism"

[Bakery Hill]

So no one in this thread is worthy? How hard it must be campaigning out here amongst the savages.

I count two Frenchmen and a commie who I don't feel like bothering with. Hardly everyone in this thread. But such self-centeredness is not uncommon amongst traditional far-leftists - you are, not unlike how Randroids see themselves, the only *real* woke people.

> two Frenchmen and a commie

Scratch even a little and you'll see that streak of racism and hysteria that still infects so many American liberals. Very sad.

[Sanctissima]

Because of two reasons:

The first, and most important one being they were no good for hard labour. What little of the post-smallpox Amerindian population remained was weak and ill-suited to hard labour in the mines and on the plantations. Waste of food and lodging, as far as the Spaniards were concerned, so they let them go.

The second being that one of the main reasons why Bartolomeo advocated replacing Amerindians with Blacks was because he hated how horribly the Natives were being treated, and since he considered Blacks to be stronger and more apt for hard labour, he advocated replacing Native labourers with African ones. Ironically, when Blacks started coming over en masse and they were being treated just as poorly by the Spanish, he spent much of the rest of his life arguing against their mistreatment.

Like I said, there were reasons other than just exclusively economics, and you can reasonably make the argument that Commies focus far too much on the economic side of things. But to argue that economics weren't the main reason is sheer folly.

I think we're looking at this from two different viewpoints.

I'm arguing that the course of an economic phenomenon was dictated largely by culture.

You're arguing that the nature of an economic phenomenon by definition demands that economic concerns be the primary lens through which its changes are viewed through.

Does that sound about right?

Pretty much.

I think culture nonetheless plays a prominent role, but yes, my belief is that an economic phenomenon is usually just that, an economic one. Especially in regards to the Atlantic Slave Trade, there's a reason why it was capable of being so successful in the first place. Europeans had to be able to buy the slaves from African kings and chieftains, and I doubt cross-cultural similarities played nearly as great a role in this regard than European coins and goods.

[Sanctissima]

Because of two reasons:

The first, and most important one being they were no good for hard labour. What little of the post-smallpox Amerindian population remained was weak and ill-suited to hard labour in the mines and on the plantations. Waste of food and lodging, as far as the Spaniards were concerned, so they let them go.

The second being that one of the main reasons why Bartolomeo advocated replacing Amerindians with Blacks was because he hated how horribly the Natives were being treated, and since he considered Blacks to be stronger and more apt for hard labour, he advocated replacing Native labourers with African ones. Ironically, when Blacks started coming over en masse and they were being treated just as poorly by the Spanish, he spent much of the rest of his life arguing against their mistreatment.

Like I said, there were reasons other than just exclusively economics, and you can reasonably make the argument that Commies focus far too much on the economic side of things. But to argue that economics weren't the main reason is sheer folly.

This argument is actually somewhat plausible seeing as how we've seen the like elsewhere.
The inventor of the Cotton Gin thought it would reduce the suffering of slaves, the inventor of the Machine Gun thought it would end conflicts quickly.

Heh, pretty much.

A lot of the time it's through sadly misguided efforts. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, I suppose.

[Genivaria]

I count two Frenchmen and a commie who I don't feel like bothering with. Hardly everyone in this thread. But such self-centeredness is not uncommon amongst traditional far-leftists - you are, not unlike how Randroids see themselves, the only *real* woke people.

> two Frenchmen and a commie

Scratch even a little and you'll see that streak of racism and hysteria that still infects so many American liberals. Very sad.

The only hysterical person I see here is you.

[Conserative Morality]

> two Frenchmen and a commie

Scratch even a little and you'll see that streak of racism and hysteria that still infects so many American liberals. Very sad.

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

The other endlessly talks about the inferiority of the dreaded ANGLO

But don't worry - I understand your position is that their economic class is all that matters.

[Genivaria]

This argument is actually somewhat plausible seeing as how we've seen the like elsewhere.
The inventor of the Cotton Gin thought it would reduce the suffering of slaves, the inventor of the Machine Gun thought it would end conflicts quickly.

Heh, pretty much.

A lot of the time it's through sadly misguided efforts. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, I suppose.

In this case though they weren't responsible for the continued suffering, their inventions were simply co-opted by those who caused the suffering.

[Bakery Hill]

> two Frenchmen and a commie

Scratch even a little and you'll see that streak of racism and hysteria that still infects so many American liberals. Very sad.

The only hysterical person I see here is you.

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

[Bakery Hill]

> two Frenchmen and a commie

Scratch even a little and you'll see that streak of racism and hysteria that still infects so many American liberals. Very sad.

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

The other endlessly talks about the inferiority of the dreaded ANGLO

But don't worry - I understand your position is that their economic class is all that matters.

Thank you dear, that's all that matters to me.

[Genivaria]

The only hysterical person I see here is you.

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.

[Olerand]

Uh... Except Maoism was still a version of socialist thought. Though it wasn't Marxist per se, it borrowed from Marxism.

Marx simply did not write about culture in this manner. There is absolutely no connection between Marxism and multiculturalism or anything similar. Marxism has been applied to this because Marxism is a boogey-word. There's nothing more to it.

And yet the Frankfurt school was chalk-full of Marxist theorists. And they did indeed infiltrate and play a very prominent role in European and American universities. There's a reason why McCarthyism was a thing in the United States.

And this relates to Marxism's relationship to identity-cultural politics how?

[Sanctissima]

Heh, pretty much.

A lot of the time it's through sadly misguided efforts. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, I suppose.

In this case though they weren't responsible for the continued suffering, their inventions were simply co-opted by those who caused the suffering.

Oh yes, overall Bartolomeo was a very good man and was a credit to the Dominican Order. Still though, it is a bit of a sad irony how often one's efforts can create things entirely contrary to one's intentions.

[Bakery Hill]

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.

People don't want to talk to me? I must confess, I haven't felt that I've encountered this problem. Is it something you've noticed?

[Genivaria]

In this case though they weren't responsible for the continued suffering, their inventions were simply co-opted by those who caused the suffering.

Oh yes, overall Bartolomeo was a very good man and was a credit to the Dominican Order. Still though, it is a bit of a sad irony how often one's efforts can create things entirely contrary to one's intentions.

In the end we can only take responsibility for our own actions.

[Olerand]

I count two Frenchmen and a commie who I don't feel like bothering with. Hardly everyone in this thread. But such self-centeredness is not uncommon amongst traditional far-leftists - you are, not unlike how Randroids see themselves, the only *real* woke people.

> two Frenchmen and a commie

Scratch even a little and you'll see that streak of racism and hysteria that still infects so many American liberals. Very sad.

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.

[Sanctissima]

And yet the Frankfurt school was chalk-full of Marxist theorists. And they did indeed infiltrate and play a very prominent role in European and American universities. There's a reason why McCarthyism was a thing in the United States.

And this relates to Marxism's relationship to identity-cultural politics how?

Because in the 60's and 70's that's largely what it morphed into.

The entire point of the Frankfurt School was to water-down Marxism to a point where it could be made palpable in a liberal setting, and proceed from there.

[Olerand]

And this relates to Marxism's relationship to identity-cultural politics how?

Because in the 60's and 70's that's largely what it morphed into.

The entire point of the Frankfurt School was to water-down Marxism to a point where it could be made palpable in a liberal setting, and proceed from there.

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?

[Conserative Morality]

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.

Math's still not your strong point, I see.

[Trotskylvania]

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

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. It is fundamentally opposed to the methodological individualism of modern liberal politics.

To suggest that it is being appropriated by modern elites requires attributing a level of foresight and coordination that they're incapable of. This cynical reading reduces left-liberalism to a cabal of duplicitious charlatans, and like all forms of conspiratorial political thinking it is deeply suspect. However self-serving the beliefs of corporate left-liberals might be, in most cases they've proven to be an ultimately sincere form of politics. I do not doubt that people like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, etc., are earnest in their belief that they're trying to help people.

They are ultimately mistaken about how to go about this, and part of the very problem they think they're fixing, but they're not some secretive cabal.

[Olerand]

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.

Math's still not your strong point, I see.

Genivaria has yet to contribute to the topic. So... let me see... Yup, that's still only Sanctissima left.

[Genivaria]

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

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. It is fundamentally opposed to the methodological individualism of modern liberal politics.

To suggest that it is being appropriated by modern elites requires attributing a level of foresight and coordination that they're incapable of. This cynical reading reduces left-liberalism to a cabal of duplicitious charlatans, and like all forms of conspiratorial political thinking it is deeply suspect. However self-serving the beliefs of corporate left-liberals might be, in most cases they've proven to be an ultimately sincere form of politics. I do not doubt that people like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, etc., are earnest in their belief that they're trying to help people.

They are ultimately mistaken about how to go about this, and part of the very problem they think they're fixing, but they're not some secretive cabal.

Excuse me your rationality is not welcome here, go preach your saneness somewhere else.

[Sanctissima]

Because in the 60's and 70's that's largely what it morphed into.

The entire point of the Frankfurt School was to water-down Marxism to a point where it could be made palpable in a liberal setting, and proceed from there.

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.

[Genivaria]

Math's still not your strong point, I see.

Genivaria has yet to contribute to the topic. So... let me see... Yup, that's still only Sanctissima left.

If you want to simply pretend that then I'm under no obligation to humor your delusion.

[Olerand]

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

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. It is fundamentally opposed to the methodological individualism of modern liberal politics.

To suggest that it is being appropriated by modern elites requires attributing a level of foresight and coordination that they're incapable of. This cynical reading reduces left-liberalism to a cabal of duplicitious charlatans, and like all forms of conspiratorial political thinking it is deeply suspect. However self-serving the beliefs of corporate left-liberals might be, in most cases they've proven to be an ultimately sincere form of politics. I do not doubt that people like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, etc., are earnest in their belief that they're trying to help people.

They are ultimately mistaken about how to go about this, and part of the very problem they think they're fixing, but they're not some secretive cabal.

The op-ed made no correlation between identity politics and neoliberalism.

The comment in the opening post does, but it does not finger any Clintonian shadowy cabal. It simply discusses the usefulness of identity fragmentation to neoliberal economics and those who benefit from it.

Who mentioned a cabal?

[National Union]

Also Trump's not a racist, he's just very very big on the idea of genetic superiority.

Everything he is saying is true though. The "tabula rasa" concept is a myth. People have a better aptitude for certain things based on genetics.

[Olerand]

Genivaria has yet to contribute to the topic. So... let me see... Yup, that's still only Sanctissima left.

If you want to simply pretend that then I'm under no obligation to humor your delusion.

You haven't, and you're more than welcome to.