Socialism vs Identity Politics

Is I’ve said before, I’m an fairly old-school socialist; and in the last decade I’ve found myself increasingly at odds with the faction within “the left” which espouse what I call “progressive identity politics”. For a long time I found myself disagreeing with their positions at a gut level, however unable to articulate the reasons why – to my (slight) shame, I used a couple of talking-points which turned out to be ones strong in alt-right sewer-circles. However, despite being shouted down, I refused to give in and studied further; and now I feel that I can provide a proper socialist critique of said identity politics – which I shall do in a moment.

Not that this was easy, mind; most “left” groups have been completely taken over by the progressives; when I raised questions online about it in forums I’ve been purged. Unfortunately, I’m not really that up to date with my Marxist theory either; and the few sites I found which appeared to echo my gut misgivings were so dry, dense and long few would actually bother reading it, and many who did wouldn’t really “get” the crux of the argument. However, after much reading and thought, think I’ve finally hit the nail on the head. In no particular order…

#1: Socialism stresses collective, communal effort. It’s the bedrock of the movement; the idea that only by working together can we achieve our goals; the end of oppression, exploitation and discrimination. A prime example of this can be one of the maxims of the old IWW – “An injury to one is an injury to all”. That you say join the union and keep ranks when it’s defending someone else, for one day it might be defending you and so on.

This means that socialism is, fundamentally a universalist creed; that while often it gets hung up on archaic Marxist terminology (such as definition of “working class”) it in reality should only ask one question; “who is the exploited, and who is the exploiter?”.This puts socialism in direct conflict with identity politics; the system where society is cut up into slithers and the differences are emphasised.

In Marxist terms, this is “false consciousness”; the championing of different identities over the general one makes “common cause” harder to find and said groups easier to be neutralised by “divide and rule” tactics.

#2: Identity politics often leads to “Golden Hammer Syndrome”; a situation where a campaigner starts to see everything through the prism of whatever minority they’re championing. A recent example of this mentality can be seen in the whole thing with Meghan Markle. To this crowd, all criticism levelled towards her is racism “because she’s black” and therefore, an oppressed minority.

Well, first off, she’s not black, she’s mixed-race (when did the old “one-drop rule” return?). Secondly, race is not the be-all and end-all of discrimination; that it’s perfectly possible to be an ethnic minority, female, LGBT or whatever and still have a “general privilege rating” as a positive number – after all, the woman is wealthy, well-connected and now married into one of the most powerful families in the world. And lastly, just because you’re “a minority” it doesn’t make you immune from being an idiot.

#3: Many “progressive campaigns” are basically bourgeois in nature. That as a whole, they’re overly fixated in cosmetic improvements (such as changing words) rather than any fundamental change in society as a whole. And this suits our “liberal elite” down to the ground; after all, gender-neutral pronouns neither threaten their wealth or power. In fact, supporting such actions can act as a most effective blind to their other objectionable activities.

Said campaigns are also personally bourgeois in nature due to the socio-economic position of many of the campaigners. As a rule, they’re pretty privileged folk themselves – usually with decent income, social status and educational levels. Another example of this can be the #MeToo movement; where were all the working-class women, talking about their experiences? I’ve been around enough to know that there’s loads of cleaners, cashiers, waitresses and the like who have had to put up with tons of sexist crap – yet they’re almost silent. Invisible. Speaking of which…

#4: Biased minorities. That is, some minorities get the “allies” and all that, and others don’t. From my own anecdotal evidence, I’ve developed a rule of thumb; the more bourgeois members a minority contains, the stronger the movement for it will be. This would explain for example the almost complete invisibility of a disadvantaged group close to my heart – Care Leavers. Where are our “allies”, eh? Do you know that we even exist?

Admittedly, this is partly our problem; I’ve not “come out” as one in the flesh, so nobody has ever questioned me about it. But this is compounded by the fact that we, as a group have really crap “life chances” and therefore are highly unlikely to get within shouting distance of any really woke, diversity-loving, allyship progressive type. And to be honest, this fucking sticks in my throat a bit. Though not as much as…

#5: Working-class erasure. Ethnic minorities are fine and good (many of which are working class themselves), but the white working class? Nope. You’re part of the “privileged”; the fact you got poor schooling, have crappy job prospects and chances are have shoddy health outcomes and housing is irrelevant – you’re haunting the room with your paleness, so you better fucking get down on your knees and apologise for the historical wrongs your race did. And again. And again…

It’s this viewpoint which made the alt-right the force it is today. By repeatedly stressing to the white working class (esp the native-borns) about all this “privilege” they have (which they never really see) has made them bitter and resentful. For some, this had led to them to cling to their whiteness, maleness and xenophobic patriotism in a similar manner to down-at-heel genteel characters in old novels who stuck to their waistcoats, old-school ties and bourgeois manners to retain their “dignity” as “gentlemen”, even if they are in “reduced circumstances”.

#6: Being the trailblazers for sub-dividing society. It was the fault of the ‘New Left’ in the ’60s and ’70s; when ‘socialism’ (of all types) became increasingly out of fashion and the leftist intellectuals looked for a new raison d’être – and found it in things such as gay rights, feminism, anti-racism and so on.

This would have disgusted old-school socialists; Nye Bevan, while a proud Welshman refused to accept that there was particular ‘Welsh’ issues which weren’t seen in other parts of the UK, for example. He – I think – would have seen the threat; not that the above causes weren’t laudable in aims, but the fact it gave intellectual tools and respectability for sub-dividing society – something which was then exploited by the alties.

That it’s their monochrome view of “privilege”, delivered in a dogmatic, hectoring manner which is driving away “amiable neutrals” into apathy, intellectual withdrawal or down the alt-right U-bend. And it’s they who are killing off the “left” (though I don’t overly see them as actually left-wing).

And the most depressing thing is, I don’t think they even realise it. They’re too far up their own backsides, perhaps admiring the bright light of their own “wokeness”. While Rome burns. Question is: how much more has to burn until they admit that listening to the complaints might be an idea?

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my ‘Essays‘ series.

For a much more in-depth, scholarly and duller article on this, try this article from Marxist.com