At the center of the Marxist view of the world is the question: “What’s the material explanation behind the things we observe?” Marxists investigate which factors have produced the present conditions, because this is the key to changing those conditions.
“…..There’s a narcissistic motive behind these ideas, one that disregards the interests of the entire working class movement in favor of one’s immediate surroundings.…”
THIS point about one’s immediate surroundings, should equally well be a clue and caution for the critics themselves. Because, many of those making this critique of “identity politics” in fact themselves subscribe to it, by themselves adopting the fictional identity of “white”, rather than their own actual ethnic or cultural roots, which might for example be actually Bavarian, Mancunian or Irish, or Swedish or whatever.
“White” is a fictional identity. In fact Kehinde Andrew’s of Birmingham University called it a kind of psychosis. In order to oppress certain peoples, many people gather under this fictional identity of whiteness. In which case then others become labelled as“black”, “brown” etc.
They say in the bible, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Would be best if any one making this critique, first understands that whiteness is a dangerous fiction that in fact sets off a chain of oppression, and then next rejects this identity.
In doing so you set everyone on equal grounds. And you will help everyone find the class commonality that you are talking about.
But camping out under a fictional identity, while railing at others for playing identity politics, well that’s only destroying the credibility you need if you want to assemble the masses.
So by all means criticise “identity politics”. But then first begin the march by rejecting the “white” identity politics and criticising anyone who adopts it.
“…..There’s a narcissistic motive behind these ideas, one that disregards the interests of the entire working class movement in favor of one’s immediate surroundings.…”
THIS point about one’s immediate surroundings, should equally well be a clue and caution for the critics themselves. Because, many of those making this critique of “identity politics” in fact themselves subscribe to it, by themselves adopting the fictional identity of “white”, rather than their own actual ethnic or cultural roots, which might for example be actually Bavarian, Mancunian or Irish, or Swedish or whatever.
“White” is a fictional identity. In fact Kehinde Andrew’s of Birmingham University called it a kind of psychosis. In order to oppress certain peoples, many people gather under this fictional identity of whiteness. In which case then others become labelled as“black”, “brown” etc.
They say in the bible, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Would be best if any one making this critique, first understands that whiteness is a dangerous fiction that in fact sets off a chain of oppression, and then next rejects this identity.
In doing so you set everyone on equal grounds. And you will help everyone find the class commonality that you are talking about.
But camping out under a fictional identity, while railing at others for playing identity politics, well that’s only destroying the credibility you need if you want to assemble the masses.
So by all means criticise “identity politics”. But then first begin the march by rejecting the “white” identity politics and criticising anyone who adopts it.