>I agree with this. Further, I still think much of the left uses the 'excuse'
>that issues of race and gender and sexuality fall under identity politics to
>avoid the arduous task of synthesizing issues of race AND gender and sexuality
>AND class -- in other words, many people 'accused' of identity politics have
>moved beyond that point to synthesize issues of difference with issues of
>class, but (it seems to me from discussion on lists and at conferences, etc)
>that many people interested in traditional marxian issues such as surplus
>value have not begun to do the same thing. So, f'rinstance, in every iaffe
>session I went to at the easterns, there were synthesis articles presented on
>gender and class, race and gender, etc. The marxist sessions offer no such
>allurements.
Much to the impoverishment of Marxism. I'm at a loss to understand why so many Marxists view categories of race, gender, and sexuality as mere "identities," as if they were purely subjective and not socially and materially lived. Don't these categories have a lot to do with how labor is divided and access to property organized, to pick two things that are (rightly) dear to the hearts of historical materialists?
When Yoshie proposed a ban on the reckless use of "identity politics" the other day, I thought that was just a bit too strict, but I am going to exercise my moderator's prerogative the next time someone uses it recklessly and ask just what the hell it means. What exactly is identity politics, and who practices it? The agenda of the Black Radical Congress can't be an example; it's anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist (which no doubt reflects the Marxian heritage of lots of the organizers), and not some vulgar race patronage screed. So all you anti-identity politicians - what are you talking about?
Doug