Re: [Marxism] What does the modern working class really look like?was:: [Re: DISILLUSIONED WITH MARXMAILers!]

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think it is a mistake to focus too much on putting individuals into
> this or that class. What difference does it make, and how does it
> contribute to one's sense of the society as a whole, at a given time. It
> is this individualist focus that generates identity politics -- which
> when the identity is "worker," generates what has been discussed here as
> workerism. Class does not really tell one much, if anything, about any
> given individual.

Carrol,

You offer a sad comment to read on a Marxism list. If I understand it
right (of which I'm not at all sure), while I may be sympathetic to
the personal attraction of an identity politics for people in a
certain social situation, but perhaps not to its social and political
implications.

Although identity politics seems unrelated to Marxism, I'd
nevertheless personally like to see an elaboration of what identity
politics means. I've encountered the term before, but never seen
anyone explicitly define or elaborate it. So I have such questions as:

1. Just what does "identity politics" mean? Would you be willing to
   put together a very brief careful definition for it?

2. These days we see things in systemic terms, so what are its
   implication for social relations? In terms of identity politics,
   what constitutes the bonds between people beyond a voluntary
   association based on the happenstance of their shared interest?

3. Do you see identity politics as primarily a personal philosophy or
   as a social movement, and if the latter, do you feel there is a
   significant number of people who participate in the movement. If
   so, what kind of participation is this, and how would you
   characterize these people in class terms?

4. Same question: what are its economic implications? Is the present
   economic order acceptable? If not, why not?  Does it imply systemic
   economic change, change only in specifics, or is it unrelated to
   economic change? How does identity politics relate to a person's
   own economic situation in life?

5. Does identity politics establish a relation between political
   action and a scientific grasp of our world, or is it not based on
   a scientific understanding? 

6. Perhaps the same question, but what assurance is there that action
   based on identity has truth value that transcends one's own private
   existence? In other words, does truth reduce to what we are and our
   personal experiences? If so, is there any mechanism for
   self-development beyond just more of what we already are or a
   transcendence of the status quo in our world?

7. Assuming that change requires the coherent application of power,
   from whence comes the coherence and power of identity politics?
   What is there to bring people into accord beyond their accidental
   agreement to build a force transcending local affinity groups? Or
   is identity politics not aimed as any fundamental change?

8. Perhaps the same question. What kind of democracy does identity
   politics imply? Is it the kind of democracy where each individual
   has equal rights, and private power is excluded. So what is to
   prevent those with the greatest private power being dominant?

9. What kind of social order does identity politics envision for the
   future? A reformed capitalism? A communism? Something entirely new
   or a mix? And then what mechanism in identity politics points
   toward the desired outcome?

10. How does it relate to other movements? In particular, how is it
   similar to or different from Marxism, anarchism, and religious
   fundamentalism? I mean this question more seriously than it might
   seem, for I suspect that there may be quite a psychological accord
   between identity politics and religious fundamentalism.

I apologize if others in the group feel this topic is inappropriate,
but if no one objects, I'd like to see answers to questions such as
the above. I was going to suggest that when you reply to messages you
not change the subject line, for that breaks up a thread (I read your
message almost by accident because its subject line was not one that I
had been following). However, if you do respond to my questions and
would like to see a new thread begin on that topic, then you probably
should invent a new subject line so that folks interested in the
modern working class won't be frustrated. 

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM

         
        

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism