To be clear, I'm not urging another "read theory" struggle session. This to me seems to be about posting. Or maybe not? I guess we could have a struggle session about what it's actually about instead. And to prove I'm not one of the elite liberals, here's the link
I'd be pretty upset at anyone using the phrase "Intersectional Identity Politics" while organizing.
A socialist organization in my city has been handing out tenant organizing flyers. I ran the text through a reading level calculator. It was written at an upper-graduate level.
Two-thirds of my city is functionally illiterate.
Yeah this is a big problem, a lot of the people who intersectional, very academic woke and generally decent leftists want to help actually cannot or are not interested in parsing a lot of the language used to address issues. Getting down to the basics (healthcare, jobs, end racism, etc) is much more effective than saying "the institutional and political crisis that has arisen from an excessively punitive criminal justice system which does not adequately meet the needs of BIPOC and Latinx people and forces them to suffer at the hands of a white-supremacist-associated police force with a penchant for brutality, murder, and oppression needs to end"
Instead of that you could literally just say "defund the police and put that money towards jobs and food" and it would be 100% more successful. And it has if you look at the support behind diverting cop money to other shit in places where that's been the main message
“the institutional and political crisis that has arisen from an excessively punitive criminal justice system which does not adequately meet the needs of BIPOC and Latinx people and forces them to suffer at the hands of a white-supremacist-associated police force with a penchant for brutality, murder, and oppression needs to end”
Instead of that you could literally just say “defund the police and put that money towards jobs and food” and it would be 100% more successful.
Unless you're trying to write the next great novel or deliver a stirring speech, short sentences and ordinary words are the way to go.
The concepts from (3) should still be explained in a way that people who didn't go to college can understand. The academy deploys a way of speaking which is designed for the reproduction of elites and not actually changing anything.
No bigotry means throwing out people who deadname and misgender trans people. It means telling that racist or sexist to shut the fuck up and if they do it again they’re out.
I don't think this is the best way to get otherwise well-meaning people to reconsider whatever types of bigotry they're still expressing. If they're just some chud stirring up shit, sure, bully the hell out of them. But for everyone else it's usually more effective to educate them a bit and point out a better approach. Most people don't have One True Leftist syndrome and are willing to learn. That willingness to learn will disappear, though, if instead of teaching them we lead with "shape up or fuck off."
There’s a difference between someone making an honest mistake or not understanding something because of the culture they grew up in and someone refusing to respect someone else’s pronouns because they “don’t get it”.
:100-com:
My most effective tool for that is the "how does it hurt you to not use someone's preferred pronouns?" approach. Because it's really hard to come up with a negative answer to that that doesn't make someone sound like an asshole.
And people generally don't want to be thought of as an asshole.
If you’re writing cover for mass movements? Run it by someone else first.
If you’re talking to people? Don’t dumb it down. Just be open to explaining words and concepts. People like to learn. Provided you aren’t being condescending or gatekeepery, it’s not a problem. (Unless you talk like Zizek or Jameson, in which case, don’t.)
Actually, Jameson and Fisher provide pretty good contrasting examples. Jameson came up with the idea of postmodernism as the cultural logic of capitalism (in the book of the same name), whereas Fisher built upon it with the notion of Capitalist Realism (again, in the book of the same name). Try reading both of them, and you’ll very quickly get an understanding of what accessible language does and doesn’t look like.
To expand on this a touch, people can tell when you're talking down to them. The slight pauses as you search for "plainer language" are a dead giveaway. Be yourself, but also be fully prepared to answer questions about what you said.
Here's a great tool if you are trying to reach the largest audience possible.
If you are speaking or writing above a 5th grade reading level, you are alienating a lot of people.
Specialized language has its place, but fluency at various reading levels is a great skill to have.
It's okay to use academic language if you're explaining it. If you replaced "intersectionality" with "flibertygoop" everywhere in your writing, would a reader still come out of it understanding flibertygoop? Then you're fine, you've explained the thing. That's particularly important for words that have many colloquial (or even formal) meanings, like socialism or anarchy, since it might already be flibertygoop to your audience.
It's also worth considering are how google-able the term in question is. If you start talking about intersectionality, that's a unique word and if someone trips over it they can find an answer easily. If you start talking about the absurd, you're going to want to name-drop Camus or something, since that's just a common word in English.
Finally, not every message needs to be accessible. If you can safely assume your audience knows the thing you're talking about, just use the jargon and save some time.
Practice, exposure to people who speak in a more normal way. I have the opposite problem, I always describe stuff in plain English, and highly educated types tend to find it really funny hearing me talk about complicated academic subjects in a way they are not used to.
To make myself stand out less and be taken more seriously by these kinds of people, I practice explaining things in my head when I'm doing boring stuff like cleaning around the house. Like, just pick a subject and start lecturing about it. Even if it's a little incoherent and badly structured, it's practice.
Angela Davis, on reading Lenin with the Black Panthers:
Here we go another episode in the "working class people are too stupid to know words" series, I love being insulted by these dweebs, fuckin hipsters, I AM the working class, I went to community college, I stock shelves for a living, don't call me no "10%"
Also vague takes are by definition bad takes, what language? what in-group norms? Specify motherfukca, literally could mean anything, a take like that has no courage
Also vague takes are by definition bad takes, what language? what in-group norms? Specify motherfukca, literally could mean anything, a take like that has no courage
They're obviously putting forward the argument that trans people as well as women, native americans and people of colour should be thrown under the bus. This is a class reductionist using coded language to hide the fact they're a class reductionist. They will never explain in detail what those in-group norms and what language they're referring to because it will blatantly expose them.
As long as a take is vague I will always represent it in its worst possible interpretation, cowardice will NOT be rewarded
It's basically the same level of substance their argument is. Most of the time I hear shit like this it's from libs who have made it a commitment to not even vaguely understand any socialist concepts and get mad that you're policing their bullshit liberalism.
it's ASL applause and it usually comes as an ask from people with noise sensitivities, which I think is reasonable to accommodate.
sure, but we should also be ready and willing to stand up for the marginalized among us in the face of those jokes
I think it's just that some people (usually those who want to look smart) will use a bunch of fancy words that people kinda understand, but they're never used in casual conversation. Like, if you start talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat to a lib, you'll just get a blank stare
when i say im a socialist i basically preface it with : i'm radically in favor of making sure everyone has food, jobs, healthcare, and housing, no questions asked. this is kinda an idea thats hard to refute other than just outright saying 'but you gotta wOrK fOr It'
then i'll say some bullshit about being raised christian and that theyre thinking about themselves only
Couching all of my leftist ideas as christian psychopathy is a tried and true tactic for me.
why yes, we need to invest 1 trillion in fish meat culturing because it is important that we follow jesus's example of replicating fish ad infinitum to give to the poor
Oh, you want to deport all the brown people? Jesus wouldn't think that's very cash-money of you my man.
That would be way fucking cooler than an F-35 that doesn't even fly.
Fuck I hadn't even tried that yet. Wasted Sundays throughout my youth will finally have some purpose.
this is kinda an idea thats hard to refute other than just outright saying ‘but you gotta wOrK fOr It’
- Even lazy people don't deserve to be starving and homeless in the richest country in the history of the planet; that's just sadism.
- Maybe if these "lazy" people had food and shelter and some human fucking dignity they would invest more in society.
the thing is people that say 'you gotta work for it' are coming from a place of emotion, e.g. indignation, hatred of the lazy. so its better to just argue with emotions instead because that is more compelling to the majority of onlookers. like yeah i know those things and i also know that a farmer today can produce a ton of crops with minimal work in comparison to 100 years ago, and same with construction. people can produce a ton of houses with minimal effort due to standardization. but that wont convince them that yeah, we should be helping people. stating those facts will just make them think 'yeah but then everyone who works will be EVEN RICHER AND THATS AWESOME FUCK THE LAZY'.
When I was doing framing for houses me and my coworker could frame a 3 story house in a week and a half. A house can go from a hole in the ground with foundation pilings to built in like 2 months if you can get all the trades lined up right.
2 framers, 1 concrete person with 2 extra crew, 1 plumber and apprentice, 1 electrician and apprentice, 2 drywallers, 1 painter, 1 finish carpenter, 1 tiler and 1 carpet person is all you need and a lot of those trades can be done by the same people. Just 15 people max can build a 2 story house with basement in a summer.
Homelessness is a policy position actively pursued by all levels of government.
now imagine just repurposing the entire industry to build aparment complex style units en masse for just a year. so much housing we wouldnt know what to do with it all.
I just say I'm for the cooperation of workers and it's anti-capitalist for the ownership class to conspire to enrich only them selves. Try and turn capitalism back on them and say I'm against it for my own reasons but you're the one getting fucked by anti-capitalists on the other end of the spectrum.
Some of my go to arguments concerning the attitude of 'you must wurk fur it" are:
Lets try to make with certainty that the terms of working always result in the fulfillment of basic needs so people aren't demoralised by a needlessly difficult prospect and impossible set of challenges. There's no issue with securing these things in advance as it's absolute fact that this will always result in a greater economic outcome. The only way to secure these things for everyone, because of the reactivity of the economy supply and demand (make them feel nice and smart for knowing that term) is the cooperation of workers.
And maybe if I want to push my luck I posit that it shouldn't be up to the political machinations of a scheming capitalist class to determine through acts of economic manipulation how much work constitutes the right to live a prosperous life. There needs to be a formal constitution and a set of measures put in place to make sure monopolisation and hording wealth of shore aren't permitted. And then we'll have 'fair economy'.
It's libcity like I'll give you. We know the realities of western wealth and just greater distribution doesn't cut it at this point but it's a nice nudge in the right direction.
There's not a lot of substance to this? I'm honestly not sure if they are upset about academic language in leftist circles or like preferred pronouns or using common slang/shorthand. They could even be talking about how stuff like "kill all cops" doesn't resonate.
Yep, it's a beautiful madness rune that allows everyone to be upset if they want.
Unless they're going to offer some substance to arguments like this, I immediately assume, "I'm a prideful naive gormless liberal who's mad by naive gormless liberalism got challenged".
Struggle session about what? This doesn't say anything substantive at all.
Wait, we have to have something substantive to argue about?
Did someone change the rules and not tell me again?!
Lol that's the irony of all this. I was looking through her tweets and replies hoping for some clarification when it dawned on me she's doing the same exact shit she's complaining about, except this time even the 10% she's referring to don't know what she means.
She has a point. In my country the left party uses language that working class people often don't understand.
In-group norms like "everyone has healthcare" and "democracy in the workplace." Yes, how elitist.
We should be far more concerned with the intent of a speaker than with the exact words they use. If someone is coming from the right place but their words are imprecise or non-inclusive or even derogatory, the conversation we have about that should be informative and educational.
That said, the time spent actually doing material things should significantly outweigh the time spent talking about what to call each other. Prioritizing language over material gains in real people's living conditions is the definition of :LIB: shit. And of course, bully the hell out of chuds.
One thing that you learn from older people who have been doing this for longer than you have is that when you are trying to do organising, unionising, etc you shouldn't write people off, you should at least try to talk to everyone, including those who seem reactionary on the surface, and you shouldn't lose your shit at the dumb shit they might say. And as the time passes you come to realize the value of that, as you see people change, and even the people who don't can sometimes do something good.
This has its limits. If someone is legit fash or a massive sexist douchebag etc, then there is no point and it's better to just put them in their place. But I've seen first hand how some of the people you think "there is no way this dude will ever stop being a cucked dumbass" just figure shit out eventually. Some of them literally come to you and tell you "you know what, I've changed my mind on some things".
One of these guys was recently talking to me and some other people. He often used "removed" (or at least the Greek version of the word) as a derogatory term not for homosexuals, but just nasty people in general (the word is still used like that a lot in Greek). Now this word kinda pisses me off, being bisexual and having had great difficulties dealing with that sort of stuff. But then the guy was also talking about how pissed he was at how homophobic some people still are. So I though, what the fuck is the point in telling him off, like, he's made progress and he is clearly on our side even on this issue, even if he expresses himself in a way that's not very good.
try to talk to everyone, including those who seem reactionary on the surface, and you shouldn’t lose your shit at the dumb shit they might say. And as the time passes you come to realize the value of that, as you see people change, and even the people who don’t can sometimes do something good.
This approach is needed because no one knows how to build socialism in the imperial core. We don't know where the next socialists are going to come from (i.e., whether they'll be former libs, former small-c conservatives, former apolitical folk, etc.) so -- like Jesus -- you have to spray that seed all over the place and see where it takes. We can adjust our strategy as we learn more, but for now we have to recognize that we don't have enough organizing experience to write off whole segments of the population.
I also thought about titling it "I'm in this picture and don't like it"
Fine, I'll turn the racism dial back up and reverse a few of those slur bans. Are you happy now?
Also, if the libs try to steal "radlib" from us, I'm gonna be pissed.
