If you look back at the early-to-mid-2010s, you’ll recall how it seemed that the burning
topics on everyone’s minds were Identity Politics, culture wars, and so on.
And if you’re getting old, like me, that probably feels like it was just yesterday.
But it wasn’t, it was over half a decade ago.
And in that time, as the dust has settled, we’ve had the space to develop our understanding
of these strange phenomena and come to more sober conclusions than perhaps were possible
in the heat of the moment.
So, let’s use this opportunity to critically re-examine the positive and negative aspects
of it to help develop a clear Marxist position on the topic.
And in a way that was a lot more difficult before with the reactionaries constantly screaming
in our ears about the horrors of postmodern neo-Marxism and other very coherent, logical
and definitely not completely ridiculous far-right talking points (don’t laugh!)
Now, after all the fuss about “Identity Politics” or “IDpol”, there’s still
little in the way of consensus understanding of what the term actually means.
Sometimes reactionaries claim opposition to identity politics as a not-so-subtle way of
opposing LGBTQ+ liberation.
Some leftists oppose identity politics to attack White Supremacy.
So, before we go any further, let’s clarify: what are Identity Politics?
The understanding being used here today is that Identity Politics are simply political
movements based on advancing the interests of particular identity groups.
The basis for these movements is specifically and explicitly identity.
That could be a national identity, a sexual identity, etc.
And, though there’s often an assumed association with progressive movements around race, gender,
sexual orientation, ability, etc., Identity Politics span across the entirety of the left-right
political spectrum.
In fact, White supremacism is one of the clearest examples of a politic based on advancing the
interests of an identity - their mythologised white identity.
Now, before we go any further, it’s necessary to clarify one point: It’s sometimes claimed
that Class is also an identity – that class politics are just one form of identity politics
among many others.
However, from a Marxist perspective, class is not just another identity.
It’s rather the position that people occupy within the Relations of Production that exist
under a given system as part of society’s economic Base.
Now, these Relation of Production which distinguish us as proletarian or bourgeois, peasant or
landlord, and so on, do of course give rise to certain identity traits at the Superstructural
level.
The sense of working-class identity that exists has its roots in these Relations of Production
– that is, class identity-markers such as speaking with specific accents, wearing certain
kinds of clothes, etc.
But these cultural identity markers aren’t the determining factor in whether someone
belongs to a particular class.
A person might speak with a working-class accent and be a landlord or a rich business-owner.
Conversely, a person might speak with a bourgeois accent and be a worker who’s being exploited
by capitalists, just like the rest of us.
Class isn’t just an aesthetic and class-identity markers don’t determine class.
Class, in the Marxist sense, is determined solely by the position a person occupies within
the given relations of production – whether that’s worker, capitalist, or otherwise.
Identity exists within society’s Superstructure, while Class exists within society’s Base.
Okay, now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s move on to looking at some of
the arguments both for and against Identity Politics – starting with those against.
While there are reactionaries on the right who claim to be anti-IDpol as a thinly-veiled
endorsement of modes of oppression like patriarchy and white supremacy, you’ll find a substantial
number of those on the left who also oppose identity politics for different reasons.
Some of the more moderate anti-IDpol leftists simply see “identity” as an insufficient
basis upon which to build a revolutionary political movement as it primarily focuses
on tackling society’s Superstructure rather than its Base.
Other anti-IDpol leftists will take a more extreme “workerist” position that sees
all forms of struggle other than class struggle as a distraction.
You’ve also got leftists who write off identity politics simply on the basis that they claim
IDpol is “divisive”.
So, there’s quite a wide spectrum of opposition to Identity Politics even within the left
itself, never mind the centre or the right.
Criticisms levelled against anti-IDpol positions broadly would be that, even when they purport
to be left-wing, they can often find themselves supporting reactionary positions, whether
intentionally or not.
For example, the anti-IDpol position can sometimes be used to shut down discussion of things
like national liberation for colonised peoples, LGBTQ+ liberation, women’s emancipation,
and so on.
And this can put up a barrier to entry in left-wing spaces as many people begin their
political journey in response to oppressions that they’ve personally experienced.
So, for an oppressed person to walk into a space where some knob immediately tells them
that their oppression isn’t that important and that they should just focus on class,
this can be quite repellent.
And, critically, this would fail to understand and explain how class oppression works through
modes of oppression like patriarchy, white supremacy, and so on.
Another criticism levelled against the anti-IDpol position is that it can often end up embracing
a form of identity politic in and of itself that centres around advancing the interests
of a mythologised proletarian subject who almost always happens to be a white cis-het
male factory worker – which the majority of the working class is not.
This again would be falling into the trap of thinking about class-identity at the Superstructural
level rather than class itself at the Base.
Narrow class-reductionism can therefore end up being quite chauvinistic, reinforcing various
modes of oppression and ultimately ending up damaging the long-term health of the class
struggle itself.
Now, on the flipside of the coin, there are people who openly support different kinds
of identity politics all across the political spectrum.
We can find support for both the identities of oppressed and oppressor groups, such as
leftists who support revolutionary nationalism to end colonial oppression, as well as rightists
who support reactionary nationalism to preserve it.
Across the left, there’s almost unanimous support for the particular struggles of oppressed
identity-groups, at least in theory, but there are different levels of support for identity
being the primary basis for political activity at the general level.
People who support IDpol may argue that we need to prioritise the struggles of the most
oppressed groups in society because for too long their voices have been completely drowned
out, even in left-wing spaces like communist parties.
This is sometimes deemed to necessitate complete support for all such identity-based struggles.
There are also Marxists who’d suggest that all oppression stems from class oppression
historically, such as patriarchy’s roots in private property and modern racism’s
roots in colonialism (itself an expression of class oppression), and so fighting for
the liberation of these oppressed identity-groups should be supported because this is a manifestation
of class struggle.
Though, at this point, it’s arguable whether it could really be considered Identity Politics
per se as the basis for struggle is not just the Superstructural manifestation of identity,
but rather the basis is a comprehensive form of class struggle that tackles both Base and
Superstructure together.
Now, criticisms of pro-IDpol positions on the left often centre around a lack of materialist
analysis in many cases, instead favouring individual subjectivity as the key source
of knowledge from which all political positions are derived.
Knowledge, in such cases, is therefore unverifiable and can devolve to “feels over reals”,
prioritising lived experience over any kind of Marxist epistemological approach or general
scientific inquiry.
Further criticisms can be levelled at some expressions of identity politics from a revolutionary
perspective as many identity-politic struggles devoid of a materialist class analysis can
be resolved within the framework of capitalism – focusing exclusively on reforms at the
Superstructural level, never fully dealing with the oppression which stems from the Base
The result of such narrow identity reductionist, liberal approaches is that we may get more
oppressed-identity CEOs and heads of state – but this won’t necessarily get us closer
to ending the global exploitation of capitalism-imperialism.
In fact, some argue that this just makes capitalism more palatable for larger groups of people,
and ultimately prolongs the lifespan of this exploitative mode of production.
So, we can see that there are positive and negative aspects to these identity struggles.
But as Marxists we always need to separate what’s useful from what’s not, and discard
the harmful parts.
And a good way that we can start doing that is by, instead of using vague language like
“identity politics”, using more precise language which gets to the root of the problem.
Because it’s often the case that, when you hear people on the left complaining about
Identity Politics, they’re actually referring to a much more specific phenomenon: Identity
Opportunism.
Now, opportunism, from the Marxist perspective, refers to positions which sacrifice the long-term
health of the revolutionary movement for short-term gains.
You might encounter right-opportunism, generally manifesting in reformism, particularly bourgeois
electoralism but also reformist trade unionism (what Lenin would address in his attacks on
“economism”).
You might also encounter left-opportunism, which generally manifests as adventurism – for
example, individuals running around trying to engage in armed struggle without having
put in the work beforehand to build mass support for a revolutionary movement.
In all cases, whether right or left, opportunism presents itself as something that appears
to yield immediate benefits, but ultimately sacrifices the long-term health of the movement
for short-term gains.
Likewise, with “Identity Opportunism”.
Now, one of the main manifestations we see of Identity Opportunism appears in the identity-based
thought termination clichés which prevent scientific inquiry into phenomena.
We see this regularly when people opportunistically use identity to justify their positions, rather
than actually thoroughly applying the Marxist theory of knowledge and the scientific method.
An example of this would be when someone is told that they can’t express their position
on a particular issue because they aren’t a member of the oppressed group.
For example, as an Irish person, I might tell an English person to shut the fuck up about
the Irish national liberation struggle against British colonialism.
I would then be weaponizing my Irish identity to shut down further inquiry into the matter.
But this tells us nothing about the correctness of the positions being expressed on either
side.
In fact, it’d be an entirely individualistic and self-serving process of political point-scoring
that gets nobody any closer to the truth – and, in fact, puts up a barrier to arriving there
as it shuts down further inquiry.
This is identity opportunism.
And it’s a separate phenomenon from simply advocating for Irish national liberation – which
I do, and on some level requires an Irish national identity that’s separate from the
identity of the colonisers, even if we accept that this identity has emerged from a Base
of colonial class oppression.
And I could use this oppressed identity to attempt to justify objectively incorrect positions.
To use an example that would take this identity opportunism to its logical conclusion, I could
go around telling people that Ireland’s a socialist country.
And when others corrected me, I could just call them “hibernophobic chauvinists”
and shut down further investigation into the matter.
So, this manifestation of identity opportunism obscures truth, impedes the development of
correct positions, and ultimately stands in the way of the development of knowledge – all
of which are hugely detrimental to the long-term development of our collective revolutionary
movement (despite potentially providing immediate short-term gratification at the individual
level).
But there’s not only an issue with those engaging in identity opportunism themselves.
There’s also an issue with a widespread liberal permissiveness, sometimes even support,
of this kind of behaviour.
And this generally emerges on the left as an overcorrection for the chauvinistic behaviour
of those on the left historically.
Where once the voices and concerns of the oppressed were either completely shut down
or subjected to inappropriate levels of scrutiny, now we can sometimes – understandably and
with well-meaning intent – go to the opposite extreme of never critically engaging with
those who are oppressed.
Of never challenging incorrect positions that are expressed because there’s a concern
that it may lead to the oppressed-group person feeling unable to speak up in future.
And while this kind of permissiveness comes from a well-intentioned place and is understandable,
especially in light of the chauvinistic attitudes present within certain Marxist organisations
historically, this permissiveness itself falls into the trap of a chauvinistic paternalism
because it “regards oppressed-group comrades as too fragile to confront their own mistaken
ideas or challenge and correct their own errors.
It denies the chance for serious corrections to be made by those being pandered to.”
It may not always feel comfortable, but principled criticism is a gift that helps us all to develop
and grow stronger individually and collectively.
Though, strong emphasis on principled criticism here.
So, Identity Opportunism is a big issue on the left.
We also see its manifest in on the right, too.
Especially with their co-option of leftist movements.
We’ve recently seen, for example, the “Humans of CIA” video where identity was similarly
weaponised to further ultra-reactionary agendas – what some have called “intersectional
imperialism” or “woke imperialism”.
And this reactionary weaponization of oppressed identities isn’t new.
It didn’t just begin in 2021.
We’ve also seen this in the phenomenon known as “pinkwashing”, where progressive LGBTQ+
policies are used to draw attention away from extremely reactionary activities that are
being engaged in like settler-colonialism.
Speaking of which, you’ll also notice Identity Opportunism being employed when discussion
of Israeli settler-colonialism is shut down by labelling any criticism of the settler-colonial
project as anti-Semitic.
So, with all this being said, how should Marxists approach identity politics?
Marx stated that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
In this sense, it’s clear that the basis of Marxist analysis upon which the movement
is built is class.
That being said, Marxists understand that identity-group oppression in the Superstructure
stems from class oppression in the Base historically and currently.
This doesn’t relegate the importance of combatting identity-based oppression.
Rather, understanding the roots of these problems, understanding both the cause and the effect,
allows us to fully overcome them and put an end to the oppressions once and for all – solving
the problems at the levels of both Base and Superstructure.
Marxists need to work actively and engage in principled criticism and self-criticism
to avoid falling into the traps of either a chauvinistic workerist Class Reductionism
or a liberal Identity Reductionism.
It’s the task of Marxists to support and unite all of these struggles within the communist
movement.
Because to truly solve the problem of oppression, we need to tear out the roots of class society
itself which gives rise to the various forms of oppression - to wage revolutionary socialist
struggle to transform the economic Base of society, and continuing cultural revolution
for the transformation of the Superstructure.
We need to support our comrades struggling to end all oppressions experienced as an integral
part of the class struggle.
And not at some indeterminate point in the future after the glorious revolution, but
right now.
Because ultimately modes of oppression like patriarchy and white supremacy are vehicles
through which class oppression occurs.
At the same time, we always have to be wary of the trap of Identity Opportunism – whether
that’s engaging in it ourselves directly, or indirectly taking a liberal permissive
attitude to its occurrence.
Both are harmful to the long-term health of the revolutionary movement towards a stateless,
classless, moneyless future.
Acknowledgements Thank you for watching this video, hopefully
you’ve found it useful.
This was heavily inspired by Maoist98’s video “Against Identity Opportunism”,
which mainly focuses on manifestations of Identity Opportunism that have crept into
the MLM movement.
It’s based on the essay “On Identity Opportunism” by the Austin Red Guards.
I strongly recommend checking out both of these, which are linked in the description
box below, if this video has piqued your interest at all.
They’re excellent works that add much-needed clarity to the conversation around identity
politics and really help to more precisely identify the harmful elements of identity
struggles and discard them, while upholding the progressive elements within the context
of historical materialist analysis.
Credits Thanks very much to the supporters on Patreon
who have made this video possible.
Thank you Ian McShea, Yugopnik, Boricua Guerilla, Ryan Hodgson, soup, Madeleine, sonic232, Sagan,
Michaela Schmid, Christian Nipales, Brian Ruiz, Alfonso Dingo Torres, Mecholova, Rotgardist,
Todd Sprang, NikedeSade, zakasi, Anglo-Irish Bolshevik, TrainHXIII, Meowcifur, Hunter Johnson,
Rare Hero, Donal O Coisdealbha, Six Ní Bhaoighealláin, Kale Marx, Roja, MLMinPractice, Eric Lindahl,
Zekay Goodie, Laverna Wintermore, kyle rapp, Vučko, Doctoma, Ayob Farah, bekey, Pastor
Joubert, A Mouthwash Bottle, MrMiyamoto, Kyle King, Reverend Lawn Gnome Hollywood, Wonderbad,
JT Chapman, José, Joseph Sheppard, Jack Shneidman, Comrade Amara, WealthForThe99Percent, Sp00p,
and Trailer Park Communist.
Cheers everyone, agus slán go fóill.