portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

economic justice | political theory

It's Class, Stupid, Not Race

The ideological focus of the Democratic Party and much of the American progressive left is today almost exclusively on race and gender issues. Until the elephant in the room - class - is honestly and comprehensively addressed, the disintegration of the U.S. political system and economic system will continue unabated.
 http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/14/its-class-stupid-not-race/

November 14, 2016

It's Class, Stupid, Not Race

by Marshall Auerback

---
Photo by Nathaniel St. Clair
---

During the Presidential campaign of 1988, the Reverend Jesse Jackson was asked, "How you are going to get the support of the white steelworker?" He replied: "By making him aware he has more in common with the black steel workers by being a worker, than with the boss by being white." Jackson also did speak of reviving a "rainbow coalition", but in spite of being associated with black radicalism by much of the country, he was able to obtain almost 50 percent of the Democratic delegates at the Atlanta convention through an explicit appeal which transcended race, instead invoking class. Jackson himself is not the likely future leader of the Democratic Party, but his model is one the Dems would be well to consider if they wish to recapture much of the country that they lost in last week's election.

To a large degree, Bernie Sanders understood and appreciated this, although as we now know, the Wall Street/Silicon Valley donors which comprise the donor class of the DNC were appalled by this and actively worked to sabotage his campaign. By the time we got to the general election, the party's message was watered down and muddled, in some races focused almost entirely on gender issues and attacks of Trump's lack of suitability for the office.

To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists and whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades - since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.

But that alone doesn't explain Trump's success. As I wrote in an earlier analysis of the Trump phenomenon, he became the voice for an increasing number of Americans, who counted themselves amongst the biggest losers of globalization and free trade. In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years. That's why so many Americans have simply stopped voting (and this year was no different, as it looks like a mere 57.9% of the voter eligible population turned out). And perhaps Trump is a faux populist, who is merely deploying bait and switch tactics, but he explicitly addressed his campaign to those who have been marginalized by the neo-liberal policies dominant in both parties.

The difference this time is that once Senator Bernie Sanders lost the nomination, the Democrats made little effort to recapture these voters. That is largely because the party's nominee was the very embodiment of the establishment policies that has created so much misery for these groups and Hillary Clinton had no credible message for what the press condescendingly termed "flyover country". These voters instead went for the change candidate, even though his platform lacked much of the coherence of, say, the Sanders program and in many respects might make their position worse. But when you live in Youngstown, Ohio, or Scranton, Pennsylvania, and have virtually no stake in the existing system, is it at all surprising that you're willing to place your bets with a bomb-thrower?

No question that today there is a kind of all-encompassing pessimism which transcends economics. In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making people long for the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era, which was a dynamic period of great economic achievements and pax Americana. Distilling it into movies (America's version of a cultural yardstick), the American zeitgeist today is a weird mashup of Bladerunner, Mad Max, and Reality TV - with the characters longing for Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, hardly a recipe that brings hope for a positive future.

And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and "Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many were engaged in explicitly criminal activity). He followed that up with a bailout of the private health insurance industry under the guise of so-called "health care reform" legislation, the "Affordable" Care Act (which contained no provision for containing the cost of the health insurance oligopolies, because the marginal "public option" was gutted out of the final legislation, courtesy of the lobbyists invited to craft the legislation). All of the Rubinites were brought back in to run economic policy. Wall Street and the stock market boomed, but wages continued to stagnate, and the vast majority of all the gains went to the top 1 percent of income earners. The rest of the population was left far behind.

So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers, which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). And this gave us Trump. Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts, which could have got us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all. They could read Podesta's odious emails as well as the rest of us could. (As an aside, regardless of the source of the leaks, we should be thankful for the hacked emails, which allowed us to discover that nation's media works directly with one of the nation's major political parties to manipulate coverage of their opponents and curry favor for their chosen nominee.)

Obama is personally likeable, but did he really give us anything as great and durable as FDR did in the 1930s? The Affordable Care Act was effectively RomneyCare (with the comparable problem that there remains no means of controlling private health insurance costs, a fact that was cruelly revealed days before the election when 25% hikes in health insurance premiums were announced), much as Dodd-Frank was a joke in terms of achieving genuine financial reform, especially when one compares it to the legislation that emerged out of the Great Depression (which lasted unchanged for over 40 years). The Pecora Commission (established in the GD's aftermath) was given relatively free rein to investigate the causes of the crisis and to go after the fraud. Widespread defaults and bankruptcies wiped out a lot of the private sector's debt. The financial sector was downsized and rendered relatively unimportant for several decades.

The establishment, especially the Democratic Party establishment, keeps enforcing what divides people rather than what unites people by embracing identity politics and ignoring class. Yes, a huge majority of women were offended by Trump's "locker room talk", but a large chunk still voted for him, and larger numbers of Hispanics voted for Trump than Romney. Doesn't that suggest that identity politics has reached some sort of limit? Why not find common ground on the issue of class? As former Jackson advisor, Vicente Navarro wrote: "The objective of the 'billionaire class' is to co-opt African Americans and women into the system so they are closer and more aligned to the dominant class. The fact that so little is spoken about class in the US is because the billionaire class does not want people to speak or think in class terms." It's also the case that it is difficult to get a man to understand his own best interests after he's swallowed a handful of Oxycontins and chased them with half a quart of Wild Turkey. But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics on offer by the Democrats this time around. It is true that this process is likely to be resisted by the donor class and it may well take another financial crisis before their power is fully broken. Voters crave effective action to reverse long term economic decline and runaway economic inequality, but nothing on the scale required will be offered to them by either of America's money-driven major parties. This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room - class - is honestly and comprehensively addressed.



____________




See Also —


On Rhetoric And Strategy In Social Justice And Leftist Spaces
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/07/432730.shtml


The Progressive Movement Is A PR Front For Rich Democrats
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433691.shtml


Why The Trump Protests, Like The Wisconsin Uprising, Will Fail
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433785.shtml


Trump/Clinton Ticket Dividing Us Along Lines of Race?
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/09/433217.shtml


Protesters didn't stop Trump in Chicago. They helped him.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/03/431818.shtml


Democrat Party: Alliance of Wealthy Whites + Low Income Ethnic Minorities
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/09/433219.shtml


1960s Icon Of Civil Rights Leads House Democrats In 'Sit Down' To Have Them Taken Away
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432580.shtml


House Democrats Sing Civil Rights Anthem In Support Of Taking Away Our Civil Rights
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432581.shtml


Malcolm X 1964: Black Voters "Chumps" For Voting Democrat
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/10/433265.shtml


Dangerous Idiots: How The Liberal Media Elite Failed Working-Class Americans
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/10/433427.shtml

homepage: homepage: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/14/its-class-stupid-not-race/
address: address: CounterPunch


Take off your ideological blinders 17.Nov.2016 05:46

Mike Novack

You have to look at this not from your own point of view but from that of the people directly affected by issues of race and class.

YOU might think "class identity" most important, but do you think a black motorist stopped by the cops can expect different treatment just because a middle or upper class black?

And as somebody who grew up pre-legal abortion in an upper middle class neighborhood, yeah, I can tell you what was different for women with regard to class. Could afford to take a trip to where could legally get an abortion or the fee of those doctors who would do a D&C without verifying "not pregnant".

We do NOT all have the same priorities.

You might want to look at what you are saying the other way around. IF we could first eliminate these various issues that for this or that grouping of us are more important in our daily lives than class differences, THEN you could get us together organized on the basis of class issues.

"take off your blinders" — look in the mirror, Mike. 17.Nov.2016 07:47

_

You're the one figuring out right now "what to do about Trump" as a result of your ideological blinders.

Did you even read this article?

Why do you never address the actual content of what is posted on Indymedia?

also, why do you post every comment with the "You" pronoun?
The author of this article (which you obviously did not read given the nature of your comment) is Marshall Auerback.

for your edification also read the content of the other suggested pieces linked below the text of ^^^above article.

First Paragraph 17.Nov.2016 08:31

Explains it All

In your NEVER ENDING rants on Indymedia your first paragraph explains enough to not waste time reading (any more of) your put downs of racism and those in the race struggle. You constantly are pulling the chair out of the race issue.
YES "classism" is a problem and it's a big elephant. But (please) don't throw the Race Justice Movement under the bus.

It's sad to see the white privileged tone in your Indymedia arguments. No I didn't read your article. Your previous rants and put downs regarding BLM and racial justice speaks volumes on this spin-diversion marginalizing tactic.

Work with allies - build bridges - show solidarity - and quit trying to destroy a Social Justice movement.

"never ending rants" — Lol, who's ranting in the streets right now? 17.Nov.2016 09:07

_

RE: "Social Justice movement" —



Did you comprehend what the Democratic National Committee did to Sanders in 2016?
(and what that leader of that movement did after evidence was exposed of what transpired)


are working class Americans part of your "social Justice movement"?

(no I'm not talking about unskilled disaffected millennials or career 50s-60s-aged activist-demonstrators .... I'm talking about Americans who work for a living)





When you have evidence or popular support to back up your so-called "social Justice movement", or your opinions/purported arguments be sure to let us all know. 'till then keep it up with the pointless 'ranting'.

RE: [quote] "not waste time reading" — 17.Nov.2016 09:08

_

And, ^ there it is.

No commenter thus far has addressed points made in this article. 17.Nov.2016 09:10

_

( not a big surprise..... hands over ears+eyes, mouth singing "lalalalalala".... )

On Rhetoric And Strategy In Social Justice And Leftist Spaces 17.Nov.2016 09:16

_

This was already ^^^ linked above :

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/07/432730.shtml

Screw your reading Material 17.Nov.2016 09:39

Spindoctor

You continue to throw the racial justice movement under the bus.
I don't know why ...maybe its your privileged position?

As I said YES ...class-ism is an elephant in the room.
Now show some solidarity. (if your capable?)

"Screw your reading Material" — Game, set, match. 17.Nov.2016 09:42

_

[QUOTE] : " Now show some solidarity. (if your [sic] capable?) "


good luck with identity politics in the ensuing decades. Really.

excerpt from : 'Rhetoric And Strategy In Social Justice And Leftist Spaces' ^^ 17.Nov.2016 09:44

_

It is time to check privilege checking. D'Arcy discusses the concept of privilege throughout his piece and how the shift towards examining interpersonal communications and relationships has enhanced the visibility of checking people on their acquired privileges. This has its place without a doubt; people have to realize that humanity is more of an ongoing dialectic rather than particular blocks of time existing in one vacuum or the other, and the particular qualities about one's life is in many ways dependent on how that dialectic has shaken out for their community of origin. So yes, people should be made aware of how their privilege manifests in its various forms. But how do we do that? An article originally written for The Daily Mississippian that was reprinted for TIME's Ideas section seems to suggest one way that is growing in popularity: simply tell a person "check your privilege" and then wipe your hands of the situation. After all, it is now their problem, right? And you do not have time to educate anyone, because what do you look like? Google? That approach is cathartic, self-satisfying, and it even gets you pub in an international news outlet! But does it really do anything more than that? Do you remember the last time someone so harshly dismissed you? Did it make you any more likely to listen to anything that person had to say? Yeah, me neither. As D'Arcy puts it, "There is a certain optimism in the idea of 'consciousness-raising,' or the concept of 'the people,' that seems naive and unconvincing to many of today's activists. The shift from 'consciousness-raising' to 'calling out,' for instance, reflects (and encourages) a loss of confidence in the capacity of people to learn about, understand and oppose forms of inequality that do not adversely impact them as individuals." Ngoc Loan Tran suggested a different format of corrective suggestion that they termed as "calling in", where we approach those who transgress with the kind of humanity that we feel they lacked in their actions. While recognizing that calling out can still be of importance, Tran also recognizes the consequences of implementing that particular strategy in every situation. Tran, however, limits this practice to those we care about and share community with, since a rupture there can obviously have a profound effect on our efficacy as organizers (and if Tran did not make that clear, Mia McKenzie erases all doubt about the intended audience in a postscript). I love the concept, but disagree with the narrowness of scope: this should really be standard operating procedure amongst leftists. We have to recognize the difference between a mistake, a difference of opinion, and an action undertaken with harmful intent, and broadening the concept of "calling in" outside of our particular circles begins the process of doing that.


Liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics 17.Nov.2016 10:38

Luciana Bohne

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433787.shtml

The headlines in The Guardian on Thursday morning after the US election read like tabloids from the gutter press.

"Mourning in America: Will Trump Destroy the Country?'

"I think he's a damaged person"

"A night of shattered dreams"

"Transgender Americans fear for safety after Trump win: 'We are traumatized.'"

"The first black American president will now be succeeded by a man endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. This, according to Trump and his supporters, male and female, is what the American dream actually looks like."

"Misogyny won the US election - let's stop indulging angry white men."

"Forget angry white men - white women pushed Trump to victory"

Gloria Steinem's article in the same Guardian blames it all on "white-lash and man-lash," even though fifty-three percent of white women voted for Trump, but some of these women have no college degree, so they probably don't count.

For Steinem, it was the exceptional quality of Clinton's character that lost her her chance. She was too good, too full of integrity, too devoted to women's rights, too un-conniving to break through the highest of the glass ceilings.

She hoped but never expected her to win:

"If a first female president were someone like, say, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, or another woman who knew how to play the game and win, I wouldn't have been surprised. But Hillary Clinton didn't just play the game; she changed the rules. She insisted that women's rights are human rights, that women can decide the fate of our own bodies, that workers of all races should get paid the same as white men for the same work."

Steinem's plaintive hagiographic obituary of Clinton's defeat omits mentioning that Clinton opposed raising the minimum wage of Haitian workers to 62 cents per hour because it would have lowered the profits of American corporations, exploiting the poorest of the poor there.

It must be difficult for a feminist Democrat to mention Haiti and Clinton Foundation in the same breath, for the racist and sexist profiteering of Bill and Hillary is most nakedly documented there. Its account can be read here.

As to evaluating character, it's been a long time apparently since Steinem read Virginia Woolf's idea of a feminist: "One's life has value so long as one attributes value to the life of others, by means of love, friendship, indignation and compassion." (A Room of One's Own).

These are not the virtues usually associated with the bellicose, corrupt, and ruthlessly ambitious Clinton, even if one refrains from calling her the Butcher of Libya and the Wrath of Honduras, her legacy as Secretary of State.

Clinton incarnates the most ferocious interests of international financial capital and of the high-tech industries that feed the military-industrial complex and the global surveillance system.

So, Gloria, yours is stupid stuff. If feminism is not about the pursuit of peace, it is simply the female version of patriarchal exploitation and opportunism. Weep not that she lost; weep that feminism has sunk so low as to celebrate in her person anti-feminist qualities such as ambition, careerism, competition, imperialism, and warmongering.

Such feminism has lost the moral ground to accuse anyone of sexism, let alone the people who voted for Trump.

It is now evident that identity politics, the mantra of race and gender, has been cultivated by the neoliberal order to obscure the category of class, while actually waging class war, and to relegate the working poor to the realm of the unmentionable.

Under worsening economic conditions, masses of the alienated have perceived their alienation. This is happening all over the neoliberally ravaged world. To side with the elite against the rage of the people is madness. Worse, it is to alienate the people further to the right in a classic social dynamic that, under severe conditions, delivers full-blown fascism.


Self-Righteousness And Left-Activism 17.Nov.2016 10:40

Stephen D’Arcy

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432583.shtml

Self-righteousness is a special case of being self-satisfied, complacent, smug.

But here, the smug complacency refers specifically to a person's belief that he or she complies, to a higher than normal degree, with the demands of some strict moral standard.

This claimed moral superiority in turn is supposed to justify an attitude of scorn or disdain toward others, who supposedly fail to respect this high standard and in this way discredit themselves.

----


Self-righteousness and Left-Activism

Posted on March 9, 2015 by stevedarcy

By Stephen D'Arcy

Self-righteousness is a special case of being self-satisfied, complacent, smug. But here, the smug complacency refers specifically to a person's belief that he or she complies, to a higher than normal degree, with the demands of some strict moral standard. This claimed moral superiority in turn is supposed to justify an attitude of scorn or disdain toward others, who supposedly fail to respect this high standard and in this way discredit themselves.

Importantly, self-righteousness differs from simple "righteousness" — the insistence on doing the right thing, simply because it is the right thing — in being a vice rather than a virtue. Why, though, is self-righteousness a vice, not a virtue?

It is a vice for at least three reasons:

1. First, because the self-righteous person helps himself or herself to a higher standing than his or her peers, and so claims to be superior, almost in the manner of a "saint," whereas we only accept the standing of moral superior as an honorific status to be conferred on rare individuals by others, not a self-appointed status to be claimed presumptuously and unilaterally for oneself;

2. Second, because the smug complacency implies a confidence that one has little or no work to do to improve one's own conduct and character, and thereby reveals a lack of concern for self-improvement, a confidence placed in doubt by the very behaviour that embodies it, since that behaviour itself is open to criticism and calls for correction; and

3. Third, because the most common marker or indicator of self-righteousness is the ostentatious stance of self-appointed judge, issuing explicit or implicit decrees of condemnation toward others, for their supposed failings, and this 'judgmental' stance reveals a lack of insight about or awareness of the universality of failings and shortcomings that motivate one's finger-pointing, but on the contrary presumes that such failings are unique to the judged, and have no parallel in the words and deeds of the judge.

Now, it is sometimes said that social-justice-oriented political activists are particularly prone to self-righteousness. I'm not sure whether or not they are unusually quick to indulge in this sort of thing. But I do believe that it is widespread, and certainly no less typical of activists than of others. And that's a problem, because it obviously undermines what they are trying to achieve, if (as I hope) they are trying to draw in wider circles of people, and to break out of activist subcultures to engage with the larger world. Clearly, a self-righteous attitude will deter engagement, on one's own part, since one looks down on others and therefore won't see them as potential comrades and partners in a common struggle; and it will also deter engagement on the part of others, because they will find one's self-righteousness to be offensive and indicative of some activists' contempt for ordinary people. Self-righteousness, in short, undermines both the interest of activists in engaging with the wider world, and the willingness of the wider world to be engaged by activists.

I believe that this problem came up, as a practical matter, during the Occupy movement, when many long-time activists found themselves, consciously or unconsciously, unwilling or unable to engage with wider circles of people flooding into oppositional movement politics, because some of those people had (arguably) mistaken ideas about a range of issues, from the role of 'the Fed' to the nature of colonialism and much else. No one would suggest that these ideas, where they existed, didn't need to be challenged in various ways, by means of a process of popular education. But having mistaken opinions is not actually a flaw or a defect or sign of inferiority, clearly. It is actually the normal state of everyone. We just have different zones of knowledge and ignorance. So, a stance of condescension in such situations is clearly uncalled for. But in fact, at the time, I believe that some activists retreated from the Occupy movement because they were particularly judgmental about the political opinions of some of the participants. (My evidence for this is limited, but it is a perception I had at the time.) Obviously, there were in some cases perfectly sound reasons that people may have had to shift their attention elsewhere. No one would doubt that; certainly, I don't doubt it. However, I'm quite sure that at least in a few cases, self-righteousness was an issue.

If self-righteousness is a barrier to strategically effective movement organizing, what can be done about it? I don't pretend to know. But possibly counting it as one of the threats to left-activism — along with other threats that we express concern about, like state repression, activist burnout, or sexist behaviour, etc. — will help us resist any impulse to revel in self-righteous feelings, which seem to have some narcissistic appeal due to their ego-elevating character. If we count self-righteousness as a danger, a threat to our organizing projects, we might better be able to notice its appearance, and to motivate ourselves to walk away from it.


White Privilege 17.Nov.2016 11:23

Troll Alert _

Your 3 reason you give are illogical and don't apply to "your situation" as you dismiss the charges levied on you and wag n point your finger over here or there as you try to avoid the spotlight that is fixing on you and your ill words.

Your continued Indymedia shit talking of race justice issues (example BLM) is not going to change anything here on anywhere, because you are only marginalizing the issues. Your copy paste quotes and links to 'more of your posts' that only "THROWS THE RACIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT" under the bus, which is ironically not even denied by you. Yes, obviously in your privileged position you speak down to those who are fighting to rise up and you then make excuses and spin the conversation "when" your outed. There is no conversation here. Defend your racism, wag your finger and be sure to copy paste a few dozen replies. As long as you can come on Indymedia and work AGAINST social justice movements, know that it is "only" your privilege and anonymity that is allowing it.

"Your" [sic] 'copy paste quotes and links' - It Ain't Just A River In Egypt. 17.Nov.2016 11:32

_

Trump trumped you and that is the best you can come up with?

(not only that, GOP won majority in Congress)

It is time to check privilege checking.  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/07/432730.shtml

17.Nov.2016 11:23
[quote]: "work AGAINST social justice movements" —

Lol.
You are only working against YOURSELF,
by refusing to acknowledge what has actually happened or constructive criticism and analyses, all of which emanate from hard-left sources.
Rhetoric And Strategy In Social Justice And Leftist Spaces - don't care?

You had better wake up is all I can say.

" privilege and anonymity" — 17.Nov.2016 11:41

_

( "privilege" thus implied already 100% debunked ^^^above but... )

indeed we all have the 'privilege and anonymity' of watching butthurt message-less self righteous _________s getting their ****s kicked over an election of a leader who's not even in office yet.

We thoroughly enjoy the show, please keep it up / don't let it stop :

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433735.shtml

problem with race/gender (if you want effective change) is : 17.Nov.2016 11:44

_

These can not be the center, or foundational basis of the movement for change (if you want to succeed or broaden support).

CLASS must be the foundational substance of an effective movement. Of course race, gender etc. can also be part of it but they can not take primacy over class.

Otherwise, keep being further marginalized.

_ Called Out 17.Nov.2016 12:36

Obvious Now

You havent yet denied that you are marginalizing the Race Justice Movement. You ignore the facts I present, of how you are working AGAINST the social justice Movement for Race Issues. You haven't debunked anything- you spouted off and then "claim" to all its debunked - LOL.
Thanks for all your hard work dismissing the struggle of people of color and all your Indymedia efforts to marginalize the struggle for Justice.

I have called you out. If you are a person of color speak up, cause it sure seem like your shit-talking with the typical "white privilege" that this world already has heard too much from. On Indymedia from _ there is NO solidarity with the BLM Movement or any of the ongoing important racial issues local and across the US. No help from you _ just undermining the movement.

And Trump had nothing to do with how you are throwing folks under the bus. I didn't vote for him. This is about You!

"marginalizing the Race Justice Movement" — It has done it, TO ITSELF. 17.Nov.2016 12:43

_

That is _why_ the left is having this discussion (not via You, "Troll Alert" / "Obvious Now" of course but...) after the 2016 election.

Millions of Trump / GOP voters simply don't care. And this is _after_ 8 years of Obama administration.

You also refuse to recognize or comprehend the broader global significance of nationalism, exemplified in Europe earlier this year with the Brexit vote.

It's a question of recognizing and realistically dealing with actual political events and cultural trends, in an attempt to produce further effective change and or a 'movement'. Not just here in the United States either.






"white privilege"
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433786.shtml#448760
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/07/432730.shtml

It is time to check privilege checking. D'Arcy discusses the concept of privilege throughout his piece and how the shift towards examining interpersonal communications and relationships has enhanced the visibility of checking people on their acquired privileges. This has its place without a doubt; people have to realize that humanity is more of an ongoing dialectic rather than particular blocks of time existing in one vacuum or the other, and the particular qualities about one's life is in many ways dependent on how that dialectic has shaken out for their community of origin. So yes, people should be made aware of how their privilege manifests in its various forms. But how do we do that? An article originally written for The Daily Mississippian that was reprinted for TIME's Ideas section seems to suggest one way that is growing in popularity: simply tell a person "check your privilege" and then wipe your hands of the situation. After all, it is now their problem, right? And you do not have time to educate anyone, because what do you look like? Google? That approach is cathartic, self-satisfying, and it even gets you pub in an international news outlet! But does it really do anything more than that? Do you remember the last time someone so harshly dismissed you? Did it make you any more likely to listen to anything that person had to say? Yeah, me neither. As D'Arcy puts it, "There is a certain optimism in the idea of 'consciousness-raising,' or the concept of 'the people,' that seems naive and unconvincing to many of today's activists. The shift from 'consciousness-raising' to 'calling out,' for instance, reflects (and encourages) a loss of confidence in the capacity of people to learn about, understand and oppose forms of inequality that do not adversely impact them as individuals." Ngoc Loan Tran suggested a different format of corrective suggestion that they termed as "calling in", where we approach those who transgress with the kind of humanity that we feel they lacked in their actions. While recognizing that calling out can still be of importance, Tran also recognizes the consequences of implementing that particular strategy in every situation. Tran, however, limits this practice to those we care about and share community with, since a rupture there can obviously have a profound effect on our efficacy as organizers (and if Tran did not make that clear, Mia McKenzie erases all doubt about the intended audience in a postscript). I love the concept, but disagree with the narrowness of scope: this should really be standard operating procedure amongst leftists. We have to recognize the difference between a mistake, a difference of opinion, and an action undertaken with harmful intent, and broadening the concept of "calling in" outside of our particular circles begins the process of doing that.

Further reading (newly posted) for comprehension — 17.Nov.2016 12:46

_

Fantasies Of Impeachment and Protest: Continued Misreadings of Donald Trump
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433792.shtml

For those who opposed, and ignored Trumpism altogether, forms of denial have taken even deeper root. They have little interest in bringing the Trump voters into the fold, let alone idly waiting for a transition period to unfold.


_________



A Critical Analysis Of Some Left-Liberal Reaction To The Recent Election
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433791.shtml

Recommended (if you haven't already seen) viewing — 17.Nov.2016 13:07

_



Called Out - No Rebuttal 17.Nov.2016 15:42

Obvious Now

You don't address me calling you out on your anti-Racial Justice position. You certainly don't deny what I am saying. As you continue to exasperate the obvious "writing on the wall" with unrelated links to Indymedia article you previously posted that skirt this "Race Issue".

The real case in point, here is you are using your "privilege" on Indymedia to undermining the social justice movement for people of color.
Yes we all got to get along and work together ...but your not helping, you are undermining.

"Calling out" — 17.Nov.2016 16:24

_

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433786.shtml#448760
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/07/432730.shtml

The shift from 'consciousness-raising' to 'calling out,' for instance, reflects (and encourages) a loss of confidence in the capacity of people to learn about, understand and oppose forms of inequality that do not adversely impact them as individuals." Ngoc Loan Tran suggested a different format of corrective suggestion that they termed as "calling in", where we approach those who transgress with the kind of humanity that we feel they lacked in their actions. While recognizing that calling out can still be of importance, Tran also recognizes the consequences of implementing that particular strategy in every situation. Tran, however, limits this practice to those we care about and share community with, since a rupture there can obviously have a profound effect on our efficacy as organizers (and if Tran did not make that clear, Mia McKenzie erases all doubt about the intended audience in a postscript). I love the concept, but disagree with the narrowness of scope: this should really be standard operating procedure amongst leftists. We have to recognize the difference between a mistake, a difference of opinion, and an action undertaken with harmful intent, and broadening the concept of "calling in" outside of our particular circles begins the process of doing that.

Check YOURSELF 17.Nov.2016 19:14

OD

It's easy for a White person to sit upon their privilege and say that it's "class, not race STUPID!" Maybe it's BOTH?

Malcolm X was already posted-quoted-linked in original article ^^ above. 17.Nov.2016 19:20

_

Malcolm X 1964: Black Voters "Chumps" For Voting Democrat
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/10/433265.shtml



man, the mere title alone of this CounterPunch article sure has rustled some jimmies here.
( None of the trolls natch, actually read the content of or responded to the major points of the article itself... )

Wonder what would happen if any of the clowns troll-posting on this thread, had the guts (balls?) to actually email its author Marshall Auerback, over at CounterPunch.

naahh.........

+ concerning your Malcolm meme-pic 17.Nov.2016 19:38

_

[quote, Malcolm X from your posted pic]:
"if you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

First off, Brother Malcolm says [quote]:
'the newspapers'

so he's referring here to the press, the media and how they portray politics and culture.

He's further talking about how, in reference to Malcolm's own era and what was occurring in the United States at that precise time, how the American press/media portrayed the civil rights movement and its staunch opposition at that time.

"be careful," he warns that you don't end up hating the people being oppressed, African Americans, and loving the police / white establishment.

And that is the exact predicament OD and others currently find themselves in.

They are too busy praising the establishment globalists, Wall Street banks, warmongers whose candidate Hillary Clinton just lost a major election. Additionally, they were completely brainwashed by all of the U.S. corporate mass media who insisted all-campaign-long that the opposition to Clinton "could never win", was "incapable of victory" and in other ways unsuitable.

Yet here they all are, after the establishment has lost the election, hysterically 'protesting' its result

ON


BEHALF


OF



THE



corporate Wall Street warmonger mass media
ESTABLISHMENT.



They also did absolutely nothing about the DNC's rigging of the Democratic primaries to sabotage its own most popular candidate, Sanders.

Of note, Sanders and Trump were the only two major party candidates to speak extensively about working class issues throughout their campaigns; and not coincidentally, these two candidates were the ones vehemently opposed by the Establishment (on whose behalf the anti-Trump demonstrators now work). In Sanders' case he was not able to surpass the treachery of his own party and the U.S. corporate mass media, and he's just a career politician who has no real resources beyond his corporate-major-party, the Democrats; Trump happens to be independently wealthy and despite his major-party opponent spending more than twice as much money, his OWN PARTY spending millions of dollars to prevent his nomination and otherwise sabotage his candidacey, and having the entire media against him right up until the last tally was counted, was able to pull it off.


to quote another great human rights activist :
"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
Steve Biko

Oh look @ them - Not @ Me 17.Nov.2016 20:59

Obvious Now

To hell with counterpunch - its your attitude regarding those that "are involved" in racial social justice activism & its their struggle that you shit on with your white privilege / anonymity. I am not going to contact anybody on counterpunch that you: not only agree with but also re post their garbage, I'm contacting you not them. I have acknowledged: that class-ism is a big part of the problem (elephant in room). My point that I want others to know is, you deliberately undermine the race justice movement on Indymedia.

"contacting you not them" — No, you're in Denial and evading. 17.Nov.2016 21:25

_

You have no integrity

You have no honesty

You have no attention span

You have no effectiveness

You have no rhetorical skill

You have no purpose

You are a waste of organic matter.

Academics And Think-Tankers Produce Yet Another Gigantic Mess 19.Nov.2016 05:49

blues

Unbelievable. These professional thinkers produce all kinds of acronyms, odd definitions, memes, conceptual sand castles, and so on, and it all comes to absolutely nothing.

They make complicated what should be very simple, and oversimplify things that are inherently complex. Just about every time.

Their abuse of terminology is especially egregious. Consider this term "hate". (I like semi-British punctuation.) As in "racial hatred". Well 98% of the time there's no actual hatred involved in racial bigotry. It's vastly more complex than that. Now, there is a fine expression "social justice"; and it can be used effectively in phrases like "social justice proponent", "social justice advocate", and "social justice activist". (The phrase "social justice warrior" is a despicable pejorative.) But now we have people talking about "climate justice", which refers to a now (most probably) irreversible geological problem that will require engineering, not social, action. Meanwhile, we are stuck with intrinsically bleached terms like "hate", "right wing", "conservative", "left wing" "progressivism", and so on and so on, that probably never really did mean much of anything.

Many problems can only be solved by complex means. But many would be dirt-simple to fix totally. Where I live, public places have maybe two toilets that are not assigned according to sex, but only one person can go in at a time. Problem 100% solved! The two-party coercing spoiler effect can be easily thwarted by using simple score voting, as I have often emphasized here, but the professional egg-heads have invented a thousand other systems that cannot possibly work.

Maybe the universities and "think-tanks" are what really need to be abolished.

Dissappointing responses 19.Nov.2016 07:51

Mike Novack

Look, my first comment was about what appeared to be an "old left" ideologue unable to see that for persons DIRECTLY AFFECTED IN THEIR IMMEDIATE LIVES the other matter of "class struggle" might NOT be the most important thing. That these people might rightly judge their other fish need to be addressed first, AT LEAST BY THEMSELVES. That's the blindness to which I was referring, not being able to see that perhaps for other people other things ARE more important.

But I see lots of people jumping in and accusing this person of being blinded by privilege or their own prejudices. WHY? What evidence that this is the reason rather than just traditional old left ideology, which believes that (by magic?) if we resolve the class conflict all these other problems will vanish.

Is it just that I am older? Have seen this "we need to deal with class struggle first" LONG before the language of privilege as the explanation. And in regard to OTHER issues having nothing to do with race, etc. For example, a belief that all our ecological problems would vanish. Just because in a capitalist society the immediate reasons we destroy the environment is for capitalist reasons and THOSE reasons wouldn't exist in a post capitalist society ---- as if there couldn't possibly be socialist reasons (if you look at 19th Century visions of socialism, you will find plenty expressing the view "together we will exploit Nature for the benefit of all, not just the rich).

30 comments in, NOT ONE SINGLE COMMENT addresses the Elephant. 19.Nov.2016 12:37

_

Amazing, the level of denial on all levels of the left (even when presented and clearly explained by one of their very own).


stupefying really.

Oversimplify Things That Are Inherently Complex 20.Nov.2016 07:48

blues

Like "class". "Class" is almost certainly an epigenetic phenomenon.

DNA methylation (methylene attached to DNA) can be inherited for approximately five generations.

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that does not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence -- a change in phenotype without a change in genotype -- which in turn affects how cells read the genes. Epigenetic change is a regular and natural occurrence but can also be influenced by several factors including age, the environment/lifestyle, and disease state.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/

Here are a few important points about epigenetics:

(+) Epigenetics Controls Genes. Certain circumstances in life can cause genes to be silenced or expressed over time. In other words, they can be turned off (becoming dormant) or turned on (becoming active).

(+) Epigenetics Is Everywhere. What you eat, where you live, who you interact with, when you sleep, how you exercise, even aging -- all of these can eventually cause chemical modifications around the genes that will turn those genes on or off over time. Additionally, in certain diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer's, various genes will be switched into the opposite state, away from the normal/healthy state.

(+) Epigenetics Makes Us Unique. Even though we are all human, why do some of us have blonde hair or darker skin? Why do some of us hate the taste of mushrooms or eggplants? Why are some of us more sociable than others? The different combinations of genes that are turned on or off is what makes each one of us unique. Furthermore, there is evidence that some epigenetic changes can be inherited.

(+) Epigenetics Is Reversible. With 20,000+ genes, what will be the result of the different combinations of genes being turned on or off? The possible permutations are enormous! But if we could map every single cause and effect of the different combinations, and if we could reverse the gene's state to keep the good while eliminating the bad... then we could theoretically* cure cancer, slow aging, stop obesity, and so much more.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

White Privilege Foot Stomping and Crying 03.Dec.2016 13:40

Obvious Now

30 comments in, NOT ONE SINGLE COMMENT addresses the Elephant.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433786.shtml#448819
19.Nov.2016 12:37

((QUOTE))
Amazing, the level of denial on all levels of the left (even when presented and clearly explained by one of their very own).
stupefying really.
((END QUOTE))

Hey _

You posted 17 comment out of 30 - and none of "your comments" address the very topic you posted and are now crying about. LOL

Your last trolling post of self indulgence, and cry for attention is sad. You post an article of an important topic like "classism" and in the very same breath of your title post you shit on the racial justice movement, (BLM, etc.) Instead of making allies you (try to) ruin relationships (here on indymedia). As you post comment to demoralize folks in the struggle, you then criticize and cry and whine that nobody commented on your article . Good God! Get a clue. You come to indymedia kick open the door yell at people in the struggle, post comments and articles that all lead in a circle jerk back to other comments you posted on other threads. All the while making statements, insults and asking questions on opinions that are only spin / circle jerk questions as if you were corresponding with one single person, rather than (in reality) a community of readers.

Save your self some stress and your questions to your self, cry whine and use your white privilege as you have been outed. Post your 18th reply here, and please do point to other threads, claim any accusations that you want, you own are (self) debunked and then boldly wag your finger at somebody from your arm chair. I find little value in your musings or reposts, and I take umbrage at your use of white privilege leveraged against others in the struggle as you use this website to marginalize your positions.

Obvious Now BUTTHURT. 25.Jan.2017 17:19

_

wrote:
----
"You posted 17 comment out of 30 - and none of "your comments" address the very topic you posted and are now crying about. LOL"
----


It is YOUR responsibility to answer the question, YOU are the one who is "crying" and refuses to acknowledge reality.

Lol!

My comments on this thread consist only of rebuttals (to the pointless ineffectual responses) along with further evidence and references for the use of all.




Obvious Now wrote:
----
"Your last trolling post of self indulgence, and cry for attention is sad. You post an article of an important topic like "classism" and in the very same breath of your title post you shit on the racial justice movement, (BLM, etc.) Instead of making allies you (try to) ruin relationships (here on indymedia)."
----


"Self indulgence"?

"cry for attention"?

How did those anti-Trump demonstrations work out for you?

Black Lives Matter is an activism DEAD END (and for all I, or you, know it may ?? be a provocateur group to misdirect young persons' energies) - plenty of evidence and analyses of BLM and its ineffectual spinoffs have been posted on PDX IMC and this thread FOR YOU TO READ, COMPREHEND AND LEARN FROM AT YOUR LEISURE.




Obvious Now wrote:
----
"Instead of making allies you (try to) ruin relationships (here on indymedia). As you post comment to demoralize folks in the struggle, you then criticize and cry and whine that nobody commented on your article ."
----


"making allies / ruin relationships"
It is your responsibility, as a career activist, to choose and make your OWN allies wisely.

I am not "ruining" any relationships,
just in search (?) of actual rational acknowledgement of (for example) the issues and topics raised in the CounterPunch article.

Which no one here apparently has either the mental capacity, spirit or guts to accomplish.

"nobody commented"?
That's false. Nobody, though has adequately or even peripherally addressed the original CounterPunch article (just for example).

I don't care anymore what happens to you.
("Demoralize" your own selves to your Hearts' content with more 'anti Trump' protests and SEE JUST EXACTLY HOW FAR THOSE GET YOU.)

All I'm attempting to do here is to create some dialogue (either internal, or open here on thread) to actually LOOK at what your ideological blinders have brought your movement(s).

But denial ain't just a river in Egypt.




Obvious Now wrote:
----
"Good God! Get a clue."
----


good Goddess! Look in a mirror.




Obvious Now wrote:
----
"You come to indymedia kick open the door yell at people in the struggle, post comments and articles that all lead in a circle jerk back to other comments you posted on other threads. All the while making statements, insults and asking questions on opinions that are only spin / circle jerk questions as if you were corresponding with one single person, rather than (in reality) a community of readers."
----


'circle jerk' was namesake of one of your favorite bands.

As soon as someone in the "community" ENGAGES in dialogue or ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF some of the issues raised (instead of trying to "spin" or DENY them) then maybe 'progress' can be made.

Otherwise they're just another user donning the pretentious screen moniker 'Obvious Now'.


and damn right I'm "kicking open the door" — people need to wake up.



Obvious Now wrote:
----
"Save your self some stress and your questions to your self"
----

I am _completely_ de-Stressed, now that Hillary Clinton has lost the presidential election. Massive sighs of relief still resonating, months later.

Whew! thank Goddess she lost.

(as to president DT he remains an unknown quantity. But so far he's up for canceling NAFTA  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2017/01/434167.shtml

which actually if you look back to JANUARY 2014 Portland Indymedia was all about too :  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/02/426454.shtml

Ironic isn't ^it?




Obvious Now wrote:
----
"cry whine and use your white privilege as you have been outed"
----


and you're Non-white, 'Obvious Now'? ( isn't that obvious......... )

no doubt about their crying and whining,
but apparently also Obvious Now possesses their very own detector for the ethnicity of posters on the internet.




Obvious Now wrote:
----
"Post your 18th reply here, and please do point to other threads, claim any accusations that you want, you own are (self) debunked and then boldly wag your finger at somebody from your arm chair"
----


Self-debunking is what you (and your ilk) do with each new content-free, head-in-sand, DenialVille response.

Own up at least to what the original CounterPunch article was talking about.


btw I don't own or use an "arm chair", nor do I "wag my finger"




Obvious Now wrote:
----
"I find little value in your musings or reposts, and I take umbrage at your use of white privilege leveraged against others in the struggle as you use this website to marginalize your positions"
----


"little value" —
but you _do_ find _some_ value?
BTW they are not "musings" and while yes some of the articles are 'reposts' they are posted here on the Newswire due to important, fully relevant topics and issues WHICH NEED TO BE EXAMINED BY SO-CALLED ACTIVISTS WHO REFUSED TO EVEN PROTEST THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE RIGGING OF THE JULY 2016 CONVENTION AGAINST CANDIDATE SANDERS, just for example.
yet here they all are in J20 2017 with the "not my president" crybaby garbage.

"white privilege leveraged" —
the 'check your privilege' has already been covered in many ^^comment posts/links above elsewhere on PDX IMC. You're a self-debunked joke for continuing to "rely" on that hackneyed 100% meaningless rhetoric.

"marginalize your positions" —
Doing it quite effectively to/by your own self, keep up the great work.

Hope Against Despondency: Interpreting Class Post-Trump 25.Jan.2017 17:31

James Brittain

Enclosing Trump as a solitary force for bigots, racists, misogynists would be politically tragic, as it is simplistic, in that it fails to recognize the manoeuvres of such narratives. There is a more imperative underscore of why and who elected this candidate that must be teased-out.

Today it is clear that much work needs/is to be done. An immediate and important aspect of this effort is to recognize how our contemporary class consciousness is currently being expressed. As evident, it is a class-identity channelled through an autonomous individuation associated with self-interest rather than a body correspondingly divorced from the means of production and consequentially exploited. It is essential that a clear understanding of where one sits in relation to the distal structures of power be grounded in a recognition of the State and the means of production. What then needs to be taken off the shelf is a class consciousness of shared-relation(s); a collective recognition of alienation as a class rather than a singular neoliberal by-product (or subject).