Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

From what I can tell, it seems like DSA leadership didn't consult with members, and many members were like, "This is bogus, we don't want this class reductionist jabbering to us." So, they made their concerns known, and Reed decided not to do the speech. The reason it matters is that if the DSA is going to ever be viewed as anything besides a stomping ground for white, well-educated leftist 18-40 year olds, then it needs to stop booking class reductionists like Reed.

For an insight into the DSA's race issues, look no further than this article from TNR. The person I was speaking of above, btw, is quoted in the article, if you want to sleuth. https://newrepublic.com/article/152789/americas-socialists-race-problem

Again, I'm not saying I'm in agreement with this approach, but from what I can tell, these are the terms that are being used in this particular argument.

ah, see, i do think this is a super interesting point. i agree! cultures of complicity are insidious. honestly, it's something i struggle with a lot - i was raised to respect the rule of law, to respect authority. i was taught well the dangers of non-compliance. i mean, christ, it's my literal job. i work in compliance. my job is to make sure that regulations are obeyed. i don't know how i am supposed to obey any of the crazy shit the president says. i don't know how any of us are supposed to do it.

and this i think is one of the reasons i am, right now, afraid of liberals in a way i am _not_ afraid of donald trump. i just have a hard time describing the president, himself, as "insidious". to me this implies some sort of gentle persuasion, of gaining your trust and persuading you to "compromise" on things you normally wouldn't. insidiousness relies on gradualism, which is just not something the president seems _capable_ of.

biden/harris are peak insidious imo.

― Kate (rushomancy), Sunday, August 16, 2020 1:03 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

There is no way out of complicity, imho, except acknowledging the extent of it and working to make a more equitable world. Capitalism, by its nature, makes us all complicit in any number of structures that are objectively abhorrent.

Agreed on the Biden/Harris thing. That so many actually do believe in them as a force for good just exhibits the self-centered rot at the core of liberalism.

For an insight into the DSA's race issues, look no further than this article from TNR. The person I was speaking of above, btw, is quoted in the article, if you want to sleuth. https://newrepublic.com/article/152789/americas-socialists-race-problem

Thanks for this, its a long article but I'll get to it later in the week. Hopefully it sheds a bit more light on the Reed/Sunkara stuff and I can try wrap my head around it!

East Bay and Philly DSA has some weird things going on, to the point where East Bay(iirc) took up some weird delegate credentializing issue on the very first day of the Convention last summer that had a lot of us scratching our heads as to wtf was going on and why they decided to air their dirty laundry right there.

Reed himself on the subject of class reductionism:

Class reductionism is the supposed view that inequalities apparently attributable to race, gender, or other categories of group identification are either secondary in importance or reducible to generic economic inequality. It thus follows, according to those who hurl the charge, that specifically anti-racist, feminist, or LGBTQ concerns, for example, should be dissolved within demands for economic redistribution.

I know of no one who embraces that position. Like other broad-brush charges that self-styled liberal pragmatists levy against “wish-list economics” and the assault on private health insurance, the class reductionist canard is a bid to shut down debate. Once you summon it, you may safely dismiss your opponents as wild-eyed fomenters of discord without addressing the substance of their disagreements with you on policy proposals.

Although there are no doubt random, dogmatic class reductionists out there, the simple fact is that no serious tendency on the left contends that racial or gender injustices or those affecting LGBTQ people, immigrants, or other groups as such do not exist, are inconsequential, or otherwise should be downplayed or ignored. Nor do any reputable voices on the left seriously argue that racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia are not attitudes and ideologies that persist and cause harm.

Class reductionism” is, in other words, a myth. It is a caricature rooted in hoary folk imagery, likely as not originating in tales of late-1960s debates during the raucous disintegration of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), as a clutch of nominal socialists insisted that any distinct focus on racial and gender injustice would undermine the greater political goal of working-class unity. But even at its height, this view only gained currency among a very small cohort of sectarian dogmatists. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, Communists, Socialists, labor-leftists, and Marxists of all stripes characteristically were in the forefront of struggles for racial and gender justice. And that commitment was natural, because such leftists saw those struggles as inextricable from the more general goal of social transformation along egalitarian lines; they properly understood the battles for racial and gender equity as constitutive elements of the struggle for working-class power. Class reductive leftism is a figment of the political imagination roused by those who have made their peace with neoliberalism.

The myth, moreover, obscures important contemporary and historical realities.

Black, female, and trans people tend to be disproportionately working class. So any measure to advance broad downward economic redistribution—from Medicare for All to a $15 hourly minimum wage—can’t coherently be said to thwart the interests of women, racial minorities, or other identity groups. What’s more, this brand of class denialism artificially separates race, gender, and other ascriptive identities from the basic dynamics of American capitalism. True, African Americans, Latinos, and women are disproportionately poor or working class due to a long history of racial and gender discrimination in labor and housing markets—conditions that have worsened alongside the postwar deindustrialization of American cities. But this means that these populations would benefit disproportionately from initiatives geared to improve the circumstances of poor and working-class people in general.

Sorry for post right wing writing here

Philly DSA supported a councilwoman in a 2019 primary who a) didn't actually live in the district any longer, b) was a legacy from her husband's time as councilman in the district, c) had aides who threatened at various points to murder and 'rape the dyke' out of queer constituents who opposed her. Why did they do so? They said it was because her opponent was taking money from developers and gentrifiers...while their campaign took money from those same organizations.

Both candidates were black women. The incumbent lost her primary, but let me tell you, having DSA dudes tell me that homophobic attacks don't matter because the candidate was on the side of the working people was enough to make me write off the DSA forever.

Re: that bit from Reed, the issue is that his position wants to deny the very circumstances his second to last sentence identifies, and he makes that obvious!

But the reality is that being an immigrant, being trans, and being Black or brown or Indigenous in the US adds a layer of oppression beyond simple classism. People with such identities are kept in the bottom of class hierarchies for a reason, and one of those reasons is their identities. If Reed truly thinks that rising tide lifts all boats, then why is he so dismissive toward intersectional arguments regarding class solidarity?

Like, I just find that bit from Reed totally contradictory.

I guess this is his objectionable idea;

Complaints about disproportionality are neoliberal math. They tell us that the increasing wealth of the one percent would be okay if only there were more black, brown, and LGBTQIA+ billionaires. And the fact that anti-racism and anti-discrimination of all kinds would validate rather than undermine the stratification of wealth in American society is completely visible to those who currently possess that wealth—all the rich people eager to embark on a course of moral purification that will make them less racist but with no interest whatsoever in a politics that would make them less rich.

As generations of black proponents of social democracy understood clearly, it is practically impossible to imagine a serious strategy for winning the kinds of reforms that would actually improve black and brown working people's conditions without winning them for all working people and without doing so through a struggle anchored to broad working-class solidarity. Our further point is that even if it were possible, it would be wrong. A society where making black and white people equal means making them equally subordinate to a (mainly white but, really, what does it matter?) ruling class is not a more just society, just a differently unjust one. That's the trouble with disparity.

I think it’s entirely fine to disagree with this, but to characterize it as ‘moving right’ or finding it so dangerous that it cannot be allowed to enter the ears of sensitive DSA members is the sign of a movement that is going to keep failing

when reed uses the word "reputable" he doesn't (in this excerpt) explain who the gatekeepers of this reputation are actually likely to be, and how they're going to establish the norms required effectively. without a clarity here, any potential saving materialism will quickly morph back into moralistic culture-wars handwaving (i mean lol if history teaches us anything, it's that the far left has a tendency towards sectarianism).

assuming he's the designated grown-up in this exchange, it's his job to deploy his own favoured political tools, first to explain why the big-name radicals of yore have so lost reputation among the young (as i say above, i think the material reasons are pretty evident but i'm not a tenured academic, im a idiot on a tiny mostly liberal messageboard), and then (practically speaking) how to counter this in a non bullshit way. if this works, then it's a sign the tools are good ones -- until they work, not so much.

Do I kind of agree with Reed? Sure.

Do I also think that the idea that one needs to supplant the other is ridiculous on its face? Also sure.

If black people are getting paid more but still getting murdered in the streets by cops and vigilantes, and still facing mass incarceration, poor health outcomes, and systemic racism, NO AMOUNT of working class solidarity is going to matter.

That said,.do I think the DSA could have dealt with hearing him speak? Sure.

But in the end, do I give much of a fuck about the DSA? Not really!

thanks for posting that article. that reading group debate is so stupid and childish. i think everyone should read everything and just be adults and capable of disagreeing and synthesizing ideas--or don't! just let it be that not everything fits together, walk and chew gum, etc. i have managed to find reed very eye-opening and still believe in a lot of stuff he probably doesn't like. weird.

Exactly. If anything, one of the big problems with the Reed issue is that it demonstrates that people who are ostensibly on the same side continue to be incapable of holding multiple ideas at the same time.

Agreed. Happy to see this is the ilx consensus. And in response to something upthread, there is a difference between choosing not to invite a certain speaker, and making a big deal out of it with the aim of making the speaker’s ideas taboo. In the case of Reed, it involved misrepresenting his ideas.

Exactly. If anything, one of the big problems with the Reed issue is that it demonstrates that people who are ostensibly on the same side continue to be incapable of holding multiple ideas at the same time.

It's almost as if they had problems with dialectical thinking!

that excerpt is not too offensive but it’s pretty vague about its targets unless there is more contextualisation not quoted (where’s this from? is it specifically related to the current controversy or just a representative sample?)

there are people who think we just need to diversify the ruling class but I doubt many of them are in the DSA and it’s certainly not what anyone objected to in this case. he repudiates “anti-racism” as a barrier to egalitarianism, later mentioning social democracy- maintaining capital and national borders because how could it be otherwise- so he checks his own egalitarianism in a far more obviously limiting way. he wants more equitable distribution within limits. I assume the limits are the real issue here & I hope no one is pretending it’s actually about people being angry doesn’t like black billionaires. but all of this stuff is in line with what DSA politics I’ve seen so I don’t know why this blew up, unless the party or a faction thereof is becoming a lot more radical

related issue is how much we are supposed to put up with in the name of coalition building & which/whose issues are class issues in the first place. what I’ve heard from social democrats is not encouraging on this front. also related issue that has blown up a lot lately is the theoretical separation of class & race, racism & capitalism, in the first place- Reed seems to imply it’s both possible and desirable- as well as the idea that race is somehow less material than class- which he also seems to imply. but all of this has been pervasive on the left for decades, as have the challenges to it. NYT & wider liberal media doesn’t give a shit so their interest now can only be to slot in into their preexisting culture war narrative

I have problems with dialectical thinking but mainly because I don’t trust things that seem to (want to) subsume everything into their logic

people who are ostensibly on the same side continue to be incapable of holding multiple ideas at the same time.

I heard some interesting stuff from Joshua Kahn Russell kinda related to this, more so about the idea of being ok with contradictions and multiple truths. It was in the context of social movements, activists, and organizations in general. I'll try and dig it up, it was a while ago, I think maybe on the Michael Brooks show

Paraphrasing but around the idea of how to make being and working in groups work better

he repudiates “anti-racism” as a barrier to egalitarianism

ok, but as you acknowledge by putting it under quotes, "anti-racism" here means something specific, a certain model of fighting racism that involves elevating what robin diangelo calls "racial consciousness" among whites. whether this project will actually help minority communities is an open question. i don't think adolph reed, a black man born in the 1940s, should be shut down for having opinions on this topic.

and that's the whole issue. people don't like reed's perspective on this, so they try to make him taboo. you even said he was "moving right" with no evidence, or maybe just a personal definition for what it means to "move right."

if there is in fact a conflict between minority concerns and broad base social programs, this has to be confronted and navigated by organs like the DSA. if they're just going to scream that anyone who disagrees with them is a reactionary who isn't worth listening to, they'll never accomplish anything.

I hate all that white ally self help shit. I regret saying moving, which implies a trajectory I haven’t followed closely enough. His concerns generally seem to be in line with the right wing of the left, which I’m familiar enough with. The DSA is an example. I don’t for second trust that type of org not to sacrifice “minority concerns” for some alleged greater good whenever they can. This is why I don’t like political parties.

the right wing of the left...The DSA is an example

You're seriously the funniest poster on ILX. Never change.

Both candidates were black women. The incumbent lost her primary, but let me tell you, having DSA dudes tell me that homophobic attacks don't matter because the candidate was on the side of the working people was enough to make me write off the DSA forever.

― healthy cocaine off perfect butts (the table is the table)

same except instead of "write off the DSA forever" substitute "write off dudes forever"

not really sure how to do content warnings on message boards like this but content warning: gonna talk about suicide here

When I had that two-day bout of acute suicidality last week I read through a lot of books on the topic. One of the books I read was a survivor's story, a woman talking about her dad and his suicide. She spent more than a decade working on the book, coming at it from every angle, trying to understand why her dad did what he did. Her critical gaze was thoughtful, deep, and unsparing.

At one point she asked her mom how he shot himself with a rifle. Her mom said oh, no, it wasn't a rifle, it was a handgun. The writer didn't know her dad owned a handgun. Oh yes, her mom said, he bought it in 1964, during the Watts riots.

The writer is white. Her dad is white. Neither of these facts are acknowledged. What was her dad's mindset when he bought the gun? She doesn't ask. She asks what he might have been thinking, might have been feeling, at pretty much every other time in his life _except_ the time he bought the gun he killed himself with. I'm white. I understand why. I understand what she didn't want to have to ever say to herself.

Her father shot himself with a gun that he bought to kill Black people.

not a bad allegory for racism. james baldwin writes about how in unjust societies, the oppressed groups are hurt and killed, but the oppressors are spiritually mutilated basically, they are constantly living with a truth they can't really face and so can't attain the dignity that comes from real honesty

best wishes to you, kate

I am reminded of the doc Did You Know Who Fired the Gun? which is worthy of everyone's time

There's a chapter in Metzl's book about how in Missouri, white people fight against stricter gun laws in the name of maintaining white supremacy....yet there is an epidemic of firearm suicides by young white men in Missouri.

Really recommend it: Dying of Whiteness.

Speaking of Metzl, he was confronted by some fascists in a DC bookstore last year..that's the kind of free speech shit that is actually an issue, IMHO.

Also, Left is right about the DSA-- they're the center-right of the left.

this is like a Johnny Cash song

unfortunately there are no non-embarrassing political organizations

except for Chumbawumba

(I say this as someone who was recently a member of two of em simultaneously)

you were in chumbawumba?!

I confess I did stints as both chumba *and* wumba, never at the same time tho

Had no idea they were one of those bands that split into rival touring lineups, like Yes or the Coasters. But factionalism abounds on the left, as we can clearly see.

it goes back all the way to the days of marx. the socialists and anarchists all over europe were constantly splitting into different parties and writing treatises against one another. that's the fun of it.

lenin was the best at this game, probably. he had a knack for re-stating other people's arguments in ways that made them seem like absolute blockheaded morons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-Wing%22_Communism:_An_Infantile_Disorder#/media/File:20-lenin-infantilesickness.jpg

scare quotes and everything. and this a whole book--with ten chapters! just digging into people.

aw, link didn't work. the bookcover was for lenin's "left-wing" communism: an infantile disorder

well, when you're trying reach utopia, you don't want some dummy to get there before you

this is like a Johnny Cash song

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes)

shot a man in reno just to watch him die

twist ending the man i shot was ME

I did try to read that Facebook post denouncing Reed but stopped at "bad faith argument"

there is an asad haider response to this kerfuffle https://asadhaider.substack.com/p/class-cancelled (i have to read it later because i'm supposed to be working so don't blame me if it's crap)

lol I fucking hate that lenin book

the haider piece is mostly good I think

Worth thinking about the Facebook banning of a number of anarchist and antifa-related groups today, in the same cull that rid the platform of a lot of QAnon fashie crap.

Obviously, organizing over social media sites isn't intelligent, but some of the groups banned are essentially radical left news sources.

I guess I just worry about the extension of such logic, but maybe I'm paranoid.