In the US, it is the left fringe that goes after the Democratic Party and tips close elections to Republicans. That’s the only way Republicans won any presidential election since 1988.
-
-
Replying to @svenosaurus
Okay, I should leave this... but you think this point supports your position!? You don't think it means you have to sort out your left fringe? (And all politics is not identity politics. You don't know the terrain. Hegemonic project vs. identity politics, for example).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
I’m not as ignorant as you may think. But I don’t think the Marxist framework of class vs. nation generalizes properly as class vs. everything else, which is what those who denounce “identity politics” from the left seem to assume. 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus @PhilosophyExp
Rather, in practical politics, class is just an example of identity, and politics always works through people grouping around identities. What changes, though, is the relative salience of such identities. 2/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus
Well, I'm not inclined to think of it in terms of class. But there's a difference between a politics that seeks to break down distinctions between identity groups, emphasizing what binds people together, rather than what separates them... 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @svenosaurus
and perhaps uniting behind particular universal policy commitments - e.g., eradication of poverty, drive for equality, increased educational access - and a politics that seeks to preserve disparate identities, and valorizes those in political, moral & epistemic terms, making 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @svenosaurus
them the organizing principle of any political engagement. The first can aim towards hegemony in the Gramscian sense (i.e., it seeks to build a single unified movement that dominates the ideological terrain). The second will inevitably flounder precisely in the relations...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @svenosaurus
of inclusion and exclusion it fosters. The second is characteristic of identity politics. Hegemonic interventions don't have to be class aligned. For example, the sociologist Stuart Hall conceptualised Thatcherism as a hegemonic project (authoritarian populism).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
That all sounds great, but the theoretical prototypes (of both kinds) you described don’t map to anything I recognize in the real world.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus
Also, most populism movements have an hegemonic character. They tend to attempt to unite a divided "periphery" against an elite, out of touch, center. You can trace it through the Russian Narodniki, early American populists, early National Socialism, Thatcherism, and so on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
National Socialism, of course, had a strong identity aspect, but the categories were large - Aryan, volk, German, etc - so it was nevertheless hegemonic.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.