This breakdown continues to be amazing! I also think you'd like Conflict is Not Abuse. You are such an inspiring teacher and movement builder, thanks for another lesson!
This is the first time I've seen this channel, but I think identity politics were broken from the beginning. Identity politics is inseparable from a politics of representation and a focus on symbols. However, you raised the question of deference which goes well beyond identity politics. I think it's no exaggeration to say that deference is the dominant mode through which all parts of the political Spectrum engage in politics - radical or otherwise. This is partly a response to a complex world, but it's also a consequence of the lack of time and energy for personal political development and changes within Academia that have led to over specialization, creating academic silos. In general, I think the level of historical political and moral education are very low. It's not uncommon to see people criticizing liberalism or capitalism while making very basic errors. For example, I've seen self-proclaimed Marxists who seemed to think that just because a conservative talks about capitalist innovation, they need to say that capitalism doesn't innovate. All this is despite Marx's own writings on the subject in the Manifesto and in Capital I, not to mention about 300 years of counterexamples. If people don't have time to read history, their ideological opponents, or even basic texts in the traditions they claim to be a part of, then there is no choice but to engage in a kind of deference. Videos and short form content, which go in one ear and out the other, have become the dominant way in which people learn about politics. Most people really aren't spending time with the ideas they're learning about, and even fewer people are developing their own thoughts through writing. In this kind of environment, it is very easy to uncritically defer to people who represent themselves as experts and to look for moral leadership on complex issues. In other words, there may be an ideological problem with deference and identity politics, but that ideology is underpinned by material factors. Identity politics could go by the wayside tomorrow, and there would still be a problem with a politics of deference.
หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Thanks for this video. I found the breakdown really quite useful, especially the highlighting of the difference between hierarchical structures and unionised/anarchist structures. If anyone in the comments section is looking for a real world example of a left wing organisation that has been destroyed from within you could do worse than look at the UK's Labour Party as it stands today.
I'm definitely enjoying raspberries at the Shamers and Shunners. I should try and read Conflict is not Abuse, again. I did not get out of it what others got out of it. I'll try again.
I don't consider myself a Leftist but I noticed when I was helping a group repair roofs for elders in an Indian tribe as charity that the Indigenous folks actually strongly preferred the word Indian and strongly preferred the word tribe (not Native, not Indigenous, yes Indian). I felt like well if that's what they prefer that's what they prefer and I realized my tendency to use other terms comes from a desire to appear educated and acceptable to people in power and has nothing to do with the life and death issues and needs the people actually care about.
Ever heard of a power vacuum? Someone bad always moves in when power structures collapse. There are no solutions to power constructs in society, it's a fantasy.
I have no idea the current discourse that inspired this video, I am not in the loop, but here is what makes your dichotomy false, and whatever book of political analysis you're quoting wrong: Inclusion, and reparation to marginalized groups and individuals is not deference. The left trying to be more inclusive or respective to marginalized people/perspectives/groups is a part of "building power" (as you put it). Social concession is part of building coalition, and reparation is a part of redistribution. Without inclusive social morality the goal of power/wealth redistribution to the many is meaningless for the tendency of social division to generate out groups. Acceptance and empathy are necessary during any redistribution to maintain the universality of benefit. That being said it is easy to see social issues as impediment to "power building" on the left for how easy it is for current power structures to co-opt and use them for image recuperation, but one only need look at other examples like green washing, or philanthropy to see that power structures will co-opt challenges to their power at any level in order to maintain control. The fault then is not the socially inclusive ideas themselves as part of the movement, but the tendency of the current power structures to weaponize portions of dissenting ideologies against themselves internally to maintain the hierarchy. As such this discourse seems like it's being diverted at an artificial point of contention, likely because it's convenient on at least two fronts. If one portion of the left becomes alienated by the rest no longer caring about their specific social issue that weakens the left's support, and for all those on the other hand who become indifferent or fed up with social issues, your one step easier to radicalize back toward the right by rhetorical overlap.
@@roaldpage I would encourage you to read Taiwo’s book. You’re actually making a lot of the same points as he does here. No one is advocating for abandoning empathy or inclusivity. I’d also at least encourage you to watch both the videos I made on this topic in lieu of reading the book before you project what you think I’m saying deference politics is.
@@sims_books Okay, but I am reacting to the framing of 'Deference Politics' as you laid it out in the beginning of the video and with the fact that both yours and other summaries (that I now have subsequently googled) suggest Taiwo views political focus on identity concepts such as race, gender, feminism, ect... essentially as political theater in service of elite interest rather than the group they represent. Which is definitely a common problem don't get me wrong, but to take the leap as he seems to; to suggest that all political discussion of such things is therefore at fault ignores the systemic issues that those marginalized groups face. Even if it provides a space for bad actors to exploit, its more important to keep these social identity discussions in politics for the good ones to have a chance to move the needle in the right directions for the people as a whole. The language in the way the concept of 'Deference Politics' is framed, and the way it is framed in opposition to 'Constructive Politics' suggests a contempt for the political focus on social political issues, in favor of focus on economics. Due to the fact the framing terms of 'Constructive Politics' were about unions and coalitions; while the framing terms of 'Deference Politics' were about social issues, and identity. I assert that it is a false dichotomy, because dismantling systemic social inequity is equally important in the redistribution of power, and as such identity discussion is also necessary to fully achieve the aspects of 'Constructive Politics. Deference politics vs Constructive politics creates an imaginary division between interconnected mechanisms that ironically to its own premise draws focus to social issues as a problem in a conversation that should be focused on the economics, and the fact that some wealthy powerful interests are co-opting social issues for their own personal gain. It feels like a red herring, getting you to focus on the wrong part of the issue.
@@roaldpage the “leap” you mention in the second sentence is not taken by Taiwo or me. Again, I would encourage you to read his book, or at least watch my first video, and think for yourself, rather than trusting reviews. There are a LOT of people profiting off deference politics (which Taiwo and I am clear are not synonymous with but represent elite capture OF identity politics) and some of those people have written spurious negative reviews of this book because they are getting called out.
@@sims_books Except the summaries I read weren't negative. This was my own reaction to the descriptions of Constructive and Deference politics as laid out in your own and other summaries; in the specific qualities that are called out when differentiating them as exclusive to opposing genre of politics. I don't see those qualities as being diametrically opposed. I feel like the term 'deference politics' is made up to focus on a tactic or set of tactics that are employed to exploit good will towards social issues, rather than focusing on the crux of the problem that is the exploitation itself; as well as the competitive economic system, laws, and belief systems; that reward, encourage, and reinforce such exploitative behavior in the first place. If it isn't Taiwo's intention to vilify social politics why focus specifically on that when ascribing qualities to one side of his dichotomy? Also when does politics ever defer to the weakest most vulnerable individual or cause? It seems to me most social issues need to fight tooth and nail for even a hint of concession. If it were the default mode I don't think the mainstream left would be so apathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, so willing to throw lgbtq people under the bus in moments when advocating for them is optically inconvenient, so ready to jump on board with demonizing immigrants, or willing to ignore the needs of non white people. Deference politics doesn't sound like its a thing, other than when politics cater to already powerful interests that are using the visage of a social issue that is already popular in that moment. If an issue is already popular enough that cosplaying as it gets deference then it isn't the weakest or most vulnerable voice in the room. The fact that even if they weren't masquerading they would get that same preferential treatment says that the issue isn't with social factors gaining deference. Social issues simply act as a smokescreen for the long standing pre-extant systemic bias in that powerful interests favor. The whole framing just felt weirdly geared against inclusivity, and vulnerability, in a way that is like its looking at the whole equation backward. The social issue in the case of exploitation of social issues is the coefficient not the main variable. In the exploitation of social issues, the presence of social issues isn't the problem the exploitation is.
@@roaldpage It is so depressing to me that you are misunderstanding a book you have not read, projecting an argument on it that you think it’s about, that I’m telling you is wrong, and yet still you’ll refuse to read it. The title of the book is not “identity politics is bad,” it’s ELITE CAPTURE. Taiwo DEFENDS the original intent of identity politics. The points that you’re making here in “criticism” of Elite Capture are points Taiwo ABSOLUTELY makes.
"Deference politics" sounds kind of like a strawman easily used to justify racism. Aren't right wing people complaining about "dei" hires using a similar argument?
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
Had a very disillusioning night talking to fellow leftists on twitter. Thanks for this.
This breakdown continues to be amazing! I also think you'd like Conflict is Not Abuse. You are such an inspiring teacher and movement builder, thanks for another lesson!
I should try and read that again.
Holy Crap. This is the single best new concept of a channel I've come across in years.
This is the first time I've seen this channel, but I think identity politics were broken from the beginning. Identity politics is inseparable from a politics of representation and a focus on symbols.
However, you raised the question of deference which goes well beyond identity politics. I think it's no exaggeration to say that deference is the dominant mode through which all parts of the political Spectrum engage in politics - radical or otherwise. This is partly a response to a complex world, but it's also a consequence of the lack of time and energy for personal political development and changes within Academia that have led to over specialization, creating academic silos. In general, I think the level of historical political and moral education are very low. It's not uncommon to see people criticizing liberalism or capitalism while making very basic errors. For example, I've seen self-proclaimed Marxists who seemed to think that just because a conservative talks about capitalist innovation, they need to say that capitalism doesn't innovate. All this is despite Marx's own writings on the subject in the Manifesto and in Capital I, not to mention about 300 years of counterexamples. If people don't have time to read history, their ideological opponents, or even basic texts in the traditions they claim to be a part of, then there is no choice but to engage in a kind of deference. Videos and short form content, which go in one ear and out the other, have become the dominant way in which people learn about politics. Most people really aren't spending time with the ideas they're learning about, and even fewer people are developing their own thoughts through writing.
In this kind of environment, it is very easy to uncritically defer to people who represent themselves as experts and to look for moral leadership on complex issues. In other words, there may be an ideological problem with deference and identity politics, but that ideology is underpinned by material factors. Identity politics could go by the wayside tomorrow, and there would still be a problem with a politics of deference.
Thanks for this video. I found the breakdown really quite useful, especially the highlighting of the difference between hierarchical structures and unionised/anarchist structures. If anyone in the comments section is looking for a real world example of a left wing organisation that has been destroyed from within you could do worse than look at the UK's Labour Party as it stands today.
I'm definitely enjoying raspberries at the Shamers and Shunners.
I should try and read Conflict is not Abuse, again. I did not get out of it what others got out of it. I'll try again.
I haven’t read it so I can’t vouch for it. But I like the title 😂
I don't consider myself a Leftist but I noticed when I was helping a group repair roofs for elders in an Indian tribe as charity that the Indigenous folks actually strongly preferred the word Indian and strongly preferred the word tribe (not Native, not Indigenous, yes Indian). I felt like well if that's what they prefer that's what they prefer and I realized my tendency to use other terms comes from a desire to appear educated and acceptable to people in power and has nothing to do with the life and death issues and needs the people actually care about.
Sim has their own murder wall!! Well, that explains so much!
@@bookofdust a white board??
@sims_books Short answer, the left. You were a means to an end for them. Did you really think they'd spare you after they were finished with us?
That's why queering is about dismantling powerful constructs, because power is the problem. Constructing powerful coalitions is the status quo
Ever heard of a power vacuum? Someone bad always moves in when power structures collapse. There are no solutions to power constructs in society, it's a fantasy.
Queering is about destroying the west.
You can replace "Left" with "Right" in this video, and nearly everything still holds.
You NEED to team up with RYAN MACBETH
I have no idea the current discourse that inspired this video, I am not in the loop, but here is what makes your dichotomy false, and whatever book of political analysis you're quoting wrong:
Inclusion, and reparation to marginalized groups and individuals is not deference. The left trying to be more inclusive or respective to marginalized people/perspectives/groups is a part of "building power" (as you put it). Social concession is part of building coalition, and reparation is a part of redistribution. Without inclusive social morality the goal of power/wealth redistribution to the many is meaningless for the tendency of social division to generate out groups. Acceptance and empathy are necessary during any redistribution to maintain the universality of benefit.
That being said it is easy to see social issues as impediment to "power building" on the left for how easy it is for current power structures to co-opt and use them for image recuperation, but one only need look at other examples like green washing, or philanthropy to see that power structures will co-opt challenges to their power at any level in order to maintain control. The fault then is not the socially inclusive ideas themselves as part of the movement, but the tendency of the current power structures to weaponize portions of dissenting ideologies against themselves internally to maintain the hierarchy.
As such this discourse seems like it's being diverted at an artificial point of contention, likely because it's convenient on at least two fronts. If one portion of the left becomes alienated by the rest no longer caring about their specific social issue that weakens the left's support, and for all those on the other hand who become indifferent or fed up with social issues, your one step easier to radicalize back toward the right by rhetorical overlap.
@@roaldpage I would encourage you to read Taiwo’s book. You’re actually making a lot of the same points as he does here. No one is advocating for abandoning empathy or inclusivity. I’d also at least encourage you to watch both the videos I made on this topic in lieu of reading the book before you project what you think I’m saying deference politics is.
@@sims_books Okay, but I am reacting to the framing of 'Deference Politics' as you laid it out in the beginning of the video and with the fact that both yours and other summaries (that I now have subsequently googled) suggest Taiwo views political focus on identity concepts such as race, gender, feminism, ect... essentially as political theater in service of elite interest rather than the group they represent. Which is definitely a common problem don't get me wrong, but to take the leap as he seems to; to suggest that all political discussion of such things is therefore at fault ignores the systemic issues that those marginalized groups face. Even if it provides a space for bad actors to exploit, its more important to keep these social identity discussions in politics for the good ones to have a chance to move the needle in the right directions for the people as a whole.
The language in the way the concept of 'Deference Politics' is framed, and the way it is framed in opposition to 'Constructive Politics' suggests a contempt for the political focus on social political issues, in favor of focus on economics. Due to the fact the framing terms of 'Constructive Politics' were about unions and coalitions; while the framing terms of 'Deference Politics' were about social issues, and identity.
I assert that it is a false dichotomy, because dismantling systemic social inequity is equally important in the redistribution of power, and as such identity discussion is also necessary to fully achieve the aspects of 'Constructive Politics. Deference politics vs Constructive politics creates an imaginary division between interconnected mechanisms that ironically to its own premise draws focus to social issues as a problem in a conversation that should be focused on the economics, and the fact that some wealthy powerful interests are co-opting social issues for their own personal gain.
It feels like a red herring, getting you to focus on the wrong part of the issue.
@@roaldpage the “leap” you mention in the second sentence is not taken by Taiwo or me. Again, I would encourage you to read his book, or at least watch my first video, and think for yourself, rather than trusting reviews. There are a LOT of people profiting off deference politics (which Taiwo and I am clear are not synonymous with but represent elite capture OF identity politics) and some of those people have written spurious negative reviews of this book because they are getting called out.
@@sims_books Except the summaries I read weren't negative. This was my own reaction to the descriptions of Constructive and Deference politics as laid out in your own and other summaries; in the specific qualities that are called out when differentiating them as exclusive to opposing genre of politics. I don't see those qualities as being diametrically opposed.
I feel like the term 'deference politics' is made up to focus on a tactic or set of tactics that are employed to exploit good will towards social issues, rather than focusing on the crux of the problem that is the exploitation itself; as well as the competitive economic system, laws, and belief systems; that reward, encourage, and reinforce such exploitative behavior in the first place. If it isn't Taiwo's intention to vilify social politics why focus specifically on that when ascribing qualities to one side of his dichotomy?
Also when does politics ever defer to the weakest most vulnerable individual or cause? It seems to me most social issues need to fight tooth and nail for even a hint of concession. If it were the default mode I don't think the mainstream left would be so apathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, so willing to throw lgbtq people under the bus in moments when advocating for them is optically inconvenient, so ready to jump on board with demonizing immigrants, or willing to ignore the needs of non white people.
Deference politics doesn't sound like its a thing, other than when politics cater to already powerful interests that are using the visage of a social issue that is already popular in that moment. If an issue is already popular enough that cosplaying as it gets deference then it isn't the weakest or most vulnerable voice in the room. The fact that even if they weren't masquerading they would get that same preferential treatment says that the issue isn't with social factors gaining deference. Social issues simply act as a smokescreen for the long standing pre-extant systemic bias in that powerful interests favor.
The whole framing just felt weirdly geared against inclusivity, and vulnerability, in a way that is like its looking at the whole equation backward. The social issue in the case of exploitation of social issues is the coefficient not the main variable. In the exploitation of social issues, the presence of social issues isn't the problem the exploitation is.
@@roaldpage It is so depressing to me that you are misunderstanding a book you have not read, projecting an argument on it that you think it’s about, that I’m telling you is wrong, and yet still you’ll refuse to read it. The title of the book is not “identity politics is bad,” it’s ELITE CAPTURE. Taiwo DEFENDS the original intent of identity politics. The points that you’re making here in “criticism” of Elite Capture are points Taiwo ABSOLUTELY makes.
"Deference politics" sounds kind of like a strawman easily used to justify racism. Aren't right wing people complaining about "dei" hires using a similar argument?
@@toychristophercheck out my last video on this
You really should read Conflict is Not Abuse.
Discord ... Red flag.
You would have to call me insane to try to generate enough power to move around 5000 pounds of any thing on your behalf.
RANDOM CONTRARIAN COMMENT
Copium