This document was voted on by a special meeting of the delegates elected for the 3rd Intenationalist Standpoint conference. It is an edited version of three texts that were put up for discussion at the conference (Identity Politics and its role in the crisis of the Left, Post colonialism and identity politics-a Marxist Critique, Identity Politics and the Far Right)

Part I.

Identity Politics and its role in the crisis of the Left

Part II.

Post Colonialism and Identity Politics

_____________________________

Part I
Identity Politics and its role in the crisis of the Left

Identity Politics (IP) is dominating the analyses of a significant part of the Left and an even larger part of the anarchist space. Moreover, a significant part of the politicised (but not necessarily politically organised) youth speaks the language of identity politics and uses (consciously or unconsciously) this method of analysis.
Identity politics spread during periods of retreats in the movement, especially in the 1990s. In southern Europe and other parts of the globe, it acquired a special dynamic after the defeat of the major class struggles after the recession of 2007-8-9.
There are levels on which IP have a certain positive contribution. On the whole, however, as a method of analysis and action, they do not help the working class, the mass movements and the Left, to gain ground and go on the counter-offensive; on the contrary, they contribute to and exacerbate the crisis of the Left and the movements.
Moreover, it is worth noting that IP is now being used extensively by the Far Right –although obviously in a different way, targeting the oppressed sections of society– as well as by representatives of the system, when it’s in their interest. A typical example is the Democratic Party in the US, which called on women and people of color to vote for Kamala Harris on the basis of their supposed “common” identity or, earlier, for Barak Obama.

The origins of identity politics

Identity politics is not a coherent theory. Some of the basic ideas have their roots in the movements, or rather the fringes of the movements, in the US in the late 1960s and 1970s. The Combahee River Collective (CRC), which first used the term “Identity Politics” and is considered one of the founders of this current of thought, was a collective of black feminists. It was formed in 1974, disbanded in 1980 and its core membership never exceeded 15-20 people, although more may have been involved in the meetings and activities of the collective. At that time the collective was only known in some circles of activists and academics, and its impact was very limited.
The CRC organised separately as black feminists (many of whom were also openly lesbian) in response, as they wrote in their founding statement, to the racism they experienced in feminist organisations, which were dominated by white women, and the sexism they faced from black men in African American organisations.
Sexism and racism were clearly present in the movement at the time. Racism has been a structural element of the US state since its founding. Legal discrimination against African Americans only ended in 1966 [1] (when all Jim Crow laws were overturned). A significant section of white Americans supported and participated in the African American civil rights movement. However, racism, which had been consciously cultivated and promoted by the system for over two centuries, was pervasive in society, including sections of the organised movement. Sexism, although it developed in a different historical context in the African-American communities, i.e. of slavery, was also prevalent.
Yet, the decision to organise separately and develop politics solely around the identity “black woman” was not “the only alternative”. Angela Davis for example, one of the most prominent and influential black women activists [2] of the time, who was at the forefront of a number of struggles, was organised in the US Communist Party. She had chosen to be active in struggles on the basis of class, rather than the identity “black woman”. The class approach did not in any way limit her involvement and commitment to the African-American (civil rights) movement or the black women’s movement.
Another example is the black feminist Florynce Kennedy, who was co-founder of both the Feminist Party and the National Black Feminist Organisation. Flo Kennedy believed that:

“Niggerization is the result of oppression – and it doesn’t just apply to black people. Old people, poor people, and students can also get niggerized. Sure, there are differences in degree, but we’ve got to stop comparing wounds and go out after the system that does the wounding.” [3]

Identity Politics became more widespread and gained in influence in the 1990s, when the mass labor and social movements were in retreat. It was theorized and further developed by intellectuals and academics, mainly in US universities. It was at that time that the CRC became known (although it was no longer active) as well as other IP theorists.
Today, IP is taught in universities, in the fields of sociology, anthropology, gender studies, etc. The main reason why IP is integrated in academic curricula, although it deals with the oppression of different social groups, is because it does not represent a threat to the system. On the contrary, it is embedded in the system, and its criticism of institutions, governments, etc., is ultimately one of the safety valves of the system, which allows pressure to be released.

Some key elements of identity politics

Humans are, naturally, a combination of many characteristics and “identities”. However, Identity Politics conclude that one of all these characteristics and identities is dominant and “defines” us. For example, the identity of being a woman, an LGBT person, a black person, an immigrant, etc.
A person’s dominant identity, according to IP, is linked to experiences of oppression and exclusion and/or “privilege” (as is the term used in IP theories). For example, a black man’s identity is linked to the racism he experiences due to his skin color, while a white man’s identity is shaped by the “privilege” of white skin and the lack of the experience of racism (due to skin color).
IP also argue that a person’s or a social group’s identity is often not determined by a single dominant characteristic, but is constituted by multiple dominant characteristics and the oppressions (or privileges) that accompany these characteristics. For example, a black woman’s identity is formed by her experiences of oppression and exclusion as a woman (sexism) and as a black woman (racism). The identity of a black, trans, immigrant woman is constituted by her experiences of oppression and exclusion as a trans woman (transphobia), as a black woman (racism) and as an immigrant (xenophobia).
In the context of IP there is an informal hierarchy of oppression, based on the weight of oppressions and exclusions that are linked with an identity. For example, a white man experiences less oppression than a white woman and is therefore considered as having a “white male privilege”. A white woman experiences less oppression and faces less exclusions than a white immigrant woman, e.g. from the Balkans, and has therefore a privilege over her. They both experience less oppression, prejudice and exclusions than a black immigrant woman, etc. We will go further in-depth into “Privilege Theory” later in the document.
Within the logic of IP, social groups that experience multiple oppressions, in order to fight against their oppressions, must organise on the basis of their dominant identity. Black people must organise as black people, women as women (or black women as black women, latino women as such, etc), LGBT people as LGBT or on the basis of separate sexual orientations and identities, and so on. Each “multiply oppressed” social group has to fight separately to achieve its own goals, which usually are “visibility”, “inclusive language”, “representation” in institutions –often through quotas– etc.
A typical example of this approach can be found in the founding statement of the Combahee River Collective. The struggle against the oppression of black women is seen as a separate struggle. The CRC identifies itself with the struggle to end black women’s oppression and sees all other struggles as somebody else’s business. [4]

“We realize that the only people who care enough about us, to work consistently for our liberation, are us. Our politics evolve from a healthy love for ourselves, our sisters and our community which allows us to continue our struggle and work. This focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics. We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else’s oppression.” (Our emphasis). [5]

Some IP organisations and movements argue for the complete independence of their movement and struggle from all others, while other organisations and groups argue that there should be solidarity and cooperation among the movements of the oppressed.
Barbara Smith for example, one of the founding members of the CRC, in a 2002 interview published in the collection “This bridge called my back”,[6] said:

“But, ultimately any kind of separatism is a dead end. It’s good for forging identity and gathering strength, but I do feel that the strongest politics are coalition politics that cover a broad base of interests. There’s no way that one oppressed group is going to topple a systemby itself. Forming principled coalitions around specific issues is very important. You don’t necessarily have to like or love the people you are in coalition with.”(Our emphasis).

We will come back to the question of solidarity between movements and what it really means, later in this text.

Class on the fringes

“Identities”, in the sense described in this document, are real; however, they cannot be the ground for revolutionary politics.
The fundamental problem in Identity Politics is that class is sidelined. The economic background and the social class a person belong to, is considered of secondary importance. Class is seen as just one of people’s identities, but never as the decisive/defining one.
There might be more or less emphasis to class, depending on where on the political spectrum an organisation or person who supports IP analysis is placed. However, supporters of IP don’t view capitalism as a class system wherein different forms and degrees of oppression exist/operate.
They view capitalism as a “system of oppressions” or as a system of overlapping/interlocking oppressions, but fail to understand the crucial role of class oppression as the root cause of all forms of oppression and exploitation.
The feminists of the Combahee River Collective viewed themselves as anti-capitalists and even socialists, which, of course, we applaud:

“We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy. We are socialists because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses. Material resources must be equally distributed among those who create these resources. We are not convinced, however, that a socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation.”

“Although we are in essential agreement with Marx’s theory as it applied to the very specific economic relationships he analyzed, we know that his analysis must be extended further in order for us to understand our specific economic situation as black women.”

However, even them, who were on the (far) left spectrum of Identity Politics and active in the movement, failed to understand the crucial role that class plays in capitalism and that class oppression/exploitation is the oppression on which capitalism is founded.
The above CRC quotes show, among other things, that they didn’t have a correct understanding of socialism – they might have identified socialism with the Stalinist regime of the USSR. Firstly, a society characterized by sexism and racism cannot be a socialist society. Secondly, a socialist revolution does not eliminate racism and sexism overnight, but it does eliminate the class exploitation that produces them and, with the right policies, society can make huge progress in a short period of time. This doesn’t mean, of course, that the struggle for socialism is not at the same time an anti-racist and a feminist struggle – we will return to this point later in the text.
Where does the IP analysis of society and capitalism lead? The analysis that “equates” class oppression with the other forms of oppression, leads to a classless analysis, despite possible counter-intentions, and this has serious consequences for the Left.
In the founding statement of the Combahee River Collective, we read:

“In her introduction to ‘Sisterhood is Powerful’, Robin Morgan writes: ‘I haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary rolewhite heterosexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power’. As black feminists and lesbians we know that we have a very definite revolutionary task to perform and we are ready for the lifetime of work and struggle before us.” (Our emphasis).

White heteronormative (straight) men are treated as a single category, defined by their skin color, gender and sexual orientation, and are thus placed on the side of the oppressor. Class is absent. And this was written at a time when the US was shaken by mass labor strikes such as the 102-day(!) strike at General Electric involving 164,000 workers (1969-1970), the miners’ strike (1969-1970), the 210,000 postal workers’ strike (1970) in a period when strikes by public employees were illegal, etc. At the same time the mass movement against the Vietnam War was taking place. In all those movements, the participation of white men was high, reflecting among other things the demographic reality of the US. However, the Combahee River Collective only saw, in white men, counterrevolutionary oppressors.
White, heterosexual working-class men undoubtedly had at that time (and also today), to one degree or another, sexist and racist attitudes, even without being conscious of them, in their majority. But this does not negate the revolutionary role they could (and can) play, given the right conditions. And it certainly does not justify placing them in the camp of the enemy. From the Russian Revolution of 1917, to the German Revolutions of 1919 and 1923, the Spanish Civil War of 1936, May 1968 and the revolutionary events of the 1970s, the working class was never “idyllic”. It was never fully free of the oppressive, hierarchical and divisive capitalist ideas, such as sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., nor of religious beliefs and superstitions.
Marx explained that the working class (white, black, male, female, etc.) is the only class that has the power to overthrow capitalism, not because of any kind of moral superiority but because of its position in the economy and production. The rejection of a large section of the working class because of sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. beliefs and attitudes, ultimately undermines the concentration of the class forces necessary for the overthrow of capitalism. This does not mean that we must compromise with such ideas and practices. It means that we must strive against them at the same time as fighting to forge the broadest working-class unity possible.

Cross-class fronts?

A typical discussion in feminist circles is the question of whether women should organise on a cross-class basis – i.e., organise and mobilise together regardless of the class they belong to. Of course, this question is not limited to feminism. The same debate exists in the ranks of all multiply oppressed social groups.
Within the logic of IP, the answer to this question is usually affirmative and, in this context, IP meets bourgeois feminism. IP assumes that women have common experiences of oppression and exclusion and common interests; therefore, they must be united in feminist demands, regardless of the class they belong to. After all, as has already been said, in the context of IP, class is just another identity, of equal “weight” to other identities – not in itself determinative. How does this position reflect in real life?
In 2016, Xekinima (ISp Greece) supported and participated in a struggle of the (female) contract cleaners of the Athens public transport buses. They had not been paid for 4 to 6 months and had gone on indefinite strike, with daily picket lines of the bus depots to defend their jobs against scabs. The chairperson of OSY (the public transport company) was also a woman, appointed by SYRIZA, then in government, who declared herself a feminist. She put pressure on the cleaners to go back to work without getting paid, threatening and blackmailing them. Her approach and arguments were outrageous and unacceptable to the cleaners, many of whom were immigrants with no “support network” in Greece and facing a serious problem of survival. On the 8th of March that year, before the feminist march started, the president of OSY approached the cleaners’ contingent in order to reach some kind of reconciliation so as to march together within the framework of the feminist march. The cleaners were outraged!It’s more than obvious that the cleaners couldn’t march along with a person who put unbearable pressure on them to stop the strike and go back to work despite being unpaid, on the grounds that “we are all women”. It was obvious that they couldn’t engage in any kind of joint struggle with her. The Left that adopts the cross-class approach of IP may win the sympathy of some petit bourgeois or bourgeois elements but it will never succeed in changing the world.
By the same logic, the Left, that analyses society under the influence of Identity Politics, considers that every position of prestige and power occupied by a woman, a black person, a Roma person, etc., is a step forward for the whole of the social group – that is, it is a step forward for all women, all blacks, all Roma, etc.
When Obama was elected president of the US, the first black president in the history of the country, many believed that this was a step forward for all African-Americans. But even though he was president of the US from 2008 to 2017, racism in the US did not retreat in any way, nor was there a decline in the numbers of black people killed by the police. In fact, the Obama era saw a record number of African Americans killed by the police, leading to the rise of movements such as Black Lives Matter in 2013.Similarly, when Merkel became Chancellor in Germany or Meloni became Prime Minister in Italy, there was no improvement in the position of women in Germany and Italy, nor a decline in sexism, gender violence, etc.
Obama, as well as Merkel, Meloni or the former Prime Minister of Britain, Rishi Sunak, who is a second-generation immigrant, not only did not improve the conditions of black people, women, immigrants etc., but pursued austerity policies that hit the living standards and rights of working-class people as a whole. Obama and Sunak undoubtedly experienced racism themselves, just as Merkel and Meloni experienced sexism. Under capitalism, however, the members of the ruling class (whether in parliament, on the board of corporations or in any other position of power) will opt for the interests of their class, regardless of their sex, color, national origin, religion, etc. And in choosing the interests of their class, they will not hesitate for a moment to strike at the popular masses, including the multiply oppressed social groups they supposedly belong to.

Who is the enemy? – A

Many IP scholars describe in detail the oppression of different multiply oppressed social groups. In this respect, they make a positive contribution, facilitating a deeper understanding of the history, experiences and problems of these social groups. For example, the oppression and exclusions experienced by black or Latin American women in the US is different from that experienced by white women and this is something that Identity Politics helps to bring home..
A concrete example of different experiences of oppression can be seen in relation to the right to bodily autonomy in the USA. For the majority of white women in the US, this right means the legalization of abortion. For working class and poor women it also means the right to free abortion through the public health care system. But for African-American women, as for native American women, Latinas, etc., the right to control their bodies was also about the struggle to end forced sterilization. The U.S. government subsidized sterilizations primarily for women, but also for men, from the poorest sectors of society. These sterilizations essentially affected people of color and especially women of color. The procedures were very often done without their knowledge (e.g. after childbirth) and without their consent. Blackmail (e.g. to end the welfare benefits they were receiving) was also used in order to force sterilizations. It is estimated that at least 70,000-100,000 people were sterilized in the USA in the 20th century.
A deeper knowledge and understanding of history, of different experiences and degrees of oppression and exclusion, could potentially/theoretically lead to more unified and more mass movements. But IP don’t lead to this path.
Although IP describe in detail the oppression of different multiply oppressed social groups, they do not attempt to understand/explain where this oppression comes from and why it exists. They don’t explain that the different forms of oppression that coexist in society, are cultivated and reproduced by the system by all means (education, media, dominant culture, church, laws, etc.) so that the ruling class can more easily exploit the oppressed masses by applying the policy of “divide and rule”. And they don’t understand/explain that what defines the ruling class, is not gender, color, or race, etc, but wealth and ownership of the means of production.
To paraphrase an example given by Kenan Malik, black slaves in the US did not become slaves because they were black.The different “race” (and the qualities supposedly associated with it) was a “discovery” used to justify slavery, from which the ruling class profited.
Because Identity Politics doesn’t see the centrality of class oppression, it doesn’t conclude that the oppressed of the world should unite and fight together against capitalism – the system that generates and reproduces all forms of oppression and exploitation.
Even when there is a reference to capitalism and the need to overthrow it, as for example in the founding text of the CRC, this reference is ultimately without much substance because it actually contradicts the rest of the analysis – despite the sincere intentions of the members of CRC to contribute to overthrowing the system (theoretically and in terms of the mass movement) and to building a socialist society. Identity politics, hence, isn’t revolutionary politics.
One could reply to the above argument that many organisations using IP as a method of analysis, emphasise the need for solidarity between different movements of the oppressed.
Previously we cited Barbara Smith, one of the founding members of the CRC, saying:

“But, ultimately any kind of separatism is a dead end. It’s good for forging identity and gathering strength, but I do feel that the strongest politics are coalition politics that cover a broad base of interests. There is no way that one oppressed group is going to topple a system by itself. Forming principled coalitions around specific issues is very important. You don’t necessarily have to like or love the people you are in coalition with.” (Our emphasis).

However, solidarity regarding the aims and actions of a specific movement is very different from a common aim and a common struggle of movements, especially the common struggle to overthrow capitalism. Solidarity is very important, but it cannot replace the common struggle of the oppressed to overthrow the system of the oppressors. Particularly so, since overthrowing the system requires a political programme that aims at this overthrow, shows how to make it possible and prepare the way for the next day and for the alternative power – the power of the workers in a socialist society. All this presupposes the existence of a political (left-revolutionary) force to play this role. But the need for a revolutionary programme and for such a political force is completely absent from Identity Politics.
This is also clear in the example cited above. Barbara Smith speaks of coalitions on specific issues to overthrow this or that suppressive structure, but she doesn’t speak (at any point in her multi-page interview) of coordinating struggles and building a political force aiming at the overthrow of capitalism.
Identity Politics is a current of thought and analysis that is essentially reformist. It places great emphasis on specific social movements, but at the same time it underestimates the workers’ movement – which is the biggest and most unifying of all mass movements. The working-class movement has a greater power of all the social movements, and is the only one with the power and potential to overthrow capitalism, because of the position of the working class in production, which enables it to seize economic and political power. At the same time, IP is a current of thought that sees the Left as representing a series of “independent” movements with parallel paths that sometimes intersect but are not united and do not form a revolutionary party.
As mentioned above, the concept of a revolutionary party that would play a decisive role in coordinating/leading the struggles of the workers’ movement does not exist in Identity Politics. This is because, unlike class-revolutionary politics, IP, especially today, don’t aim to transfer the economic power from the rich elite to the working class and the oppressed layers, to overthrow the system of oppression and to build a socialist society. IP focuses on the inclusion and proportional representation of people on the basis of gender, color, origin, sexual preference, etc. in existing power structures, which they leave essentially untouched, although it often refers to the need for “anti-systemic struggle”.

Who is the enemy? – B

The concept of “Privilege” has existed for many years in the debates and texts of Identity Politics. However, it was systematized and theorized by Peggy McIntosh.
The Privilege Theory, despite McIntosh’s intentions, has reinforced the inherent tendency of Identity Politics to prioritize oppression and privilege, and ultimately to put oppressed social groups against each other. “Check your privilege” is a phrase widely used in Academia and movements in Britain, the US and elsewhere, where identity and the degree of oppression associated with it, ends up becoming an “argument” in itself, in order to ward off different opinions.
A white student who criticizes, say, Frantz Fanon [7] will hear her university professor say “better let someone of color speak” (this is a real incident). A political disagreement between a man and a woman can end (we have seen this happen many times) with the man being labelled sexist, even though the man’s behavior and/or arguments were not sexist. This is the logic the system uses today, for example, when it dubs any protest and criticism of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians “anti-Semitism”.
Let’s look at an example of how Privilege on the one hand and oppression/exclusion on the other, are prioritized in a hierarchical order: A white straight man has privilege over a white gay man; both, as men, have privilege over a white woman, who has privilege over a black woman, and both have privilege over a trans woman, etc.
At the top of this complex (after a certain point) pyramid of privilege and oppression is the white cis-straight male [8]. He is assumed to have most privileges, to benefit from the oppression of all other social groups, and to be responsible (or partly responsible) for that oppression. Thus, the white cis-straight male embodies sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., and benefits from these.
According to Frances Kendall [9]:

“Any of us who has race privilege, which all white people do, and therefore the power to put our prejudices into law, is racist by definition, because we benefit from a racist system”. (Our emphasis).

And according to the founding text of the CRC:

“…white heterosexual men [….] are the very embodiment of reactionary vested interest power”.

Once again, it doesn’t really matter to Identity Politics, whether this white cis-straight man is a street cleaner or a media mogul, if he is poor or a billionaire.
In reality, however, the poor white-cis-straight man has infinitely more in common with the precarious female worker, the colored immigrant, etc. But IP assumes that the most important characteristics of this person are that he is white, cis and straight, and these automatically make him a representative of patriarchy and violence against women, guilty of racism against immigrants, the crimes of colonialism and the slave trade (in the case of the US and the colonial powers), etc. and a beneficiary of these systems of oppression.
It is true that white men, even if they are poor, face fewer risks than other social groups. For example, they are less likely to be shot by the police in the US, than blacks are. They are infinitely less likely to be victims of rape and domestic violence than a woman. But these self-evident rights (not to be arbitrarily shot, not to be beaten and raped, etc.) are suddenly called privileges! And furthermore, because the white cis-straight male has these “privileges”, he is automatically placed on the opposite side, on the side of the oppressors.
But by ultimately placing the responsibility for oppression on the white cis-straight male, regardless of his class and economic background, and making him the primary enemy, responsibility is taken away from the ruling class and its governments! So instead of the struggle being directed against the ruling class and the system that produces all oppression, it is directed against a false enemy: whiteness, heteronormativity, etc.
Peggy MacIntosh in her text “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” (1989)[10], which is a key text of the “Privilege Theory”, when she talks about the need for “systemic change”, she is not referring to capitalism and its class structure. She does not talk about how to overthrow a political and economic system in which power and wealth are held by a small elite at the expense of the masses and the poor. She does not challenge the structure of the power system. She seeks to make the power system more “inclusive”, i.e., to include more representatives of the many oppressed social groups:

«Though systemic change takes many decades, there are pressing questions for me and I imagine for some others like me if we raise our daily consciousness on the perquisites of being light-skinned. What will we do with such knowledge? As we know from watching men, it is an openquestion whether we will choose to use unearned advantage to weaken hidden systems of advantage, and whether we will use any of our arbitrarily-awarded powerto try toreconstruct power systems on a broader base». (Our emphasis)

Let us also look at two examplesone from Ireland and one from Greece of how the “privilege theory” and Identity Politics hides the main enemy and leads consciousness in the wrong direction.
In the first pride march in Belfast, Northern Ireland, there were only 100, and its route was kept secret to prevent organised physical attacks. Pride everywhere began as angry demonstrations against discrimination and for full equality for LBGTQ+ people and the first events were as a rule small and isolated. Within 20 years crowds had grown to 10,000 annually and both big business and pro-capitalist parties were prominent at what were by now clearly all-class events.
The organisers sought to marginalise radical voices and dissent but this year (2025) the pro-capitalist parties were banned from all Pride events in Northern Ireland because of the stance they took on the provision of puberty blocking medications to trans youth. This is an important issue, but the implications are clear: Pro-capitalist parties preside over sectarian division and chronic poverty, enforce below inflation pay rises on workers and cut health and education services, but none of this is a problem for Pride organisers. They “get away with it” when they display their liberal credentials at Pride.
The left-wing of the LBGTQ+ movement were the loudest voices in calling for the pro-capitalist parties to be banned but do not politically differentiate from the organisers in other ways. Rather their propaganda suggests that the parties are welcome back if they once again agree with the provision of puberty blockers. The issue of “special oppression” of trans people becomes the key issue and class issues are sidelined.
In Greece an article entitled “The Immunity of Patriarchy” was published in the “left wing” (SYRIZA oriented) daily newspaper “Journal of the Editors”, on 13.07.2024. The article essentially deals with the physical and verbal attack by the former New Democracy (right-wing) minister of Agriculture, L. Avgenakis, against an airport employee in the summer of 2024 (the attack was recorded by airport cameras).The incident is analyzed as follows:

“A man in power attacks a man doing a job, invokes his power and immunity when those around him try to calm him down, and demonstrates the metastases of patriarchy and the existence of a hegemonic masculinity at the expense of secondary masculinities that are devalued or suppressed”…

“…The state should realise that it should adopt policies that do not serve the patriarchal social structure and do not make gender, class and race, dominant subjects in both society and the language system. The adoption of policies involves not only the creation of a legal framework, but also education, both formal and informal”. (Our emphasis).

This article completely misses the point. It does not talk about the minister of New Democracy and the ruling class who pursues policies in favour of big business; who constantly adopts measures that reduce workers’ incomes, rights and freedoms; and whose arrogance goes so far as to think that he can threaten and physically attack a worker in public. The incident is analyzed in terms of “masculinity”, which is “hegemonic” and “toxic” in the case of Avgenakis and “secondary” in the case of the worker.
Not only does this analysis not lead to the need to organise and fight against the government of the ruling class, but the author ends up addressing New Democracy, asking it to adopt policies that will eliminate patriarchy and the other evils mentioned in her article! The “state” which the author refers to, is not an independent, neutral institution. The state, is in the service of the ruling class, and administered by the party in government.
Let us look at another example of how IP, and especially the transformation of “whiteness” into the main enemy, cover up and sometimes even support, the structures of the system of power.
In former colonies and developing countries, dictators and authoritarian or dictatorial regimes are very often not treated (by IP) as ruling classes that must be overthrown for brutally oppressing and exploiting the popular masses of their respective countries. They are given “mitigating circumstances” as “subjects traumatized by colonialism and “white power”. They are analyzed as regimes which have limited options because of their exploitation by the “West”; and especially if they are in conflict with the major imperialist powers, any criticism must be silenced.
Here IP meet with the traditions of the Stalinist Left to jointly defend dictatorial regimes of less developed capitalist countries such as Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the theocratic regime in Iran, etc, as well as capitalist-religious parties such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In these cases, class analysis goes out the window…

Identity Politics in the field of feminism

In the field of feminism, the dominance of IP is clearly visible at the present time. One of the consequences is a series of false conclusions and positions which are dangerous from the point of view of the interests of the movement. For the sake of space, however, we will only take up just one example in some detail: this is the idea that when a woman reports abuse or harassment, we should believe her without hesitation, because: “women don’t lie about these things”.
According to this view, a woman’s complaint should not be investigated objectively by looking at both sides, because this amounts to questioning the victim, and this is a patriarchal and abusive behavior.
Undoubtfully the vast majority of complaints made by women about incidents of gender-based violence are true. Indeed, in a society where women are raised to believe that they are to blame for their abuse, that they are treated with suspicion when they report it, that some or all of the blame for the abuse is placed on them, etc.,[11] it does indeed take a great deal of courage for a woman to go through the process of reporting and dealing with these reactions, which are rightly labelled as further abuse.
This is not to say, however, that all allegations are by definition always true. Women do not possess some “special quality” in capitalism that makes them tell the truth and never lie. And this is true for all the layers which are oppressed in multiple ways.Below we provide examples from Greece and Turkey to show the dangers involved.
Our comrades, through their experiences in feminist and Lgbtq+ struggles and in defense of victims of gender violence, have helped women with children to leave the home where they were abused and in danger, stood by victims of violence who had the strength to go through the legal process, campaigned in neighborhoods where an attempted rape was reported, and much more. We took people out of our ranks for engaging in gender-based violence, and we’ve had discussions with comrades who didn’t realise that certain aspects of their behavior were (unintentionally) sexist.
But we also have experience of false complaints. Some were deliberate. For example, we had organised a campaign in one workplace to defend a female worker’s rights, only to find out after the campaign won, that the complainant had used us to get favourable treatment and a better position/job at her workplace.
In some other cases, complaints that did not correspond to actual incidents were made, but did not conceal fraud. For example, on one occasion, it was the result of mental health problems.
In Turkey, a video released recently accusing a man —who had joined the Revolutionary Youth Assemblies (DevrimciGençlikMeclisleri) a few months earlier— of harassment, has sparked intense debate in leftist and feminist circles. In the video, a group of women slap the man they accuse of harassment and publicly shame him; the footage was circulated on the social media platform X with the label “Exposure” (“ifşa”).
A short time after the video was released, the man in the video died by suicide.
Exposure, while originally developed as a legitimate tool by the feminist movement in response to patriarchal justice systems, has become increasingly controversial in form and function in recent years. Especially on social media, a culture of public shaming has started to replace processes of justice or mechanisms of transformative accountability. This blurs the line between self-defense and punitive execution. This development not only calls into question the tools of feminist struggle but also reveals the limitations of an individual-centered justice approach shaped by identity politics.
So how should we, as a movement and as organisations, deal with complaints? First of all, with great sensitivity and support for each complainant without falling into the trap of the prevailing suspicion towards the victim. But in every case, and whatever our relationship with the complainant or the alleged perpetrator, we have a duty to investigate in depth and objectively, as far as possible, taking into consideration both sides.
An objective investigation is necessary firstly for the protection of the actual victims. Secondly for the credibility of the feminist movement and the Left. And thirdly, because if the logic prevails that, as a matter of principle, we must believe every allegation of abuse without objectively and seriously investigating every incident, at a time when the movement becomes really dangerous for the system and the government, a few allegations will be enough to incapacitate key cadres of trade unions, social movements, political organisations, etc., causing confusion and demoralization in the mass movements and their struggles. We may be far from this level of class struggle today, but the ingrained mindset of society, reflected inside the mass movements, does not change overnight so as to overlook such issues.
When, in the past, many of us were part of the ISA, we disagreed with the logic that in the name of protecting the complainant both the identity of the complainant and the accusations against the perpetrator should be kept secret from the organisation, even from the entire leading bodies; we disagreed with the attitude that such issues should be handled only by a Control Commission and a small number of leading cadres. These are not transparent procedures, procedures that the members of the organisation can check, intervene to correct possible mistakes, etc. Moreover, such procedures can be very disruptive for political organisations (as was shown soon afterwards in the ISA); and under certain circumstances they could also allow for the political elimination of dissident voices, tendencies, etc.

Struggle for “format” at the expense of substance

In many organisations or movements that think and act on the basis of Identity Politics –but also in many professional spaces that either sincerely or hypocritically want to show a progressive image– there is too much emphasis on “politically correct language” and on tools such as quotas in elected bodies and positions of responsibility. Also, priority is given to the creation of “safe spaces” and much attention is paid to the individual behavior of members of the collective.
Of course, none of the above is negative in itself. The question is how and with what balance/sense-of-proportion they are used; and whether an overemphasis on “format” ends up at the expense of substance.
In 2021, the insistence of certain political organisations to uphold a strict quota of 50-50 between men and women led to the cancellation of the very important anti-racist festival in Thessaloniki, Greece. That was at the time of a rise of the far right and a regrouping of fascists on the streets in the city; however, the fact that an exact 50% quota of women on each and every panel could not be achieved was the main “political” reason for cancelling the whole festival!
In 2023, in the political-electoral coalition of the anti-capitalist Left, “Poli Anapoda” (“The City Upside Down”), in Thessaloniki, a quota of 50% women in the collective representation body was imposed. In order to apply an exact 50-50 quota, people with a long history in the movement, who could make an important contribution to the collective’s representative/elected body and at the same time broaden the coalition’s audience and appeal, were excluded from the collective’s leading body. Here again, the 50-50 format prevailed at the expense of substance.
With regard to language, the fight against racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language, is a real fight that has always been waged by sections of the Left. To cite a characteristic example, a few years after the October Revolution in Russia, the first congress of women workers discussed, among other things, whether the sexist word “baba”(old hag) should be banned.
In the past decades in our ranks there has been a fight, also within left organisations and movements, against sexist language, sexist jokes, racist jokes, homophobic expressions, etc. And indeed, from the 1990s until today, a lot of progress has been made, especially at the level of the organised Left, but also in layers of society. We are of course still far from having a language free of sexism, racism, homophobia, or a language that is not offensive to people with mental illnesses, disabilities, etc. It could not be much different. Language in general goes hand in hand with the level of consciousness of society.
Today, in the political spaces of the Left and the anarchists in many countries, the discussion about language mainly concerns the use of the neutral gender, which is considered (by such spaces) to be the most inclusive discourse.
We will not focus, here, on the issue of the exclusive use of the neutral gender as the only way to have an inclusive discourse – in our opinion it is not the only way and in quite a number of languages it does not seem to be the best way as it is not understood by broad layers of society particularly the working-class and poor.
We will focus on the fact that in too many places where IP provides the theoretical basis, political debate has become a linguistic minefield. The failure to use the neutral gender, the wrong pronoun, a word that is not considered “politically correct” becomes an excuse to “invalidate” both the content and the speaker. The content of the position expressed, the intention and the actions of the person, take a back seat, far behind the language the person uses. One example is the attack on a female (non-affiliated to any political organisation) comrade, a leading member of a feminist coalition (in which Xekinima also took part) in a meeting in 2024. The aforementioned comrade mistakenly called a trans person by their dead name in a meeting. Even though this happened for the first time (in this one meeting out of many) even though the same female comrade had correctly addressed the same trans person in dozens of other occasions, even though it was obvious that it was done by mistake, and even though the comrade’s political activity always was and is supportive of trans rights, she was attacked and accused by sections of the assembly of transphobic behavior. This played a role, among other things, in the dissolution of the meeting.
Of course, no one is above criticism and correction. But this is not what we are talking about here, i.e., the well-intentioned pointing out of mistakes and critique to help an individual understand why their expression or speech may be offensive to certain sections of society or groups and may perpetuate sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. perceptions. Pointing out, criticizing in a good (not aggressive) tone, explaining, etc, is necessary, in the working class, the Left and society in general, in order to move forward. But when some people go to war over a “wrong” linguistic formulation, it is obvious that they are living beyond and outside the reality and the needs of society and the layers they are supposed to support.
The fanatics of “politically correct” language, in whichever way they may define it, often use the pseudo-scientific argument that language determines thought, to justify their position. However, this theory (the “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”) has been considered outdated and obsolete by linguists for many, many years. Language is one of the factors influencing thought, but it does not play a primary or decisive role in itself.
An example often used to explain why theories such as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis are wrong is the following. There are languages that do not have grammatical genders (articles and noun endings that distinguish between masculine, feminine and neutral). Such languages include Turkish, Finnish, Armenian, etc. According to theories such as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, societies that speak languages without grammatical genders should have lower levels of sexism than societies that speak, for example, German, Italian, Greek, etc., i.e. languages that have grammatical genders [12]. In reality, however, this is not the case.
We should not, of course, turn a blind eye to sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. language, in individual cases. On the contrary, we should point it out and fight against it – but, with the tone and intensity of our fight always being determined by the intentions, the history, the understanding, etc. of the person we are referring to. At the same time, our emphasis must be on the substance of what we say, and the first concern in relation to the language we use (spoken or written) must be whether it is understandable to the broader layers of working people and youth. At a time when academic language is dominant in much of the Left and the “far left”, this is far from self-evident.
Our efforts to help advance the consciousness of the layers we are appealing to can only be successful through explanation, example and, above all, common struggle. And not by using “sophisticated” forms of expression, which are incomprehensible to the majority in society.

Identity Politics and the Far Right

The preceding pages clearly explain the problems and the limitations of IP for the Left internationally. It is also important to understand why IP becomes popular at certain times in different societies/countries. One is when the labour/workers movement is in decline. Of course there are many other important factors including general uncertainty, economically, politically and socially. We are now facing all of those factors across the globe. The election of Trump has reinforced that these very uncertain times. The news is now dominated by what is going on in the White House and every tweet Trump puts out. It all adds to the confusion and uncertainty and as a consequence millions of people seek comfort in familiarity and scapegoating.
As we have witnessed, the Far Right can make gains in this period. They exploit the confusion inside the mass of the population by using IP from a far-right perspective whipping up anti-immigrant, racist, sexist, anti-gay and transphobia sentiments. We have seen throughout Europe acts of violence, with people being burned out of their homes and small businesses, attacks in the streets, and even murders.
Many people assume IP is the property and the problem of the Left and left reformist organisations. This is not the case. The Far-Right use IP in a very cynical way to divide and split the working class in particular. For example, in Ireland using slogans such as “Ireland is full”, “Ireland belongs to the Irish” and ” Irish lives matter”. The Far Right are a tiny force in Ireland but these are examples of their manipulation and at certain times they have the ability to cause widespread public disorder (as in in the Dublin riots in December 2023 and the Belfast riots of summer 2024-the two main cities on the island).
In the United Kingdom and elsewhere there has been confusion on the left over the issue of trans-rights. Some radical feminists, commentators such as the writer JK Rowling and left voices such as George Galloway from the Worker’s Party of Britain have fundamentally questioned the right of people to identify their gender. Mark Serwotka, when general secretary of the PCS union was censured for claiming that the debate around trans-rights was being prevented. They have in general, confused the rights of women’s access to safe spaces and other issues with the right of men to transition. This has encouraged the far-right to strengthen its anti-trans rhetoric and led to a serious deterioration in the general population’s attitudes towards trans people, evidenced by UK hate crime statistics as well as other metrics. This illustrates that when the left has a confused and divided perspective, it allows the far-right to further its own agenda significantly.

The recent elections in Germany saw the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AFD) make significant gains doubling its vote from 10.4% in 2021 to 20.8%. It is now the second largest party taking 152 seats after the conservatives 208 seats. The incumbent Social Democrats won 120 and the left party, Die Linke, took 64 seats. The AFD became the first far right party to win a state election in Germany since the Nazis.
Alice Weidel, the leader of the AFD, is a gay woman in a relationship with her Sri Lankan born partner. She robustly and staunchly opposes immigration and gay marriage, and the contradiction of her personal and political life requires a leap of imagination. She claims the biggest threat to the LGBT+ community is immigration and Islam, that her role in the party is “not despite her homosexuality but because of it”. This is a classic AFD tactic, using any excuse to vilify Muslims and refugees, in this case siding with groups they have previously attacked in the past.
Generally, far right politics/parties are male dominated. In this case, the AFD is led by a gay female and many other right-wing organisations have put forward female leaders in a conscious attempt to develop a “softer profile ” for a reactionary movement. Giorgia Meloni, the first female PM of Italy, and Marie le Pen the former president of Frances National Rally are examples of this.
The Weidel story also supports points made earlier in the present document about “class”. Weidel is a very wealthy gay woman she has no empathy whatsoever for other oppressed groups. It is notable that one of the first gay politicians in history was Ernst Rohm a close friend of Hitler and chief of the SA 1931-1934.
Ash Sarkar a British journalist recently published an interview in the Sunday Times with a young British musician Sam Fender. The topic was ” How the left keeps getting ID wrong and the right is benefiting from that”.
Fender makes some interesting points. He argues it’s not just white working-class boys from the North of England who are drawn to right-wing influencers such as Andrew Tate but kids of colour in inner city London as well.
According to Fender we are witnessing the rise of a kind of ID politics that sidelines class, and the far right are benefitting from it. We know the working class is not homogenous it encompasses many ethnic and gender minorities. As Fender correctly states, “IP has somehow been peeled off as a separate concern”. The Far Right is taking advantage of the crisis of capitalism, in many European countries in particular, blaming immigrants for the lack of housing, education, and public services in general for white working-class people, and it gets an echo. It can develop into outright racism very quickly. This is much less likely to happen when there is a class-based movement –for example a trade union campaign on workers’ rights, pay and conditions– where people are organised, united and focused on victory rather than through the prism of a minority group or through the distortion of social media.
Membership of political parties and trade unions have been in decline in Britain for decades and the Left are paying the price. Social media is for many the main way to engage in politics. The Far Right and governments can escape being accountable, and the popular masses are left with a confused consciousness which provides opportunities for the Far Right.
It is important and correct for the Left to be sensitive to all oppressed groups and to patiently convince them of the need for a united movement against all oppression which means ultimately ending capitalism. The left can also reach young people who are attracted by the ideas of the Right and who are confused and influenced through social media by conscious bigots, misogynists and racists.
The point though that needs to be reiterated is by having a sensitive approach and a patient approach Marxists can win the best workers and youth to build a united movement with room and space for all oppressed groups to fight together for an alternative, socialist society.

Marxism and identities

The fact that there are sections of society that face multiple discrimination and exclusion, greater oppression, etc., is not something that has been discovered by Identity Politics.
The revolutionary Left (but also sections of the reformist Left) has always recognised that women, blacks, people in (former) colonies, immigrants, etc. have much fewer rights and face much greater oppression; it has demanded equal rights for these sections of society, supported, participated in and organised struggles to win equal rights. And it has focused on the rights that must be won for all individuals, not on the “privileges” that must be restricted for certain layers.
This is not to say that there have not been, and still are, weaknesses and remnants of sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. reflexes and attitudes to one degree or another. We grow up and live in capitalism and it is impossible to remain unaffected; the point is to recognize and work on these weaknesses and residues, through our collective processes and individually.
Many proponents of Identity Politics claim that Marx and Engels only dealt with economic analysis and that they had a crude class approach that overlooked other forms of oppression (a “class reductionist” approach, as it is called). But this is not true. Just as it is not true of a number of great revolutionary figures in the Marxist tradition: Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Zetkin, Kollontai, etc. On the contrary, they took up the issues of the multiple oppressions of different sections or people, with radical, very advanced positions for their time.
The approach of the pioneers of Marxism, to the question of the multiple different oppressions, is a huge chapter in itself, which we cannot cover in detail here. We will just give a few brief examples.
Marx, for example, wrote on the consequences of colonialism in India. Apart from the economic exploitation of India by Western capital, he also referred to the disintegration of the communal and social structures of the people of India and the hypocrisy of the Western bourgeoisie:

“…Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects. The British were the first conquerors superior, and therefore, inaccessible to Hindoo civilization. They destroyed it by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything beyond that destruction…

…The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindoos themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether. At all events, we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period, the regeneration of that great and interesting country, whose gentle natives are, to use the expression of Prince Soltykov, even in the most inferior classes, “plus fins et plus adroits que les Italiens” [more subtle and adroit than the Italians], whose submission even is counterbalanced by a certain calm nobility, who, notwithstanding their natural langor, have astonished the British officers by their bravery, whose country has been the source of our languages, our religions, and who represent the type of the ancient German in the Jat, and the type of the ancient Greek in the Brahmin.

I cannot part with the subject of India without some concluding remarks.

The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. They are the defenders of property, but did any revolutionary party ever originate agrarian revolutions like those in Bengal, in Madras, and in Bombay? Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company’s own funds?”. [13]

Another example comes from his texts on Ireland. Marx was a staunch supporter of the struggle for Irish independence and, without losing faith in the revolutionary power of the British proletariat, he criticised the prejudice and racism of British workers against Irish workers and explained how this ultimately worked to the detriment of British workers themselves:

He also followed and supported the struggle for the emancipation of black slaves in the US. He explained that the working class in the US could not advance without freeing the slaves and that the struggle against slavery was an integral part of the struggle against capitalism. He also explained how racism and slavery were the tools used by the ruling class to more effectively divide, control and exploit the working class, which included black slaves. The International Workingmen’s Association (the 1^st International), in which Marx and Engels played a key role, had even sent a letter of congratulations to Abraham Lincoln on his re-election as President of the US because of his political leadership in the struggle for the emancipation of black slaves. [15]
In Capital (Volume 1, ch. 10) he wrote:

“Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded.”

In relation to the oppression of women, he wrote that social progress can be measured by the position of women in society (Letters to Kugelman, 1868).
Together with Engels, he also introduced the concept of “social reproduction”, a more comprehensive view of life under capitalism. The theory of alienation also shows their penetrating view of human nature.
In “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, Engels analyses the development of patriarchy, deals with the nuclear family as a mechanism of oppression and speaks of the overthrow of gender roles under socialism, of the abolition, in essence, of marriage and of free sexual relations.
Within the International Workingmen’s Association (1^st International), there was also the International Women’s Association (IWA), dedicated to the struggle for women’s rights. Eleanor Marx was one of the key leading personalities, and organised trade unions, fought for full equality between men and women and made friendly critiques of the Suffragettes, explaining that women’s struggle should not be limited to the right to vote.
It is also necessary to refer to the Russian Revolution of 1917.Τhe first Constitution [16] of revolutionary Russia (1918) gave women full civil rights (ch. 13) and the new Criminal Code (1920) legalised, among other things, abortion, which could be performed free of charge in public hospitals.
At the same time, women’s emancipation structures such as the Zhenotdel were created. The women of Zhenotdeltravelled throughout the USSR discussing revolutionary ideas, informing women about their rights and motivating them to participate in political life and to work in the institutions and agencies of the new workers’ state.
At the first All-Russian Congress of Working Women held in 1918, to discuss women’s problems and the policies to be adopted, the question of sexist languagewas raised. As already mentioned, one of the resolutions of the conference called for a ban on the word “baba” (“old witch, peasant woman” – no exact translation exists), which was used abusively against women. [17]
Leninemphasized the crucial role played by women in the 1917 revolution and addressed issues of women’s empowerment both before and after the 1917 revolution.

“…proletarian women showed up splendidly during the revolution. We would not have won without them, or hardly. “(Clara Zetkin – Lenin on the Women’s Question)

“…if we do not liberate women from the conditions of the house and the kitchen which enslave them, it won’t be possible to secure real freedom, it won’t even be possible to build democracy, not to even mention socialism”. (V.I. Lenin, All, Vol. 31, pp. 42,43)

“Woman is still, in spite of all liberating laws, a slave of the house, because she is oppressed, suffocated, dumbed down, degraded by the little domestic household, which nails her to the kitchen and the children and wastes her labour in a work which is unproductive to the point of extravagance, petty, irritating, dulling, tormenting.” (V.I. Lenin, All, vol. 39, pp. 23-25.)

Similarly, L. Trotsky wrote:

“…it is obvious that as long as there is no real equality between man and woman in the family […] we cannot seriously speak of equality in social life or in politics. As long as a woman is chained to the household, to the care of the family, to cooking and sewing, all her possibilities of participating in social and political life are reduced to a minimum”. (L. Trotsky, “Problems of Daily Life”, 1923)

In order to free women from the shackles of the household chores and the exclusive responsibility of raising children, the Bolsheviks sought to socialize a significant part of domestic work and childcare. Thus, they set up public kitchens, public laundries (extremely important at a time when all clothes and beddings were washed by hand), public tailor shops (for mending clothes, etc.), nurseries and kindergartens, various educational centres, etc.
In terms of perceptions of the status of women, Lenin was also highly critical of his male comrades for the way they treated women.

“Unfortunately, it is still true to say of many of our comrades, ‘scratch a communist and find a philistine’. 0f course, you must scratch the sensitive spot, their mentality as regards women. Could there be a more damning proof of this than the calm acquiescence of men who see how women grow worn out in petty, monotonous household work, their strength and time dissipated and wasted, their minds growing narrow and stale, their hearts beating slowly, their will weakened!” (Our emphasis). (Clara Zetkin – Lenin on the Women’s Question)

In addition, the first Soviet criminal code (1922) decriminalized homosexuality (re-criminalized after the rise of Stalinism, in 1934) and provided space for scientific discussion of the issue.
Finally, the 1918 Constitution abolished the oppression of ethnic minorities (ch. 5)

“The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, recognizing the equal rights of all citizens, irrespective of their racial or national connections, proclaims all privileges on this ground, as well as oppression of national minorities, to be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Republic.”

These were not empty words. For it also granted the right of self-determination to all the nationalities of the former Russian Empire (Finland chose independence) and the right of self-government to those who would join the USSR (all the rest, in fact).
And looking to the colonies and poor countries of the world, it set the goal of ending slavery and exploitation by the imperialist powers (ch. 3)

“It is also to this end that the Third Congress of Soviets insists upon putting an end to the barbarous policy of the bourgeois civilization which enables the exploiters of a few chosen nations to enslave hundreds of millions of the working population of Asia, of the colonies, and of small countries generally.”

It was with these traditions that Stalinism broke, taking a conservative and reactionary turn on the issues of women’s emancipation and homosexuality. Stalinist parties internationally followed a similar policy. The only struggles promoted were economic, trade union and “central political issues”, while issues such as women’s oppression, racism, etc. were seen as secondary issues to be resolved in a socialist society. And the Stalinist theory of “socialism in one country” put an end to internationalist class solidarity (despite proclamations to the contrary) and the struggle to spread the revolution internationally.
So, when the proponents of Identity Politics argue that Marxism, starting with Marx and Engels and continuing with Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., did not deal with the “multiple oppressions” but only with the economic aspect of the class struggle, they are simply not telling the truth. Before embarking on the process of criticism, they should study the texts and historical experience more carefully.

To sum up

To sum up, IP correctly point to the character of the multiple oppressions that different layers of society face, but fail to point a way forward. Essentially, because they isolate the struggle of the various “multiply oppressed layers” from the struggle of the working class and from the struggle to overthrow the rule of capital and establish an alternative, democratic, socialist society. It thus functions in a divisive way inside the workers’ movement.
IP ideas have infiltrated the Left of all colorations – including big sections of the anticapitalist Left. Even sections which oppose, in theory, IP, make concessions to it and retreat under its “pressure”. IP is the banner of the “open minded” sections of the ruling class, and of the ex-reformist parties and currents, who try to present a “progressive” face in view of their complete capitulation to the demands of neoliberal capitalism. Marxists need to fight back against these ideas, but in a way of patiently explaining their flaws. These ideas have acquired ground because of the retreat of class and socialist consciousness over the past decades and the crisis of the Left – which of course are interconnected.
The answer to the problem of the multiple oppressions is on the one hand to encourage all oppressed layers to fight for their rights, but at the same time to understand that this struggle can in the end be victorious only if it removes the fundamental, root cause of these multiple oppressions, which is class oppression, i.e., the capitalist system itself. This understanding does not mean of course that the struggle for the rights of suppressed layers is postponed until the socialist revolution – this is the Stalinist approach to such problems. Fighting for the rights of the “multiply oppressed layers” is in no contradiction to the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism; it is not one or the other, it is both together and at the same time. Not only do they not contradict each other, but they strengthen each other. In fact, one cannot be victorious in the end without the other.

Part II
Post colonialism and identity politics-a Marxist Critique

Marxism has a long tradition of seeking to explain the colonial projects of the imperial powers and the impact on the colonised peoples of the world. Marx and Engels lived in the “Age of Empire”. During their lifetimes the European continent was dominated by the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German Empires. The Spanish and Portuguese Empires were in decline, no longer in control of Mexico, Central and South America but the French and in particular the British Empires dominated huge swathes of the globe, and had not yet reached their zenith.
Marx and Engels wrote extensively on colonisation, especially on Britain’s colonial rule in Ireland and India. Ireland has a special place in the history of colonialism as the first colony of England-a laboratory where the methods of colonialism were perfected.

Ireland

Marx and Engels were aware of the racist attitudes towards Irish people which were used to justify the super-exploitation of Ireland, but they understood that at bottom England’s domination of Ireland was driven by the profit motive and was in the interest of the both the landlord class and the rising English bourgeoisie.
They drew attention both to the exploitation of the natural resources and the labour power of Ireland. When the Act of Union was sealed between Great Britain and Ireland. In 1801 Ireland had a small industrial base and a growing agricultural sector. British imperialism ensured that its industries would not develop and that its agricultural sector was geared towards providing grain and beef for English cities.
The Irish peasantry was left to rely upon potatoes, which failed in the Great Famine of the 1840s. One million of the 9 million population died, and another one million were forced to emigrate. The population of Ireland continued to fall until the 1950s and today, still is still two million fewer than at the time of the Great Famine- no other European country has seen such a precipitous fall in its population with no recovery in the modern era. In earlier periods, the population of Ireland also fell after periods of war, pestilence and famine. It is estimated that the population fell one third during the Nine Years War against Tudor rule (1594 and 1603) and the population fell again by a third in the Cromwellian wars in the 1640s.
Ireland’s experience of colonialism mirrors that of India and the African nations. The people of Ireland were treated as brutes and savages by the English ruling class, but this was to justify and excuse their true motive, which was not to dominate a supposedly inferior race, but to extract maximum profit.
The English ruling class exported Irish labour to the rapidly growing industrial centres and consciously promoted antagonism between workers to drive down wages. For Marx the English proletariat was not inherently racist, but he argued that it must become aware of its adoption of racist attitudes. Without this awareness, and without the English proletariat making common cause with Irish workers there would be no successful socialist revolution. And he argued, English workers must support the Irish masses yearning for an independent country.
In 1870 Marx wrote to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York and explained:

“Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker, he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the USA. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland. (Letters of Karl Marx 1870 Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York).”

India

Marx and Engels also wrote and spoke regularly on Britain’s colonisation of the Indian subcontinent. When the British East India Company began its slow but steady takeover of the Indian subcontinent, there was a well-developed native textile industry based on home production. This industry was destroyed from top to bottom as industrial capitalism gathered pace in Britain. India too was ruled by fire and sword and suffered periodic famine. In India, as in Ireland and elsewhere, a conscious ruling class policy of ‘divide and rule’ favoured one group over another and sowed the seeds of future sectarian conflict and partition.
Marx did not just analyse the economic and social impact of imperial rule, but also the psychological impact of the destruction of the fabric of the old societies. In the case of India he explained:

“England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. This loss of his old world, with no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history.” (Karl Marx in the New-York Herald Tribune 1853 The British Rule in India).

The experience of colonisation for the colonised was both generalised, with many common features, and specific-each colony suffering its own horrors. The Congo was laid waste, and millions died to extract ivory and then rubber under Belgian rule, Germany all but exterminated the Herero people of South-West Africa (today’s Namibia) and the indigenous peoples of Australia were exterminated and reduced to absolute poverty. In many places new settlers arrived and supplanted those who already lived on the land. The consequences of such settler-colonialism are with us still in many places.

The October Revolution, the “Colonial Question”, and the Distortions of Stalinism

The October Revolution was for not just “peace, bread and land” but for the freedom of the subject nations within the borders of the Czarist empire. For Lenin and Trotsky, the prospect of world revolution was not just a question of mobilising the proletariat of the industrialised countries, but also the masses in the colonised regions of the world.
When the Third International was founded a clear position on the ‘colonial question’ was demanded of prospective members of the new International. Clause 8 in the Internationals Terms of Admission stated:

“Parties in countries whose bourgeoisie possess colonies and oppress other nations must pursue a most well-defined and clear-cut policy in respect of colonies and oppressed nations. Any party wishing to join the Third International must ruthlessly expose the colonial machinations of the imperialists of its “own” country, must support—in deed, not merely in word—every colonial liberation movement, demand the expulsion of its compatriot imperialists from the colonies, inculcate in the hearts of the workers of its own country an attitude of true brotherhood with the working population of the colonies and the oppressed nations, and conduct systematic agitation among the armed forces against all oppression of the colonial peoples” (V. I. Lenin Terms of Admission into Communist International, Clause 8).

In the early years of the Revolution the Bolsheviks organised the “Congress of the peoples of the East” in 1919. Otherwise known one of the Baku Conference, which was attended by delegates representing more than two dozen ethnic groups of the Middle East and the Far East.
The victory of the Thermidorian reaction and the adoption of the pernicious theory of “socialism in one country” (by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, after Lenin’s death and Trotsky’s defeat) meant that the colonial masses were at the mercy of the needs of an emerging bureaucratic caste. When it was in their interests this caste gave support, including military support, to anti-colonial movements, but their support was conditional and could be dropped when the caste sought to compromise with the imperialist powers.
Nevertheless, the model of the deformed workers states was a powerful pole of attraction for the downtrodden masses in the colonial countries struggling for independence. Despite the complete absence of workers democracy, the achievements of the revolution (massive increases in industrial production and gains in education and health care) suggested that a solution to the most pressing problems of food, clothing and shelter for the colonial masses were possible.

Post-colonialism: a product of defeats

The experience of the post-colonial period in country after country was in fact of economic stagnation and political and social crisis. When this misery took place under the banner of Marxism, the result could only be disillusionment and despair. Simultaneously the failure of the working class to seize power in any advanced capitalist country despite the revolutionary upheavals after World War Two, followed by the 25-year long post-war boom, meant that the idea that the world revolution would sweep aside capitalism and landlordism was no longer a beacon to the most advanced layers in the colonial and ex-colonial countries.
By the 1980s the Soviet Union was entering its final phase. The idea that it could overtake the United States of America in terms of economic progress and military might was waning. The dead hand of the Brezhnev era smothered any attempts at free speech, never mind socialist democracy within the Soviet Union and the satellite states. The coming to power of Gorbachev later in the 1980s presaged the end of the era of the gains of the Great October Revolution.
The collapse of the Soviet Union dealt a fierce blow to the ideas of Marxism from which they are yet to recover. It is not a surprise that in these circumstances, ideas such as post-modernism, identity theory and post-colonial theory would come to the fore, both to explain all that is wrong with the world, but also to excuse its adherence from taking on a failing system.
Neither bourgeois rule (either through ‘parliamentary democracy’ or Bonapartist dictatorship) nor proletarian Bonapartist dictatorships had solved the problems of the masses.In this context the concept of ‘post-colonialism’ came to dominate academic discourse on questions of colonialism and neo-colonialism, and in time to enter the realm of politics.
Post-colonial studies are a disparate field which rejoice in obscure language and it is consequently difficult to fully define. Its early origins lie in the anti-materialist philosophical ideas of ‘structuralism’, ‘post-structuralism’ and ‘post-modernism’.
In the 1970s ‘colonial discourse studies’ analysed literature in a new way, pointing out where racist ideas were half-hidden even in novels and other works which were considered to be anti-racist and anti-imperialist. Also in the 1970s, a strand of historical and sociological scholarship known as ‘subaltern studies’ developed. Colonial discourse theory and subaltern studies are the two main strands which together form the basis of post-colonialist theory.

Structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism

To understand post-colonialism, it is necessary to first consider the roots and main arguments of structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism.The roots of structuralism lie in the work of early twentieth century linguists such as Ferdinand de Saussure. He and others focused on understanding words through their interrelations with other words in the structure of a language. In the 1950s and 1960s structuralism was applied to anthropology and the study of human societies by Claude Lévi-Strauss, who argued that “culture”, in essence, was a structure of symbolic communication.
The structuralist approach stands in stark contrast with the materialist approach of Marxism, which understands that both language and culture arise from, and interact with, the material world. The natural environment, the techniques of labour and the forces of production designed to cope with the environment, make up the material world. There is an interplay between ideas and material reality. Understanding the material context is the guiding thread for understanding the development of ideas.
Aspects of structuralism were taken up by some self-declared Marxists, especially French Communist Party member Louis Althusser in the 1960s. He separated ideology (ideas) from political and economic structures, arguing that each has its own distinct rules and laws, independent of one another.
Marx’s dialectical approach understands all knowledge as an integrated whole. Human beings, history, the evolution of modes of production, politics, class formation, the state, and economics must be studied together as deeply intertwined phenomena. While these struggles and contradictions are inseparable and influence one another, nothing can fundamentally change as long as class society continues to reproduce itself. The persistence of class divisions ensures that these interconnected struggles remain bound within the same oppressive framework.
Structuralism began by severing language, culture and ideas from material processes. This approach was developed and deepened as structuralism evolved and then was taken further by the ‘poststructuralists’ in the late 1960s and 1970s. Among the more prominent thinkers and writers in the field were Michel Foucault (who wrote on madness, sexuality and power), Jacque Derrida and Jacque Lacan (a psychoanalytical thinker). Post-structuralism retained the key aspects of structuralism-an emphasis on ‘discourse’ (ideas, words, language etc) being fundamental, and the argument that it is possible to understand discourse without connecting it with other parts of the social world (or reality).
The post-structuralists added a new idea: the view that “power” is more diffuse than is claimed by Marxists who emphasis the role of the capitalist state. Instead, they adopted a variety of existential and psychological approaches in their attempt to ‘understand’ the world.
A crossover between poststructuralism and ‘postmodernism’ developed. Postmodernism rejects any explanatory models which it considers to be a “grand narrative” – that is an attempt to draw together disparate phenomena and historical periods to explain human society. Marxism is of course one such “grand narrative”.

Colonial Discourse Theory

Postcolonial theory developed in the late 1970s and 1980s by drawing on these theoretical tools to explain colonialism, and postcolonial relations between advanced countries and the former colonies. Most postcolonial theorists accept the argument that ideology, discourse and culture are in some sense primary – that is separate and independent of material forces.
Post-colonialism has a specific focus on the identity that distinguishes colonised peoples from colonising peoples. Franz Fanon was an important forerunner to this school of thought. Fanon was a heroic figure, a French Martinique psychiatrist who devoted his life to the cause of the Algerian revolution. Before his premature death of leukaemia at the age of 33 he wrote several books which have become classics, especially Black Skin White Mask, which explores the ways in which persons of colour make their make their way in the racist capitalist system, and The Wretched of the Earth, with its famous foreword by Jean Paul Sartre, which celebrated revolutionary violence as an end in itself, in order to overturn centuries of colonialism, not just politically, but psychologically.
Fanon had very clear views as to which classes in society would lead the revolution, ideas that are entirely at odds with Marxism. He had certainly read Marx, and quoted him occasionally, but his work was much more influenced by the existentialist phenomenology of Sartre. He was associated with the ideas of “Third Worldism” exaggerated the role of the peasantry and the dispossessed of the colonial and ex-colonial world (the lumpen proletariat) whilst downplaying the role of the working-class or proletariat.
Writers in the colonial discourse tradition draw attention to the one-sided, pro-Western and often racist writings of multiple writers over several centuries. Post-colonial literary theorists have, of course, added something to human knowledge, exposing as they have a hidden racist prejudice, even when voiced by those who were expressing opposition to aspects of colonial policy. One example is Joseph Conrad’sHeart of Darkness, an expose of the horrific regime of the Belgian King Leopold in the late 19th century (and inspiration for Apocalypse Now), but which contains within racist tropes.
The most prominent writer in this field is Edward Said, whose 1979 book, Orientalism, is widely read and very influential. Said was an American Palestinian academic, and by the end of his life, was very prominent both in academic and pollical circles. The idealism which underlines his approach is exemplified by his argument in 1993, at the time of the first Gulf War, that America would not have invaded Iraq if it had properly understood the Arab psyche. This denial of the social, economic and political reasons which are always the underlying cause of war, whatever the proximate cause, illustrates the anti-materialism of the post-colonial school of thought.
Postcolonial studies aim to broaden curricula to include writers from the former colonies and to critically contrast Western representations of the colonies with self-representations of colonised peoples. Said identified how literature often depicts the West as a beacon of science, secularism and liberalism, and the Orient as backward and superstitious. He argued that such prejudices were present not only in the writings of those who were pro-imperialist and colonialist in outlook, but also the writings of Marx. In Said’s view no true representation of anyone’s reality is possible and all attempts are a distortion of facts reflecting the agenda of the writer.
Said did not ignore material factors but the subsequent trend of postcolonial theory, in particular writers such as Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak and Homi Bhabha has been to adopt the anti-materialist ideas of Derrida and Lacan.

The Subaltern Studies Group

In the 1970s the Subaltern Studies Group (SSG) in India began to explore the history of the “subaltern” on the Indian subcontinent. The term subaltern was first used to describe British Army officers of the lower ranks (from the Latin ‘below everyone’). The Subaltern Group adopted the term from Antonio Gramsci who used the term to designate proletarian and peasant classes denied access to political representation or voice within government by the fascist Italian state (The Prison Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci).
The SSG used subaltern to mean peasants and landless rural workers and other layers in India who were the most downtrodden (reflecting the caste system). Some of the original subaltern writers were socialist in outlook, but over time, the Group and those who came after them have developed ideas that are consciously anti-Marxist and anti-materialist. These ideas have now been adopted by identity politics adherents.
The original work of the subaltern group did draw attention to huge movements of the peasant class in India under British rule and other related phenomena. Written accounts of peasant uprisings and other events involving hundreds of thousands of peasants and other downtrodden layers on the Indian subcontinent are valuable.
The early group did not entirely ignore class or Marxist ideas but quickly began to develop a new analysis. The SSG argues that social relations are different in the ex-colonial world, and that the Marxist analysis of class society does not apply. The Marxist view is that whilst human cultures differ, all have been shaped by the same underlying processes. In all societies humans must deal with problems of producing and reproducing society within the natural and human-made environment. Any variation, caused by a myriad of factors, does not change this fundamental truth.
The SSG also argue that politics in India (and in other ex-colonial countries) is fundamentally different from politics in the West. They reject both liberal and Marxist social theory which in their view developed to explain and understand Western societies but are inadequate for understanding how capitalism has developed in the postcolonial world.
Subalternists generally agree with the idea that the bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class in its time, leading a struggle to overthrow the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie then instituted “modern politics”, with a form of parliamentary democracy, political liberties, individual rights, separation of church and state (secularism), and bourgeois culture, where people’s consciousness and motivations are framed in terms of individual self-interest. The bourgeoisie also played an historical role in leading nation-building projects.
Where the subalternists disagree with Marxists is on the role of the bourgeoisie in the colonised regions of the world. Marxists argue that as the Western bourgeoisie colonised the rest of the world, it initiated similar changes everywhere. It attempted to abolish feudal relations, and at least paid lip service to the introduction of bourgeois democracy. The bourgeoisie of the colonising country did not usually initiate nation-building, but it was assumed that the native bourgeoise of the colony would do so once it had gained independence from the empire.
The subalternists argue that in the colonies the bourgeoisie (either colonial or native) did not abolish feudal relations but instead compromised with the feudal class. As a result, power is not in the hands of the capitalist class alone, but is shared with pre-capitalist classes.
As a result, pre-capitalist political forms also remain in place, and community, honour, ethnicity, and religious duty are more or as important as individual interests or class interests in day to day life.
All this means that postcolonial societies are not on the same road to modernity as the West. Instead, modernity itself has more than one form. The West and the postcolonial world are fundamentally different, and it is not possible to explain both with the same fundamental theory, either liberal or Marxist, with a few simple additions or qualifications.
For the subalternists the differences are profound and therefore require new theoretical categories. The subalternist reject the very possibility of generalising about societies around the world. Marxism, in contrast, whilst acutely aware of differences, seeks to generalise.

Post-Colonial Theory and Identity Politics

Post-colonialist thought has become pervasive, especially in the universities. One thinker in the field claims:

“Among critical and progressive academics today, the influence of postcolonial theory is unmistakable. Though born in the narrow confines of literature departments in the wake of Asian and African decolonization, its intellectual apparatus has increasingly become associated with more directly political commitments.

Postcolonial theory today is viewed as an indispensable framework for understanding how power works in modern social formations and, in particular, how the West exercises its dominance over the Global South.

Even more, it is lauded for its attentiveness to the marginal, the oppressed — those groups that have been relegated to obscurity even by political traditions ostensibly committed to social justice.

On elite university campuses, the concepts associated with this theoretical stream have increasingly displaced the more traditional vocabulary of the Left, particularly among younger academics and students.

Indeed, the two most influential political frameworks of the past century on the Left, Marxism and progressive liberalism, are often described not just as being inadequate as sources of critique, but as tools of social control” (Nivedita Majumdar, Silencing the Subaltern, Catlyst, Vol 1, No 1, 2017: Nivedita Majumdar is professor of English at John Jay College, CUNY, New York. She is the author of The World in a Grain of Sand: Postcolonial Literature and Radical Universalism (London: Verso, 2021).).

It was not long before authors in the identity politics field began to use the term subaltern to mean all people who are deemed to be the equivalent of colonised people. Depending on the author this may include not just gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, but all women. This wide use of the term, in fact, envelops the majority of the world’s population as the ex-colonial peoples and women, taken together, make up 75% or more of the total of the world’s population.
This can lead to complex formulations around the “sexual subaltern” which are very difficult to understand. For example, in “The Sexual Subaltern and Law: Postcolonial Queer Imaginaries” (Ratna Kapur in Enticements: Queer Legal Studies, May 2024):

“Ratna Kapur retrieves forms of gendered and sexual subjectivity and subculture unassimilable either to colonial mandates or to LGBT legal advocacy, while she is cautious not to indulge in a precolonial nostalgia for the fantastically queer past. Kapur examines recent judgments of the Supreme Court of India on LGBT rights, as well as the political movements surrounding those judgments, to consider sexual dissidence and sexual subalternity foreclosed by queer victories, rights talk, and what she identifies as a stubbornly enduring ‘heterosexual presumption’.”.

The Marxist Critique of Post-colonialism

Post-colonial theory sees the modern world through a focus on the racism of white people, against people of colour. It pays less attention, and sometimes no attention to the nature and origin of imperialism and the role of the drive for profit. Their arguments can be reduced to a number of simple propositions. Two key tenets are:
First, the social structure of post-colonial societies means that Marx’s analysis does not apply. Most specifically, this refers to the persistence of a large peasant class, a class that disappeared in the advanced capitalist countries at a much earlier stage in the development of capitalist relations.
Secondly, the experience of the coloniser and the colonised is so different that the former cannot comment meaningfully on the latter. This targets all Western commentators, including Marxists, who are therefore now not entitled to comment beyond generalities.
In recent years, these ideas have reached a peak of influence and have become even more distorted and divorced from reality. They are, of course, completely divorced from historical materialist and dialectical materialist approach of Marxism.
The leading theorists in the field of post-colonialism are often consciously critical of both Marxism and Western liberalism. Whilst writers in the field of subaltern studies have produced important and useful works on, for example, peasant uprisings on the Indian subcontinent, the general thrust of post-colonial studies is anti-Marxist, anti-materialist, anti-scientific and anti-Enlightenment (the Enlightenment being the period in the late 18th century which prefigured the French Revolution).
Marxism is an evolving science, and will always seek to learn from new developments, both in the natural sciences and the social sciences. When however, these new developments go beyond the accumulation of knowledge but instead interpret reality in ways which are non-dialectical and anti-materialist, then Marxism has much less to gain or to learn from these approaches.
One of the important weaknesses of post-colonial theory is that it seeks to explain the actions of the colonisers as a result of deep-seated and long-standing racist attitudes and clearly states or implies that everyone in the coloniser country is responsible for these attitudes.
Marxists in the advanced capitalist countries should take care to acknowledge and understand the psychology of the colonised but this does not mean that Marxists are not entitled to analyse and to put forward political perspectives for ex-colonial countries. This must be done with care, especially when Marxists live in the ex-coloniser country and comments on politics in the ex-colonial country. Marxists in this situation, would be wise to heed the warnings of Lenin against great Russian chauvinism, present even within the ranks of the Bolshevik Party.
It is important that advanced workers in ex-colonising countries are aware of the history of colonisation. The British Empire grew fat by felling the oak forests of Ireland, exporting slaves across the Atlantic and destroying the nascent industries of India and other nations. Today, the spoils of empire are still evident in the homes, the bank balances and the share portfolios of those who have inherited great wealth in Britain. Understanding this is important, but it does not take away from the more important understanding of the motive force of capitalism, imperialism and the drive for profit.
Marxism remains the only frame of reference which explains imperialism and colonialism, and which points a way forward from the misery of the lives of the bulk of the world’s population who live in the ex-colonial countries. There are no answers for the rural poor and most oppressed layers in the ex-colonial countries who are seeking a way out of their misery in the ideas of post-colonialism.

Marxism as a guide to action

There is nothing in the writings or in the theories of post-colonialism which is superior to Marxism or, which provides an explanatory model, or a guide to action.
The Marxist analysis explains why the colonies existed and showed a pathway through struggle towards genuine freedom. The post-colonial theorists do not point in the direction of struggle or towards any solution to the mass poverty and unemployment, which is the lot of the masses in the ex-colonial countries, in particular the youth.
It can be said of post-colonial studies that what is useful in this field is not new, and what is new is not useful. In other words, whilst detailed studies of the experience of colonialism from the perspective of the colonised is an important contribution, the retreat from an understanding of human society based on class and capital means that post-colonialism is a barrier to progress.

[1] In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes which the 24th Amendment had eliminated for federal elections in 1964 were unconstitutional for state and local elections as well. Poll taxes had been a major barrier to the black vote.

[2] At that time Angela Davis didn’t identify as a feminist and thought of feminism as a middle-class white women ideology. She was however active in the women’s rights movement and had a notable theorical contribution into it.

[3] https://msmagazine.com/2011/08/19/the-verbal-karate-of-florynce-r-kennedy-esq/

[4] The only other struggle they mention that they would actively participate was the struggle against racism. In this struggle they say, they would work together with black men.

[5] https://americanstudies.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Keyword%20Coalition_Readings.pdf

[6] https://mastersofsexshortcourse.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/cherrc3ade-l-moraga-and-gloria-e-anzaldc3baa-this-bridge-called-my-back-writings-by-radical-women-of-color.pdf

[7] Frantz Fanon (1925–1961) was a philosopher, psychiatrist, and anti-colonial thinker whose work focused on the psychological and social impacts of colonialism. Fanon was black. He was born in Martinique, a French colony in the Caribbean, studied in France and moved to Algeria, where he became deeply involved in the Algerian War of Independence against French colonial rule.

[8] Cis/Cisgender, is a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered at birth; not all people feel comfortable with the sex they were registered at birth. There are transgender people, intersex people, genderfluid people ect.

[9] http://www.franceskendall.com/books.html

[10] https://www.collegeart.org/pdf/diversity/white-privilege-and-male-privilege.pdf

[11] https://xekinima.org/5-000-viasmoi-kathe-xrono-stin-ellada-ftane/, https://xekinima.org/i-patriarchia-kakopoiei-viazei-dolofonei-metra-prostasias-tora/, https://xekinima.org/25-november-i-maxi-gia-tin-exaleipsi/

[12] Of course, sexist language does not depend solely on the existence or absence of grammatical genders, but also on other linguistic elements such as stereotypical expressions, proverbs, etc. However, we mention gender because it pertains to the discussion about language and the use of the neuter gender.

[13] https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22.htm

[14] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

[15] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

[16] https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/amendments.htm

[17] https://xekinima.org/i-oktovriani-epanastasi-kai-i-thesi-tis-gyn/

Identity Politics – a Marxist Critique

Part I
Identity Politics and its role in the crisis of the Left

The origins of identity politics

Some key elements of identity politics

Class on the fringes

Cross-class fronts?

Who is the enemy? – A

Who is the enemy? – B

Identity Politics in the field of feminism

Struggle for “format” at the expense of substance

Identity Politics and the Far Right

Marxism and identities

To sum up

Part II
Post colonialism and identity politics-a Marxist Critique

Ireland

India

The October Revolution, the “Colonial Question”, and the Distortions of Stalinism

Post-colonialism: a product of defeats

Structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism

Colonial Discourse Theory

The Subaltern Studies Group

Post-Colonial Theory and Identity Politics

The Marxist Critique of Post-colonialism

Marxism as a guide to action

Recent Articles

Left-wing governments: tactics, strategy and programme

Ireland, Fighting Oppression- Pt III: Youth Against Sectarianism (1992-1995)

Developments in the Greek Anticapitalist Left – lessons of 2015

NYC Mayoral Primary: A Blow to Trumpism and the Democratic Party Establishment

ABOUT US

FOLLOW US

Identity Politics – a Marxist Critique

Part IIdentity Politics and its role in the crisis of the Left

The origins of identity politics

Some key elements of identity politics

Class on the fringes

Cross-class fronts?

Who is the enemy? – A

Who is the enemy? – B

Identity Politics in the field of feminism

Struggle for “format” at the expense of substance

Identity Politics and the Far Right

Marxism and identities

To sum up

Part IIPost colonialism and identity politics-a Marxist Critique

Ireland

India

The October Revolution, the “Colonial Question”, and the Distortions of Stalinism

Post-colonialism: a product of defeats

Structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism

Colonial Discourse Theory

The Subaltern Studies Group

Post-Colonial Theory and Identity Politics

The Marxist Critique of Post-colonialism

Marxism as a guide to action

Recent Articles

Left-wing governments: tactics, strategy and programme

Ireland, Fighting Oppression- Pt III: Youth Against Sectarianism (1992-1995)

Developments in the Greek Anticapitalist Left – lessons of 2015

NYC Mayoral Primary: A Blow to Trumpism and the Democratic Party Establishment

ABOUT US

FOLLOW US

Part I
Identity Politics and its role in the crisis of the Left

Part II
Post colonialism and identity politics-a Marxist Critique