[Hokusai]

> there is way too much identity politics now

It's a strategy to divide the working class. With raising inequality you need to do something with the people that are unhappy. Or you give them money, and reduce inequality so they are happier; or you give them an enemy to fight so they forget about the money.

A similar thing happened after the great depression of the 30s and culminated with communism and fascism rising to power. Communism was driven by angry workers that wanted a fair share of the money. Fascism was driven by identity politics and workers more worried about identity than money, they wanted everybody to be like the ideal themselves.

So, or we end inequality, or communism comes back, or identity politics takes over. For me the first option is the best, but it's very difficult to achieve.

[Karrot_Kream]

I don't necessarily think it's a strategy specifically designed to divide the working class, but I do agree that it's largely about inequality. The thing is, when you have a large percentage of the population who is economically struggling and a small percentage of the population thriving, then this impoverished majority has nothing to lose with radical change. The middle class offers a huge check on stability in societies as middle classes tend to be less likely to support highly-disruptive revolutions leading to extreme social change. The impoverished have less to lose. When society is composed of the majority impoverished, they'll back revolution with gusto as they reason their lot can only go up from where they currently are.

[snek_case]

You can never "end inequality". The best you can hope for is a level playing field, equal opportunity, as much as possible. There's a lot of things we could be doing to make that happen. It probably starts with more fair, universal access to education and trying to make sure that all children have their basic needs met, regardless of age or gender, but I think you are right that identity politics is a distraction for the working class.

The powers that be are trying to make the mob angry at straw men such as "capitalism", "colonialism" and "the patriarchy", but in the mean time, nobody is discussing real, evidence-based measures we could be taking to make the world a better place, there's only posturing and finger pointing.

IMO, we should be ensuring that the best, more positive aspects of capitalism are used to serve the best interests of humanity (i.e. stimulating investments in innovative technologies like electric cars). We should strive to have measures in place to prevent regulatory capture from fucking over startups in favor of inefficient zombie companies... And we should also have more scientists and engineers in the government, looking at evidence-based solutions to make sure we can comfortably provide housing, food, clothing, education and medical care to every child in the world, with a 5-year, 10-year and 25-year plan... Instead we have governments run by ex-lawyers and "activists" inventing new forms of victimhood.

[theaeolist]

You can, however, greatly reduce it. That would be good enough.

[brnaftr184]

First what are we making equal? I don't think equal opportunity is a real thing, life is all about very precise starting conditions, some of which will have extraordinary outcomes, others which will fail precipitously, I digress. With Americans, probably material wealth, right? But that's an artifact of conditioning, isn't it? Like that drive to acquisitive behavior is a conditioned thing I reckon.

But if we aren't talking material wealth, y'know, how about equal freedom? Equal leisure time? Equal representation? Autonomy? Respect? Everybody seems to be fixated on material wealth - which I'd infer is the whole basis for equal opportunity, and I don't think that's the question to ask. If you treat janitors with the same deference as you do a CEO, their life would be less shitty, it might even be pretty good; you're minimizing their work and treating them like a human being. Maybe this is a thing and you can get some real Princess and the Pauper (or vice versa) shit going on. And, at that point with their work minimized, maybe they could get some more paid vacation without some eminent disaster looming. And, since people are pretty self-organizing when they're not treated like shit, and they're not high-strung and burning out, they can... Maybe... do without a manager breathing down their neck? And now they don't have to run up a chain of command to fill up their squirt bottle or talk to the person that actually calls the shots, and negotiate with the client directly. Wow.

Like hypothetically, right? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but having been on the ground for years in various industries I don't think I am.

I don't think the material shit is what everybody is all about, I think people are fronting with their consumer goods to be able to function in the social hierarchy. I mean, there's a whole class of people who enter into debt obligations just to front like they've got money which is "directly proportional to status and success". If you remove that bar, if you equalize social standing to a singular nominal human value, I don't think most people care to entertain the ratrace. But that's a culture thing, that's an economy thing, that's an identity thing - ethereal and malleable. I think people are lead to believe that they have to run in the ratrace, and buy all the shit, and front like they're a big shot just to get to the home stretch of the human shit, live, love, laugh, family and friends. 'Cause at the end of the day, you can have all the shit, but if you don't have anybody to share it with you just look like a dildo wearing designer bedazzled pants.