Below is a class analysis of the current form of identity politics based on neo-racism and neo-segregationism, i.e. the ideology that claims that people should be treated and interpreted on the basis of their group characteristics, and on their differences instead of their commonalities. Peer to peer dynamics and commoning require that people are recognized as equipotential persons, since the basis is the free association of people to common projects. An ideology that claims that people are representatives of their group and must behave according to group norms, and interpreted on that basis, is not compatible with commoning as a set of ideas or practice. I spent some time analyzing the Evergreen State College events, and what the behavior of the actors expresses in terms of political principles, which you can find here, at https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Woke_Ideology. These practices based on racial and other forms of scapegoating and hierarchisation are probably the closest one can find to the racist and anti-semitic movements of the 1930s. They 'cancel' people they disagree with, aiming for the reputational and economic destruction, use violence and intimidation, are pro-censorship. They are an entirely illiberal tendency, and a clear and present danger to any social advance. It is important to know that there is a solid progressive, black-liberation, socialist and Marxist critique of this middle class ideology of the professional and managerial classes, which you can find in this depository, https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Identity_Politics For those wanting to learn more about the genesis of this neo-racist and segregationist movement, I recommend the following three books, none of them are perfect, but they are quite good: 1) Cynical Theories gives the ideological evolution from the postmodernism of the 70s, in 3 stages, i.e. from deconstructive to agentic or applied postmodernism, and from applied to reified postmodernis, which consciously decided to essentialize biological characteristics and create race and gender hierarchies based on them. Stage 1 and 2 are entirely compatible with progressive thinking in its pluralist variety, but stage 3 thinkers overturn the principles of egalitarianism and universalism, and chose to fight for zero-sum games in favour of PMC elites. The book extensive quotes the actors and thinkers in the movement, in their own words 2) The Coddling of the American Mind, gives the sociological background which is essential the story of the culture of fear which started already in the 80s, but became hegemonic pretty much exactly in 2013-15, when GenZ entered the universities, the first generation to be socialized not on the internet but on mobile social media, and demanded the culture of fragility which is now the norm. It also explains the psychological mechanisms that are at work, and are the opposite of the ones creating resilience. 3) As of 2017, this generation entered the workforce, with one third being strongly supportive of authoritarian censorship. This is the story told by the Madness of Crowd. You may also want to check out the book of Erec Smith, outlining the disempowering effects of the new ideology on minority students, and the books of father Toure and son, as representatives of the class-based black liberation traditions. The majority of students and professors in anglo-saxon countries now declare that they are no longer free to speak their mind, and thousands of progressives have been eliminated from academia. This is why the marxist Jacobin and its theoretical magazine Catalyst, and their Youtube channel, are one of the best sources for continued progressive resistance against the Successor Ideology. The book Woke Inc is an insider account of the switch of the ruling class elites to the new ideology, as a conscious response to the 99% challenge of the Occupy movement. Cornell West, Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Matt Taibi and Glenn Greenwald are just some of the voices who have spoken out against identity politics and cancel culture and noted the political inversion, i.e. of people claiming to be progressive but favouring all the themes that used to be right-wing. Denialism is not a strategy: all the surveys, electoral and sociological research point to a consistent picture: identitarian ideology leads to a systematic weakening of the left and guarantees electoral defeats. Vivek Chibber, who agrees with Wallerstein that this will delay social change for at least a generation, explains very well the political dynamics and how it creates a blackmail situation towards the social left: whenever a left-populist champion appears, as Sanders in the US or Corbyn in the UK, the thematic is used to discredit them. This is how Sanders, who had won the first one third of the primaries in 2019, was eliminated in Georgia, after the mobilization of the woke theme that he was a white supremacist. The good news, if there is any, is that p2p and commons movements are the most resilient against it: wokism is a technique for PMC elites for a redistribution of benefits, but it only works in institutions that have benefits to share and where 'stalinist'-type purges allow for a redistribution of power and benefits; in contributory communities, distributing based on identity instead of on contribution is an impossibility. Silence towards the countless victimizations that this movements initiatives amounts to complicity, but we must not focus all our energies in negative ways; a continued committment towards the constructive engagement with actual commons remains the priority. Here is a recent article, https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Towards_a_Global_Open_Ledger_for_Contributory... And people will be aware of our new book on the Cosmo-Localization of production, which has about 100 case studies. Wokeness is a tragedy for the left, perhaps the end game of the emancipatory movement that started with the French Revolution and became worker-oriented in 1848, at the same time popular and social struggles will find new expressions, as they have always done. Michel Bauwens: Here are some preliminary notes about the meaning of the emergence of the woke movement in the US and elsewhere. I define the woke movement as a social movement that: - Claims to want to end unequal power dynamics and the end of oppression and privilege by majority groups towards minority groups, with the main privileged groups believed to be white males, who prop the unjust domination of the West - Claims that to obtain this equality, we must practice equity, i.e. a form of systematic reverse discrimination of resources so that the oppressed groups can appropriate their right share of resources, principally through antiracist activity. Resources must be unequally divided with a preference for the oppressed groups. - Claims that the primary determinant of human life and one’s position in the social order, depends on group membership, which largely determine individual identity and the course of life. - Claims the moral high ground and practices moral outrage as one of its principal activist tactics; calls for censorship and denunciations/cancellations are the most common tactic to obtain ideological hegemony. The movement originated as one of the outcomes of postmodern teachings in academia, through the mediation of Critical Race Theory, and its social origination is in the youth strata of the elite universities, i.e. the children of the most privileged strata of the population, allied with the professional strata of minority groups. It is also supported by the cognitive urban strata of the population, especially the post-millennial generational cohort. The aims of the movement are massively supported by the 1) ‘diversity and inclusion’ bureaucracy’ and administrations of US universities, corporations and federal institutions (particularly HR sectors but extended to all forms of administrative leadership); 2) massive funding by philanthro-capitalism and corporate leaderships (‘woke capitalism’); 3) the political leadership of ‘progressive neoliberalism’; 4) the mainstream mass media. The above sociological orientation does not suggest that it has any characteristic of traditional emancipatory movements, which are generally supported by working class populations. Moreover, its political demands have immediate and obvious effects that are hugely detrimental to the poorer populations of all genders and races. Their demands favour the elite and upwardly mobile sections of minority populations. Many of its tactics are hugely reminiscent of the reactionary social movements of the 1930s (deplatforming and cancellation of political dissent, desire for caste-based allocation and organization of society, racial scapegoating), although there are obvious differences in its sociological basis. What is common is a conjucture of societal 'descent', creating populations that fear social regress, which generally does not create 'progressive' aims and outcomes. So here is my attempt to explain its emergence at this particular historical conjuncture. Global capitalism has entered a downward spiral of systemic crises that has hampered its ability to satisfy the desire of populations for material betterment; this is especially so in the Western countries, which have since the 1980s sacrificed their own working classes to enable globalization. Originally, the neoliberal compact of the 80s, which replaced the social welfare compact after WWII, was based on an alliance of the ruling classes with the new identity politics, i.e the cultural changes demanded by the youth cohorts that fought the 1968 revolutions, and the subsequent demands for egalitarian civil rights by racial minorities, women, sexual practice minorities, etc …, while simultaneous de-industrialising the West to eliminate working class power and demands. This led to huge advances in civil rights, to systemic anti-discrimination practices in institutions, and to the growth of a upwardly mobile middle class emerging from these minorities, though at the detriment of the stagnation or decline of working class wages. But as of 2003, resource prices stopped their downward trend and started augmenting, and in 2008, the global financial crisis occured, seriously affecting the redistributional capacity of the state. Neoliberal leaderships such as those of Obama, resulted in choices in favour of the saving the financial elite, at the cost of minorities and working classes (see the housing policies of Obama, which particularly affected the housing stock of the African-American population). In particular, upward educational mobility was seriously affected, creating a generation riddled with student debt, and with very precarious prospects. This is particularly the case for minority students which saw their upward mobility endangered. In such a conjuncture, social and economic prospects become not only negative, but can be seen as a zero sum game; psychological and sociological uncertainty leads to identity issues and a search for protective communities that can take various forms: 1) traditional left-wing urban populism, as represented by Sanders 2) ethno-nationalistic re-identification with the nation state, as represented by Trump 3) identitarian politics, as represented by the woke movement. *Option 1* is the most hated by the elites, since it requires substantial distribution of resources towards the working poor; *option 2* has become attractive to rural populations, small business holders and the native working class and this movement gave us Trump; but to a substantial degree, Trump represents giving up Empire to save the Nation, which is contrary to the neoliberal choice of giving up the Nation for the sake of Empire. Trump represents a rival alliance than the current neoliberal compact. And this is what makes *option 3* so attractive to the elite. Option 3 represents a new compact of the elites, to make hard a new redistribution of the spoils with the upwardly mobile minorities, but at the cost of sacrificing the working poor of all genders and colours. It is the cheapest option, that allows the ruling elites 1) to maintain the Empire by expanding its social base with new middle class representation; 2) to avoid more massive egalitarian redistribution. Giving the alliance of minority elites a stake in the system creates a new sociological compact, and expands elite buy-in, creating a bulwark against majority demands that are much more dangerous and costly. -- P2P Foundation: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: ; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Curation of news on p2p/commons developments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/