Hands down, the best video about identity politics I have yet to find on the internet.

taimur! you are an absolute king and we love your videos and work. i love how reflective our global parasocial relationships are of the strength of marxism to bring people together. keep on brother, sending love from the united states

It gives me hope to know there are people like you in the world.

very good analysis. also love your background with chairman maos picture.

Sir please make videos on concepts of neoliberalism, international political economy.

Such an underrated video and channel.

Thank you very much for the English video, greetings from Colombia.

The best spoken take on the topic there is. Thank you so much, Mr. Rahman!

Thank for an English video lol I live in the US and am not always able to understand what you say

Love the portrait of Comrade Mao up there!

Chairman Mao overlooking this conversation from the shelf I see.

Amazing video. Thank you so much for making such a complete and thorough video on this topic. You put my thoughts in words better than i ever could.

Dr. Rahman, can you please post a video of a critique of Karl Popper and the challenges the theory of Falsification posts against Marxism.

Thank you for uploading in English

Sir your work is so appreciative I have already watched your Urdu s version of this video

WONDERFUL! Thank you so much!

Thanks sir ....

Great Sir 👍

Wow! I agree with the others. Best explanation I've ever seen. Thanks!

Love your lectures! Cheers from New Zealand!

Very good explanation, thanks ....from Ireland..............

Sir You Are Great .I learn Alot From You .Keep it Up❤❤❤

lal salaam comrade

Again love from India, and please do think about live chat

Proud to you

I think there is some other reason this "identity political" analysis appeared - is the disappearance of industries and large factories - the break down of Unions and meeting places in the Western countries. Also during this time you still had some relative growing economy and the relics of the a welfare state (that had been continuously broken down). And I see this economical production change as the most important factor of the break down of class politics.

@jollyyeholiver1578

4 жыл бұрын

That was just an expression of finance capital completely taking over the market,(Thatcher and Regan), basically hedge funds saw an opportunity to buy up and close down industry, and profit hugley, leveraged by the banks, this replaced well payed job in manufacturing with worse ones, infact wages have stagnated ever since - basically destroying organised labour. It appears to me that corporate power has essentially sort to devide the left politically at the same time and even spiritually with the mindfulness movements that basically take Buddhist teachings and train students to look internally rather then exturnally for the issues of the world. Thatcher also gave political power to the market, so you can see on all sides a capitalist attack and power grab that has not stopped.

@katsumikiyota4658

4 жыл бұрын

@@jollyyeholiver1578 I think a corportae/finance elite would divide any movement if that means keeping to be in the top. The industrial technology however pushed a change in social networks of the working class. So while in the 80s in Hungary for example - you still had some large scale industry where many people met in real life, and thus created communities (hiking clubs, ownership of summer/winter houses for it's workers, etc) - the new mode of production did change and reduced the number of people linked together,. In fact probably we will see again such reduction - and shifts. And obviously people already having the power will try to capitalise on it. In my opinion any singular political side or movement can be hijacked, there is no universal answer. I think Guy Debord was right: there is nothing exist outside of Capitalism.

@katsumikiyota4658

4 жыл бұрын

@UCK3BwcTArb-uMFGXzwB1Nrw I think you misunderstand what I am saying or what Guy Debord had said. It is about that the power structure is set. Any movement or political force need to account this. I agree by the way what you are saying on central planned - in fact current form of capitalism and the neo-liberal structure is very much akin of Soviet Union's, and experiencing a dogmatic take on it's own ideology. What I mean that any kind of ideological or political movement can only exist under these structures. This is the play-field. And those benefiting the current structure will attempt to hijack any ideology and system to keep their advantage. Also free market does not exist at all. It is one of the most Utopian ideology of all. So probably we would agree on that too.

Ap k lecture clear hoty hn sir

There's a way to synthesise the post-structuralist and structuralist critique. I'm already seeing intersectionality being embedded in class primacy rather than thinking all identities are the same. This can be done by looking at primary and secondary antagonisms. A lot of ppl say their identities are imposed externally, they don't necessarily claim that any identity is essential, moreso structural (so, identity politics can be structural rather than post-structural, and that's more of what i see from ppl who hold both intersectional and anti-capitalist views).

There is a lot of youtubers attempting to cancel Marxist Leninist youtubers at the moment. I’d love to see Taimur debate some Trotskyist and anarchist types in the Anglo left sphere. They couldn’t smear him so easily

thank you sir greetings from China

Please make videos on realism neo realism , idealism,and other theories of IR

The audio can be louder.

Soon I'll join your university inshallah, ❤❤❤❤❤❤

I strongly disagree that as a X you can't speak for Y issues. A lot of relevant points that go toward helping any group have little to do with having a subjective point of view on the said issues facing any group.

🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 Namaskaram

India too ,sir

Sir philosophy lecture continue krain plz...

Wow

I generally agree, but I did notice some splashes of strawman here and there. For example, very few IDPol liberals truly clamp down on out-group members discussing in-group problem; like men discussing menstrual-shaming. Most feminists regularly encourage men to speak about these issues to their male friends. All they ask for, is a bit of humility from out-group members who lack experience. Consult the people you're claiming to represent, which is equally true for you speaking on behalf of, say, kachi abadis.

@Taimur_Laal

4 жыл бұрын

Faraz Talat it is not the quantity of objection that is relevant at the theoretical level. The point is that there is no theoretically viable basis out of the contradiction. The only thing left for the out-group is to amplifying the voices of the in-group. But any independent or critical theoretical intervention is open to the charge of appropriating or colonising space. There is no viable defence from within the framework of subjectivism. The inadvertent result is that one cannot say anything about anyone except oneself. Because all theory is generalising about others with whom you share no complete subjective experience.

Can anybody explain the situation in Venezuela?

@rehman1833

4 жыл бұрын

Check out The Michael Brookes show's episode on Venezuela, also badempanada is a very good channel about Latin america

@shubhamsolanki1482

4 жыл бұрын

@@rehman1833 Thanks buddy

There seems to be a little more than 12 minutes or so in difference from the Urdu upload Doctor, I hope I didn't miss something?

@Red-rj7sr

4 жыл бұрын

No you didnt, it takes a bit longer to explain things in Urdu, whereas it's easier in English to explain things in more concise structures.

@pintojaluk7742

3 жыл бұрын

@@Red-rj7sr Come on, that's not true. Technically, Urdu/Hindi is more concise since more information about the sentence (gender, number, respect, probability like with hoga/hoonga) is in the verb while in English there's only number in the verb, but it really just depends on the sentence. He gave examples to explain stuff in the West and was a little more organized with the 3 sections of the video in the other one, and here he kinda meshed them all together since he's doing a second lecture and has practice. Sorry for getting triggered lol but I think English being "concise" is just a colonizer talking point. That said, the vocabulary to discuss identity politics in academia is richer in English so if that's what you really mean I gotchu.

0:03 Lahore University of Management Sciences University*

Greetings from Nepal Dr Taimur. Could you please talk about Stalin and why communists detest him. Cheers

@ajmaeenmahtab8456

4 жыл бұрын

Communists don't detest him, only Trotskyts and Euro Marxists detest him.

I disagree with the assumption that people can add "any binary they want" in identity politics and it would be accepted, to use your example of adding greying hair, that WOULD be met with objection in reasoned debate, because these intersecting binaries of privileged/underprivileged identities are usually formed with _reasons_, and if you try to introduce the idea that having gray hair is underprivileged, you will be under a lot of pressure to explain and prove that in mainstream political discussion, (I'm speaking from my own experience with discourse, I don't know if this rings true the same in academic circles) graying hair is not met with state-sanctioned discrimination that seeps into social bigotry, but visibly different race/gender/religion (etc.) is. the question of poverty is NOT "just as important" as being attractive, and nobody argues this, what identity politics DOES argue is that in-group empathy bias exists based on your skin color or religious/sexual/gender expression, and that it's still important and crucial to understand their unique distinctions, this understanding of each other does not weaken class struggle but strengthens it. I can't say politicians don't use this to distract from their economic policies (we should always confront our politicians critically) but it's no reason to undermine identity politics as an idea, it's just a reason to remain critical of politicians and corporate agendas. I think these fractured, issue-based/identity-based social movements should still be empowered under socialism, the identity-based approach helps emphasize that racism/homophobia/antisemitism face oppression uniquely in ways that intersect, and it would be tone deaf to treat them as mere subsets of class oppression, the George Floyd protests, for example, are not a leftist, communist movement, they are a black movement, it may _intersect_ with class politics, (and we should make the case for that!) but we owe it to the black community to emphasize that it is _black_, this is just one example of why I think these fractures and distinctions are important, we owe these identities these fractures, not because "beauty is just as important as poverty", but because oppression is as diverse and intersecting as its people.

@josephwritessongs

2 жыл бұрын

I agree and disagree - I think you're right that ideally this is how a form of identity politics should be used; recognising unique struggles of sub-groups within the working class in order to strengthen collective struggle. But it's undeniable it's very often deployed in much more destructive ways - just think how often 'class reductionist' gets thrown around to silence people arguing for the primacy of class

How can Identity politics be based on raw binaries of identity and also be anti-essentialist at the same time? I believe this is where the two things get confused. Identity politics needs essentialism or else it would not operate. For eg. a white supremacist or hindu supremacist identity politics definitely needs to be convinced of the essence of their own identity in contrast with "the other" identity. An argument for Anti essentialism will basically contradict the main force behind identity politics in the first place. This is where we need to distinguish between Identity politics and postmodernism. Both are not the same though both are often confused with each other. Postmodernism relies on anti essentialist argument; its sole purpose is to deconstruct modernity's essentialism and rationalism. Postmodernism challenges and deconstructs any kind of binary identities while identity politics requires binary identities.

Most classical music was composed by men. Is it still not music? Does it not appeal to all genders, races etc? Am I to infer that because a significant amount of science regarding the differences between male and female was done by men, that therefore it is invalid? There are measurable differences, and they are easy to repeat in even in disparate societies. Why is this being _cancelled_?

@justinwatson1510

Жыл бұрын

The science isn't *necessarily* invalid, but it is biased. That's how homosexuality was treated like a mental illness until the late 1970s or early 1980s. An example that is even worse is "Drapetomania," or the "mental illness" that caused enslaved Africans to try to escape their bondage. Not everything is cancel culture, and just because a white guy calls himself rational doesn't mean that he is.

xx

Interesting but a bit long-winded. I would consider the video by the Finnish Bolshevik entitled, My Thoughts on Identity Politics, easier to grasp. Check it out to see what you think.

19:40 Clouscard found the answer : (god's voice) DIALECTICAL INTERSUBJECTIVITY. It was simple if you think about it.

A brilliant point made by Jordan Peterson about intersectionality - once you intersect enough different identity axies, you basically divide the whole humanity into individuals, each representative only of themselves, thus returning in a roundabout way to classical liberalism.

@nicanornunez9787

4 жыл бұрын

But intersectionality goes in the opposite direction it begun as a way to differentiate the circumstances of black feminism, and the class is very important as the video says... it is about how a human can be two groups or more at the same time. Classical liberalism is about property rights, freedom of expression, press freedom to hold meetings, or constitutional rights and to have a constitution, a parliamentary system, but all that in the context of modernist view, that believed in science as a way of the progress of humanity, is pure positivism, with a project of modernity generally industrialization, but identity politics is pure postmodernism and that is why do not believe in the science in a traditional way, looks like does not have a project, and is more interested in representation.

@GayTier1Operator

4 жыл бұрын

jordan peterson is a hack though

@MrSnippety

4 жыл бұрын

Point taken but Jordan Peterson is very a very dodgy character. Have a listen to Taimur Rahman's video addressing Peterson's "takedown" of Marxism

@spectralisation

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah JP usually loses the plot when venturing into politics or political philosophy, and obviously hasn't read much of Marx, however that's irrelevant to the actual argument made (which is obviously a valid and strong one). Another part of his argument against intersectionality was (if I recall correctly) that for most people, you can find some identity axis in which they are the "privileged" or "oppressors". For example you can be a gay black woman (considered "oppressed" in three different identities), but still be "privileged" and "oppressor" in terms of being an american (enjoying the living standards brought about as a result of american imperialism). Which gives birth to the so-called oppression olympics, currently most evident in the LGBT circles (Trans vs. Terfs for example).

@GayTier1Operator

4 жыл бұрын

Marius Paulikas so his strong point is that there are always degrees of privilege? the whole point of intersectional politics is to find those degrees and bring people together along all those “axes”, though? so it’s not much of a strong criticism of intersectional politics at all. what JP is noticing is perhaps that in some circles (especially the gender and race ones) that people do try to leverage their oppressed status in favor of their argument which is a fallacy. but marx notes that fallacy in 1849 when he said “the revolution cannot have blind faith in the virtuousness of the proletariat”. so again, peterson is a hack who sells dressed up conservatism in a neitzchean way without all the swagger and intellect of neitzche. what you’re talking about is essentially “slave morality” which is a permanent, a priori state of victimhood (ontological victimhood), but slave morality is a nazi talking point about how jews created or influenced christianity which gave rise to the idea that the poor shall inherit the earth, the sick and poor are strong, tend to the sick and the tired, etc etc. so again, peterson is a wannabe nietzche accidental neo nazi grifter

Lal salam NSF

Can't understand a thing. Where do I start from to get a good grasp of politics and its workings? I know nothing & my English is broken! I am just another Pakistani, who doesn't understand the basics and is sick and tired of being fooled by powerful actors manipulating our emotions. There is no place to "learn" politics in Urdu/Hindi. And not everyone in Pakistan can afford to study in LUMS. Teach us!

@darthrevan3342

4 жыл бұрын

Well there is a book that work for everybody in the world, Le ocntrat sociald e Rousseau, if you can understand it.... Of find an urdu translation.... That is a good solid basis.

@kukushka3666

4 жыл бұрын

Taimur sir ne ik video urdu mei vi bana rakhi hai, use dekh lein

It must be so very difficult to dedicate so must energy to such a lost cause. Socialism, Communism, Post Modernism, Marxism, under any objective measure, have all failed humanity - in all too many instances with disastrous consequences. I note the picture of Mao on the bookshelf. 60 million plus Chinese murdered under his reign and 800 million oppressed. Under Mao, he was the ' in group' the other 800 million Chinese where in the 'out group'. Give me the failings of capitalism any day, over the 'successes' of Socialism, Communism or Marxism. Identity politics is what we get when the left refuses to accept the unequivocal failure of Marxism and plough on regardless - more concocted nonsense that will cause even more grief for humanity.

@zachariahwade8482

4 жыл бұрын

Thomas Morgan You explained Mao’s murderous authoritarianism and then blame it all on socialism/communism/Marxism. As if there’s an instruction in these ideologies to murder en mass. It’s a simplistic, ideological driven way of viewing complex history.

@Taimur_Laal

4 жыл бұрын

Thomas Morgan all this data is total rubbish. Have you seen how it is put together?

@GayTier1Operator

4 жыл бұрын

this is a really ideological way to view the history of communism in china. your opinion is presupposed by your data gathering, not to mention that the data itself is shaky.

@Taimur_Laal

4 жыл бұрын

@@GayTier1Operator No. That is not it. The data is put together by aggregate population statistics. And 1962 agricultural difficulties because of floods are also put into the category of death by Mao. It is an absurd way. Here is an article that debunks that whole exercise. monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/