What are the historical causes for the rise of 'Identity Politics'?

Biological reality

So politicians can pit others against each other instead of noticing the real threat.

The inherent tribalism every human possesses.

Whites becoming a minority in the USA, and half the whites turning liberal.

Democracy and cultural marxism.

Too much free time.

Women with dicks entering into ladies rooms.

all politics is identity politics

Controversial personal opinion:

1. A break in the left between the hard/old left which were straight socialist and a more light cultural left who were progressive reformists. The former argued for action via the standbys of unionism, radical socialist parties and activism but suffered from association with the USSR and extreme goals. The latter argued for liberation by focusing on cultural issues like the civil rights movement, getting women in to the workplace/feminism, and later homosexual rights but suffered from a lack of economic criticism and ideological coherency. This happened in the USA in the 60s, I think.

At first the culturalists seemed to make the better deal because they had actual physical and profound victories like the civil rights movement instead of constantly mumbling about the "revolution" that never comes but will totally fix all ills and definitely not turn into an ironic dictatorship, but the problem is Marx has so profoundly shaped economic criticism of the current domineering status quo for the left that they just ceded the entire issue of economics to socialists and right wing neoliberals almost totally.

So their freedom from USSR drudgery became a cage where they could only talk about profound social issues that need improvement from the lens of oppressed minority groups. A positive feedback loop which created an increasingly extreme and totalitarian cultural critique movement that turned into the identitarians we know today.

2. the initial victory has started to tarnish. This is the elephant in the room no one dares speak of. Much of the hysterics of identity politics is an attempt to cover up or explain things like black failure and the undelivered promises that were supposed to come from the great progressive victories.

The civil rights movement was supposed to push black americans into the middle class. Decolonization was supposed to end horror in Africa and set the continent on the path to a bright future of development. Feminism was supposed to make women happier and feel less oppressed. Gay rights was supposed to be a suitable replacement for economic justice. How has this worked out?

Liberalism has not psychologically come to terms with that answer. So it is doubling or tripling down. They can't explain things like lagging black school development except to say that it's racism's fault. The boss defeated by the civil rights movement is back, meaner and more pervasive than ever. They can't offer minorities that are still suffering after progressive cultural liberation economic justice so instead they sell white resentment dressed up as an anti-bigotry narrative to give excuses and false hope. This is what we call identity politics.

They can't turn back to the socialist narrative because they've sold their soul for the "third way". All they can do is blame "bad" culture and talk about identity harder.

Nietzschean resentment caused by the death of religion

Postmodernism / left continentals.

You got any good stories to share what kind of shit they talked about with you?

Unironically Jews

In America, when the Democrats realized that appealing to women and minorities could negate the need to appeal to white men, who could be used as tax farms for the afore mentioned parties.

In some ways, “the Jews” is like God. It is a supposed explanation for everything so complicated that you don’t yet understand it. Just like how ancient people asked “why does exist” and answer “God did it”, /pol/ will ask “why does exist” and answer “the Jews did it”. It is an ever-narrowing void of knowledge. Equivalent to faith, or any other religion, it is a way to take pride in your ignorance.

It's illegal to tax farm in the US, too much opportunity for conflict of interest.

Nothing is illegal for the affluent in the United States.

Didn't that line of thought led to the result of the latest election though?

This is the most accurate answer

Marxism

Individualism and Liberty are not attractive to people who want things from other people so instead they flock to Collectivism. Read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Very insightful. Thank you.

Well, that's basically what the 2016 election was. The Democratic party didn't even attempt to bridge the gap between them and the White Working Class, banking instead on the high level of Minorities in the Big Cities to flip States blue.

Turns out it didn't work. It was not a good campaign for them.

Rumor says that Bill warned Hillary about it and she failed to do anything, losing WI due to her hubris, even.

>The civil rights movement was supposed to push black americans into the middle class.
No it didn't, it was supposed to allow for that possibility, actualizing it is a whole other deal that takes a long amount of time.

>Decolonization was supposed to end horror in Africa and set the continent on the path to a bright future of development
It's on that trajectory now

>Feminism was supposed to make women happier and feel less oppressed
Wasn't about happiness it was about implicit oppression, which has definitely lessened since the 2nd wave.

>Gay rights was supposed to be a suitable replacement for economic justice
It was about being treated with a modicum of respect, economic factors were secondary

>How has this worked out?
Relatively well, compared to how it was before. These things actually had positive effects on the lives of those groups even if the movement does have some issues

Let me give a rebuttal to the term "Identity politics"--coming from a guy who believed in it for years starting around during the 2012 election on /pol/ and pushed the term around on this site for years since then:

Identity politics is in general is redundant term to use, as everyone follows their own interests, whether it's for helping others or for their own personal gain. BLM, feminism, LGBTBBQ and so on are just ones emerging from changing social standards and norms that make them more popular for discussion. The concept of them isn't new. They got to be popular and mainstream from changing moral conventions in society--whether they're good or well aimed or not is for another debate. So to say "identity" as a separate attribute to politics, and a unique modern phenomenon, would be wrong, because the essence of politics comes down to some sort of particular identity.

But why did those particular movements gain contraction and seem so unique and unconventional? I can't explain it other than it being from the proletariat becoming more literate and having more leisure time to have them further strengthen their own ideologies. It's Nietzschean ressentiment. The masses are no longer peasant laborers tending the fields with minimum communication to the outside world and a narrow world view--they're a little bit more educated, and from that, they're toying with new ideologies to fill their voids and dictate their lives And from that, it's only going to get more eccentric and weirder in the near-future.

It isn't the jews or marxists--if it was, they wouldn't even be able to control or maintain it. The term was just coined by reactionaries like me to refer to the changing political world even though in retrospect it ain't unique.

'Identity politics' is result of conservatives failure to adhere to the ideal of individual liberty and the notion that no form of polity can impose its will on the individual when the individual ins't imposing its will directly on anyone else. After Goldwater, the last true libertarian conservative to be anything more than a congressman, American Libertarianism and the notion of limited government transformed into the notion of a limited federal government in favor of a US state's right to trample on the individual as its people see fit. In essence, modern libertarian conservatives are for breaking up one big mob into dozens of smaller mobs. They have no principle to demand once and for all that the U.S. constitution be a lightning bolt against those who would democratically impose against individuals who happen to be part of a minority, whether those individuals be part of a subset of Christianity, Judaism, are black, white, gay, etc.

This is why liberals are so attracted to libertarianism, because in its true form there can be no sacrifice of the individual to the mob. It is no coincidence that people like Ron Paul gained so much traction with them, especially millineals, who try to be highly individualistic but accepting and define themselves in contrast to one another.

Freud or more specifically his cousin Edward Bernays

I don't know what you're talking about but the practice of assigning persons/land and a quota to a tax collector which operates independent from any government oversight has never been in the US.

According to the Unabomber, industrialization necessitates first world problems such as identity politics by atomizing the whole system.

Unabomber was a paleoconservative.

>>Decolonization was supposed to end horror in Africa and set the continent on the path to a bright future of development
>It's on that trajectory now
Not with Trump giving SEA and Africa to China and ME to Russia on a silver platter.

I don't think he'll consciously give SEA and Africa to China. The blowhard probably doesn't have the foggiest idea about Chinese influence there, and the neocons in the cabinet are more concerned with rolling back reforms at home.

>I don't think he'll consciously give SEA and Africa to China.
I don't think I implied that.
I don't think he's consciously aware of anything. Which doesn't personally affect him.

Explain please

>“When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of communism; we will not take it under the label socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But, take it we will.”
>Alexander Trachtenberg at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944

what did he mean by this?

gamergate

Narcissism.

This. I have a good laugh about Marxists who act like class politics are not identity politics.

The true horror is that they made the average person averse to these labels, paving the way for a literal corporatocracy.

Let me give you a real answer: the various national-liberation movements of the post war era, and also maoism.
These coincide because maoism was the really trend for the post-war western left, and they were the biggest on nat lib. This lead to the idea of western nat-lib, quebecois sovereignty and black nations on US territory. Folks were gonna be radical one way or another, this was simply what they had to articulate their grievances at the time.
Maoist politics put a lot of importance on who you were in relation to other groups. In Mao's china, you got promotion not just through how well you did, but what class you came frame, whether or not that was peasant or agrarian, and of course whether you were chinese or not. If you weren't well, there's koreans in korea who could sure use some folks for a national liberation struggle.
Within western maoist groups, this generally meant that as discoursed moved to nat lib, preference was given to those who seemed on the receiving end of nat lib. If you were a brown maoist agitating for algeria, you were the big guy.

/thread.

Almost all humans innately given the ability to discern pattern and differences, as well as classify those differences vs what you already know.

>What are the historical causes for the rise of 'Identity Politics'?
Worldwide? Tough to say. But I can at least give a decent explanation for identity politics in America.
>Civil war gave rise to a division between southerners and northerners that would basically never go away. The Democrats cling to their voting base in the South by doubling down on racial tension.
>The KKK forms as an extremist Democratic wing, enforcing party allegiance through violence in the South. Republicans continue to grow throughout the country, hitting their peak in the early 1900s. Democrats hit their all-time low in support.
>The Republican Party's betrayal of Teddy Roosevelt would mark their first shift towards support of big business. It would also be the first big blow to Republican dominance in American politics, as Teddy was beloved by the people. This disenfranchises a number of Republicans, who find themselves without party loyalty for the first time.
>Great Depression marks a second major blow to Republicans and Americans blame Hoover and his support for corporate enterprise. Party loyalty erodes on both sides thanks to economy, but hardest for Republicans.
>FDR's New Deal coaxes the Republican Party to start using the left/right terminology of European politics to slow the Democrat's momentum. They try to associate Democrats with the "left" of European socialism and communism. It backfires and the Democrats see the first surge to the forefront as a party of the people.
>The Civil Rights movement, starting in the late 40s, created a light fissure between conservatives and blacks.
>Nixon's support of segregation causes racist extremists in the south to shift to the right. This nearly causes a resurgence in Republican popularity, but is countered when JFK shows support for Civil Rights. Lyndon's signing of the CRA successfully rebuffs Republican growth.

to be continued....

>McCarthyism sets the new Republican standard for countering leftist politics. While public support would start waning after JFK's assassination, Republican adherence to the philosophy continues even today.
>John Money invents the "gender role" while torturing a mutilated boy in an attempt to convert him mentally into a woman. His attempt fails, but the "science" behind his theory would see a resurgence in the new millennium.
>Rise of 2nd wave feminism in the 60s brings women to the forefront of politics. Much of modern feminism's terminology and hostility to "patriarchy" spawns here. Democrats begin supporting their movement, continuing their post-40s strategy of supporting all civil rights movements.
>Black civil rights protests evolve from civil to violent as groups like the Black Panthers rise. These groups also start buying into far-left politics. Nixon's attempt to use cointel against them only fans the fires as he also continues to fight the anti-war protests. His resignation only leaves things in bad shape for conservatives.
>The Christian Right is born from a combination of secular blowback to cold war institutionalization of religion and the sexual revolution. Republicans earn their support through emphasizing traditional values and support for anti-abortion measures. The final nail in the proverbial coffin are the Bob Jones University trials, which put devout Christianity square in Republican pockets for at least three decades.
>Reagan changes the game, and garners support across the aisle through his populist rhetoric and centrist social views. Reaganomics would give birth to Third Way Economics... a new strategy for conservative Democrats to rein in the growth of far-left politics. Clinton becomes the first flagbearer for 3WP, and it would mark a major shift to center for Democrats. They reach their all-time peak in popularity.

one more part....

>A combination of a controversial election win and the events of 9/11 give rise to adversarial journalism in America, marking the media's first major shift to the left. Fox News capitalizes on the gap by shifting right. Talk radio follows Fox's lead in order to bring listeners away from the TV. NPR shifts left to counter them.
>The 2000 Election entices Bush to investigate voter fraud in a failed attempt to prove that he was more supported than people thought. It backfires, and America sees just how little fraud actually occurs. This causes the left to paint Republican aggression against voter fraud as implicit racism.
>Divisive policies and events occurring during both the Bush and Obama administrations further the left/right divide... the PATRIOT Act, Iraq War, Dot-com bubble burst, Housing market crash, and more. The media portraying minorities as the biggest victims of these things helps to widen the social gap. This becomes only worse as they focus on police violence on blacks, rather than population-wide police violence.
>The gay revolution finally takes hold in the mid to late aughts. John Money's gender role hogwash sees a return to the light. Republican pushback against gay marriage only fans the flames (pun not intended).
>The Alt-right forms as a pushback to society's rapid shift to the left over the last few decades, out of the ashes of the Tea Party. They combine fiscal conservatism with a new outlook on classical right race politics. Liberals paint it as neo-fascism. They would finally rise to prominence with the coming of Trump.

I think that brings us to the modern day, for the most part.

Just one error
>fox shifts to the right
Fox was formed explicitly as a right wing journalism station, though it saw enormous support from the get-go, because it was formed in the early 90's and by 2000 had de facto right wing influence.

The Internet was conceived and created by white men. Stop appropriating our technology nigger.

>Fox was formed explicitly as a right wing journalism station
You know, I will revise my statement. Adversarial journalism really started with Fox News in the 90s. They were created in response to the perception that the media wasn't harsh enough with Clinton. After Bush's election, the rest of the media began to use Fox News' adversarial journalism against Bush, effectively shifting them left.

So you're right. Fox News was the flag bearer for divisive news. To be fair, they were also the first news outlet to stop being a nonstop propaganda machine for the state, and instead became a propaganda machine for partisan politics (the other outlets followed suit later).

>No it didn't, it was supposed to allow for that possibility, actualizing it is a whole other deal that takes a long amount of time.
There has been absolutely no progress what so ever in the last 30 years and blacks have become a gigantic issue to american society.
You have ridiculous rates of crime, so little employment that you have to use ''affirmative action'' to shoehorn a few token negroes into positions of power and a culture that actively promotes antisocial behaviour.
And instead of addressing any of those issues, you expect white people to pretend everything is fine and ''check their privilege'' while you run society to the ground with your marxist bullshit.

>It's on that trajectory now
Last time I checked it was on the trajectory of being colonized by china and had absolutely no industry of it's own because the west gives them everything they need.

>Wasn't about happiness it was about implicit oppression, which has definitely lessened since the 2nd wave.
You forgot the part where new wave feminists destroyed most of the progress made and brought gender relations to a new low.

>It was about being treated with a modicum of respect, economic factors were secondary
Gays are maybe the only group that has made any progress recently, but the gay community is still collapsing because of their unwillingness to combat the massive degeneracy that is ''gay culture''

Thanks, based user.