I think that some of the flaws you (correctly) attribute to identity politics, are also as bad or worse with "build shit" politics. Anything that isn't just one individual building shit by themselves is going to end up with most of the important decisions being made by people with free time, education, the ability to navigate bureaucratic systems and talk like an upper-middle-class person, etc..
None of which is to say I disagree with you that there are big benefits to build shit politics! But the way your post is set up, it gives the impression that these problems are reasons that identity politics is worse than build shit politics, when they're probably the same. (Or even worse, since in build shit politics, there might not be any impetus to try and make sure everyone in the room gets to speak.)
How does build shit politics lead to people asking what determined who gets to be in the room deciding which shit to build?
"[...] if we got our way, could we see the effects of that with our own two eyes? I can see hungry Black kids getting food. I can’t see white liberals “holding space” for Black people. We must return to the real. It’s past time."
This all makes sense and needs to be said, but I think you (and the book, I assume?) are underestimating the very important degree to which the building-shit side is at a disadvantage because people very deeply disagree on what shit they want to be building even when they agree about what they want to fight against. An obligatory case in point is that I approve of most of your and Táíwò's proposals *except* for the "one billion Americans"/extreme-YIMBY stuff which, although I recognise it as well-intentioned, I find about as existentially terrifying as factory farming.
(If you're curious: I believe big cities are a debasement of humanity to a degree that people who've never lived in a house of their own with a garden can't really grok. Placing a target on world or national population that makes it objectively impossible for every person or household to have their own home and their own patch of green even with arbitrary wealth strikes me as the repugnant conclusion made manifest. Probably a bounded amount of YIMBYism in the present is the only way to solve the even worse evil of homelessness, but we shouldn't forget that a situation where most humans have no choice but to live in urban apartments is a massively suboptimal thing.)
I say this not to derail the conversation to be about population size and YIMBYism in themselves, but to illustrate the degree to which it's very easy for Person A who agrees with Person B *nearly* all the way to nod at everything Person B says regarding what we want less of (in this case, ironically, deference politics themselves), but suddenly be at each other's throats when we start talking about what positive goals we're aiming towards.
Can we add an addendum of “if you see someone building shit, either lead (go build your own thing), follow (join them & take direction), or get out of the way?”
If I were to start building something, I’d immediately be busier fending off the Deferers (I have the unfortunate luck in this context of being white, cis, male, able-bodied, non-economically-challenged, etc) than building, especially if I tried to involve other people (“organize”).
I am not speculating. I’ve seen this happen repeatedly in activist spaces (at least, post-November 2016).
Like all systems, one can’t simply decide to no longer exist within that system. In activist spaces (particularly in Blue cities/states, where I am), the activist systems are Deference-based, not Building-based.
I’m not saying this is a reason not to Build. Just that a Builder should be prepared to have their efforts actively torn down (and not just from ‘outside the house’), and strategize accordingly.
I can't tell in some cases how you are classifying things as 'building shit' or not. E.g. while I agree with you that GiveDirectly is a better use of funds than creating yet another org to run anti-bigotry trainings, the latter sure sounds more like 'building' something than the former.
I think that some of the flaws you (correctly) attribute to identity politics, are also as bad or worse with "build shit" politics. Anything that isn't just one individual building shit by themselves is going to end up with most of the important decisions being made by people with free time, education, the ability to navigate bureaucratic systems and talk like an upper-middle-class person, etc..
None of which is to say I disagree with you that there are big benefits to build shit politics! But the way your post is set up, it gives the impression that these problems are reasons that identity politics is worse than build shit politics, when they're probably the same. (Or even worse, since in build shit politics, there might not be any impetus to try and make sure everyone in the room gets to speak.)
How does build shit politics lead to people asking what determined who gets to be in the room deciding which shit to build?
> I am can talk like an upper-middle-class person
I don't know whether this was intentional, but if not, typo. :)
This reminded me of Freddie deBoer's writing on what kind of political movement he'd like to see - particularly the first part on *materialist* leftism (https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-want-a-political-movement-thats):
"[...] if we got our way, could we see the effects of that with our own two eyes? I can see hungry Black kids getting food. I can’t see white liberals “holding space” for Black people. We must return to the real. It’s past time."
This all makes sense and needs to be said, but I think you (and the book, I assume?) are underestimating the very important degree to which the building-shit side is at a disadvantage because people very deeply disagree on what shit they want to be building even when they agree about what they want to fight against. An obligatory case in point is that I approve of most of your and Táíwò's proposals *except* for the "one billion Americans"/extreme-YIMBY stuff which, although I recognise it as well-intentioned, I find about as existentially terrifying as factory farming.
(If you're curious: I believe big cities are a debasement of humanity to a degree that people who've never lived in a house of their own with a garden can't really grok. Placing a target on world or national population that makes it objectively impossible for every person or household to have their own home and their own patch of green even with arbitrary wealth strikes me as the repugnant conclusion made manifest. Probably a bounded amount of YIMBYism in the present is the only way to solve the even worse evil of homelessness, but we shouldn't forget that a situation where most humans have no choice but to live in urban apartments is a massively suboptimal thing.)
I say this not to derail the conversation to be about population size and YIMBYism in themselves, but to illustrate the degree to which it's very easy for Person A who agrees with Person B *nearly* all the way to nod at everything Person B says regarding what we want less of (in this case, ironically, deference politics themselves), but suddenly be at each other's throats when we start talking about what positive goals we're aiming towards.
I agree with basically all of this. May we all have the fortitude to build shit.
Can we add an addendum of “if you see someone building shit, either lead (go build your own thing), follow (join them & take direction), or get out of the way?”
If I were to start building something, I’d immediately be busier fending off the Deferers (I have the unfortunate luck in this context of being white, cis, male, able-bodied, non-economically-challenged, etc) than building, especially if I tried to involve other people (“organize”).
I am not speculating. I’ve seen this happen repeatedly in activist spaces (at least, post-November 2016).
Like all systems, one can’t simply decide to no longer exist within that system. In activist spaces (particularly in Blue cities/states, where I am), the activist systems are Deference-based, not Building-based.
I’m not saying this is a reason not to Build. Just that a Builder should be prepared to have their efforts actively torn down (and not just from ‘outside the house’), and strategize accordingly.
I can't tell in some cases how you are classifying things as 'building shit' or not. E.g. while I agree with you that GiveDirectly is a better use of funds than creating yet another org to run anti-bigotry trainings, the latter sure sounds more like 'building' something than the former.