Class analysis...

Just saying ‘racism is wrong’ inherently involves acceptance of the validity of the class analysis AND that something should be done about it

So when my 4 year old said “thats wrong mummy” when we talked about someone being mean to his friend, because is skin is a different colour? That was my son conducting class analysis. I always said that kid was a genius.

Because unless you are happy with the power that comes from being in the privileged class (and yes nobody is just one class) or you are individualistic and therefore are opposed to collectivism ideologically or you think it’s a nice idea in theory but you don’t actually identify many of the things as part of your life, having accepted that discrimination/oppression is class based when you say something like ‘racism is wrong’, you will naturally be motivated to change your behaviour.

Definitely opposed to collectivism ideologically - you won't catch me down the tractor farm any time soon. I think you probably put your finger on one of the main reasons why many people, including me, instinctively recoil from this form of analysis. Well, apart from my belief that using class-analysis to perpetrate discrimination is both hypocritical and counter-productive, since it invalidates the moral basis for criticizing discrimination as wrong in principle.

Different people have different feelings about how their behaviour should change.

Because unless you are happy with the power that comes from being in the privileged class (and yes nobody is just one class) or you are individualistic and therefore are opposed to collectivism ideologically or you think it’s a nice idea in theory but you don’t actually identify many of the things as part of your life, having accepted that discrimination/oppression is class based when you say something like ‘racism is wrong’, you will naturally be motivated to change your behaviour.

Just saying ‘racism is wrong’ inherently involves acceptance of the validity of the class analysis AND that something should be done about it.

I'm tempted to get all Bayesian on this one. So, the probability that a rapist or sexual offender is male is quite ridiculously high. We know the difference though between conditional probabilities that go one way as opposed to the other (thankyou Revd Bayes). So we do know the difference between the probability that a rapist is male, and the probability that a man is a rapist. Two different conditional probabilities. But those who get all NAMALT at this are missing the relevant comparison here, in that they are thinking about just the class of men (and possibly themselves as a part of that class). Rather than the class of all adults. So, for a woman or girl walking down the street, and spotting someone walking behind them, it makes perfect sense from a probabilistic point of view to be wary of a man walking behind her, as compared to a woman. Because of the indicators available to her, knowing someone is male increases the risk enormously compared to knowing someone is female. That is the comparison we make all day and almost everyday, and it is statistically valid.
I wish Mumsnet could do LaTeX..............Must be Friday...........

The concept of collective responsibility is not an example of discrimination.

Of course it is. If one single woman makes a false assault accusation, the media will often generalise that to "women [as a class] lie about assault", thus unjustly inflicting responsibility for the crime of an individual upon their class. How is that not a form of discrimination?!

But when you take the further step of saying that law-abiding men are responsible for their criminal fellows, then all you are doing is creating another system of oppression/discrimination based on class, just focussed on different targets.

Your logic is flawed. What is being asked of men is to stand up and by their behaviour, ostracise and condemn those who do wrong - not condone their behaviour as so often happens. There's a lot of deliberate misunderstanding taking place on here. It is not rocket science to most - what is you don't understand about enabling male violence by saying and doing nothing to those who mistreat women and children - whether criminally or not. Is morality and a moral compass not a part of your lives?

Trump is not doing class analysis.
Trump is doing class stereotypes.

There is no data to suggest Mexicans are criminals and rapists, or white anericans are "true americans". So it isnt analysis.

There is however ample evidence that men commit most violence and sexual violence.

Stereotyping vs class analysis

So gross generalisations against huge groups of people are OK as long as there is evidence to support them? That's not the way political discourse has developed over the last few decades, certainly on the left, so it's a novel point of view, at least.

Ok, so although men as a class do most violence AND men as a class have most power, so most ability to change things, men can't be expected to try to change things as its discriminatory to expect them to.
We are fucked then.

Bertrand was saying collective responsibility for tackling class issues naturally flows from class analysis

It’s the collective responsibility bit I’m confused by. Bertrand has talked about “if men (as a class) acted”

I have no idea what this means. Sounds like they have a hive mind, which is clearly not what is meant.

Now someone, or a group of people starting a movement. That taking on momentum and making a difference I can understand.

But this working as a class, I don’t get it.

I know nothing about Latino gangs. But I certainly expect individual Muslims to take a stand against extremism. And individual Catholics to take a stand against child abuse within the church.

It's an interesting point of view, but one I'm frankly surprised to read on here - it brings you into closer contact with the attitudes of Trump, Farage, and Katie Hopkins than you may be comfortable with.

You keep labouring a point that no one has made. You are responsible for your own actions. Your actions including your silence if you had a chance to speak out.

The concept of collective responsibility is not an example of discrimination.

Offred

Discrimination and oppression are analysed via class because the oppression/discrimination is based on class.

That's absolutely right. But when you take the further step of saying that law-abiding men are responsible for their criminal fellows, then all you are doing is creating another system of oppression/discrimination based on class, just focussed on different targets.

To put it plainly, if class-based discrimination is wrong when directed against innocent women it must also be wrong when directed against innocent men. Otherwise there is no answer to the question "Why is racism wrong?", because you've just accepted the principle of class-based discrimination upon which racism and all other bigotry is founded.

I'm wondering how its possible to have a discussion about racism without mentioning class. Isnt class a useful way to defuse that kind of discussion and make it less like a personal attack?

Trump is not doing class analysis.
Trump is doing class stereotypes.

There is no data to suggest Mexicans are criminals and rapists, or white anericans are "true americans". So it isnt analysis.

There is however ample evidence that men commit most violence and sexual violence.

Stereotyping vs class analysis

Picking up on: Explaining why racism is wrong is more useful than pointing out what class you are in....

I wonder if a discussion based on class analysis is needed when people agree that racism is bad but do not believe it exists?

I was thinking about adverts. It is very rare that any advert is banned as sexist, but taking adverts as a group we see the same pattern over and over again. The probability of seeing a half naked young housecleaning woman is much greater than seeing a half naked young housecleaning man. If a man is advertising cleaning products, it's a serious person with a gruff voice. Or maybe I don't watch enough tv.

And when a complete stranger who happens to share my sex, my race, my social class, or my tennis club does something wrong, am I culpable if I do or say nothing?

Yes because not intervening is bystander bullying

Why is racism wrong? How do you explain why racism is wrong?

Bertrand was saying collective responsibility for tackling class issues naturally flows from class analysis.

I agree because virtually everyone is now in agreement that a. Racism exists and b. Racism is wrong, and that is an example of that flow in action.

Discrimination and oppression are analysed via class because the oppression/discrimination is based on class.

At no point does class analysis re privilege/oppression itself say anything about an individual so people who take it in that way are; a. Being wilfully disruptive, b. Individualistic so they prickle at any perceived allusion to collectivism or c. Not understanding what class analysis actually is.

Trumpian dynamics IS the individual. It’s the individual over all else, and fuck everyone else. It’s the type of media coverage that requires no critical thought, no reflection. It’s identity politics writ large.

Class analysis goes beyond that. You’re still stuck on the ideacthat an individual is responsible for the group and internally reacting to that defensively. That’s trumpian.

You seem to be the one who is confused. Trump does indeed employ identity politics, but in a manner that is virtually indistinguishable from your cherished class-analysis. For example:
"Mexicans [as a class] are criminals and rapists. Therefore we must keep them out of the country"
"White people [as a class] are hard-working, real Americans. They should vote for me because I will defend their interests against those of other, less-deserving [as a class] groups".

Trump uses nothing but class analysis centred on identity - the two things you consider opposites are in fact virtually identical!

Yeah, my point was you are misunderstanding what class analysis is. It’s not a way of arguing, it’s a framework for understanding

No I’m agreeing with you. Class anaylsis is absolutely not a way of arguement.

My issue was that Bertrand seems to think that getting everyone to see which class they fit into will somehow movitate them to improve the world.

I also find the fact that many men won't accept that "as a class men are more violent than women as a class" (AACMAMVTWAAC) Incredibly frustrating because it means they can wash their hands and carry on, rather than doing what they can to change it. Men have the power to make society so much better yet they (as a class) choose not to

As I’ve already said I am part of the class that worsens racism. This motivates not one bit to try and eradicate racism. Explaining why racism is wrong is the way - not pointing out which class you are in.

What is your point?

Are you again reading that to mean that what is being suggested is perpetual hair shirts and endless apologies for ever and ever until the end of time??