Class analysis...

[BertrandRussell]

Why do people find it so difficult? Am I being too simplistic and missing something?
White people as a class have more power than black people as a class.. Men as a class are more violent than women as a class. Is there anything controversial there?

What worries me about class analysis of the male violence problem is that it may act as a distraction from the fact that a lot of the worst male violence is perpetrated by men with clear, diagnosable personality disorders, who are then let out of prison to commit more violence.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22984858

Men from the S+V [sex offense plus violence offense] group committed significantly more acts of rape and sexual coercion than the mere sexual offenders. Furthermore, S+V offenders showed the highest rates of PDs [personality disorders] overall (68.3%), with every second offender being diagnosed with an antisocial PD and every third offender with a borderline PD. In summary, the results suggest that S+V offenders form a group of individuals with remarkable differences regarding PD profiles, the relatively highest frequencies of conduct disorders, familial addictive problems, and PDs overall.

It seems to me that it would be beneficial to promote knowledge about anti-social personality disorders among parole boards, for example, with a view to them being less willing to let these men out. It would also be a good idea to educate women and girls about anti-social personality disorder, the fact that these men can often appear charming and plausible, and that most of them seem to be essentially unreformable. There are still people on the left who deny that PDs exist (the scholars who pursued research into sociopathy in the 1970s were treated like lepers, and it is only as the evidence has piled up that popular and academic opinion has shifted).

I''m not saying that broader attitudes toward VAW don't still need further change, but if we really want to eliminate, or seriousl y reduce VAW, we should be thinking about the issues around these personality disordered individuals as well.

"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?"
If he or she commits a crime then yes, in law you are.

You’re completely missing the point

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.

It’s also not what class analysis IS or what anyone here is saying.

Acknowledging that men as a class are more violent (and they are, 98% of all violent crime is committed by men) is not the same as pointing the finger at YOU. No one cares about YOU. YOU are not the issue (unless in the trump type world where everything is about the individual.) you as an individual are irrelevant to the debate, just as one white personal me is irrelevant to the debate on racism. The CLASS of white people is relevant. The CLASS of men is relevant.

You know if you work with complex systems and you need to troubleshoot, and you do root cause analysis? And there’s always some idiot company that uses the process not to identify analyse and fix but as a witch hunt to find someone to blame? It’s like that. You’re centering yourself where you’re irrelevant. The process is the thing that matters, looking into our complex system, what really caused what went wrong and how can we fix it?

Companies that witch hunt tend to fail. Ones that use the process properly in a blame free way tend to prosper.

Bertrand is arguing that if you accept the existence of racism, sexism, classism etc (which are only understood because of analysis of the class based dynamics of oppression/discrimination - class analysis) then it follows that you have a responsibility to act when you see it going on because ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Also that re sexism and particularly male violence it is not really credible to claim that there are men who have never seen it (objectively), that actually not having seen it is because of subjective understanding and people just haven’t recognised it when it happens (‘just kidding’ ‘banter’).

I think Bertrand is saying that not actually doing it (or believing you don’t) is not enough once it has been articulated as a class issue. That it is necessary for it to be recognised and for individuals to be involved in social sanctions.

I think that’s more accurately an expression of the utility of class analysis, I’m not entirely sure whether she was arguing it is class analysis or whether she was just answering the repeated ‘it’s not a good tool’.

Obviously depending on where you personally fall in terms of the scale of collectivism to individualism in terms of ideology you will have different feelings re the extent of your own personal responsibility.

I think it is pretty clear however that every single poster finds class analysis a useful tool in that many of those being negative have posted articles about the material conditions of working class kids or said racism is wrong...

I would argue it is essential in the process because without it class based oppression/discrimination like racism cannot be seen to exist can it?

Agreed but it’s not very good at changing heart and minds. In all seriousness imagine the “I Have a Dream Speech” but the title is actually “I Have a Class Based Analysis”

You know if you work with complex systems and you need to troubleshoot, and you do root cause analysis? And there’s always some idiot company that uses the process not to identify analyse and fix but as a witch hunt to find someone to blame? It’s like that.

It is exactly like that! And it's why intersectionality proper is about systems and institutions, not the number of pomo oppression points a particular individual can accumulate.

In Crenshaw's classic example, American politicians went around congratulating themselves that they had fixed employment discrimination by legislating against on both terms of race and sex. But because the legislation was separate, it had a blind spot to the reality that the there was an intersection between race and sex in the Venn diagram of employment discrimination which meant that it did not cover black women. Intersectionality proper requires class analysis to find the blind spots.

I ask again; why have you decided that the purpose of class analysis is ‘to change hearts and minds’?

You don’t even really think class analysis hasn’t ‘changed hearts and minds’ do you?

The reason people think racism etc ‘is wrong’ is because class analysis has articulated it as a class issue rather than an individual behaviour.

Now the vast majority of people believe racism is wrong because they understand things like ‘it is prejudice against a whole group of people’ even when it is one person saying one thing to one other person.

What you are actually saying is people who are individualistic don’t see the importance of collective responsibility (simplistic as it’s usually a scale). That’s not a problem of class analysis because even those people now believe that e.g. racism ‘is wrong’ they simply apply that understanding to themselves in a more abstract manner than people who lean more to collectivism.

Here’s an example from the uk news recently. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-gagged-taped-chair-marine-scotland-government-sexism-racism-deeann-fitzpatrick-scrabster-a8366586.html%3famp

A woman was taped to a chair and her mouth sealed with tape (which is actualy very dangerous) by male colleagues because she’d spoken out against misogyny at work.

Now, in any sane organisation, the response would be a hurried HR meeting along the lines of ‘oh my god this is absolutely dreadful, damage limitation mode, haul those responsible over hot coals and fire them as soon as is legal’

Did that happen? No it did not. Her boss dismissed it. The reaction was boys will be boys

So the power structure (and this is a government agency and there’s a photo of her bound and gagged ffs) has said ‘yeah this is just what men do, it’s banter.’ And the men themselves have said ‘this is what happens when you mess with the lads.’

The boss is complicit. The attitude isvthat Male violence is just something that happens and hey boys will be boys.

It’s not OK is it?

I ask again; why have you decided that the purpose of class analysis is ‘to change hearts and minds

I didn’t say that I actually said class analysis is not very good at changing people hearts and minds.

Like trying to use a hammer to saw wood. Very useful tool a hammer, but it’s shit at sawing wood.

Seriously do you think “I Have a Class Based Anaylsis” works as well as “I have A Dream” Now class based analysis would have been useful to formulate the ideas and understand the unfairness of inequality that speech communicated. But explaining the methodology to a huge audience does not make for a gripping speech.

Its not very good at knitting either

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

That’s the point that has been grumbling on for pages...

Why do you think class analysis is a type of argument? How and why would anyone think that getting on a mic and performing a class analysis was interchangeable with making a speech?

"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?"

If he or she commits a crime then yes, in law you are.

I'd love to see a citation for that law, because that sounds downright unbelievable.

I think Bertrand is saying that not actually doing it (or believing you don’t) is not enough once it has been articulated as a class issue. That it is necessary for it to be recognised and for individuals to be involved in social sanctions.

Does this apply to individual law-abiding Latinos who have no connection to MS-13 other than their national or ethnic background?

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??

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.

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!

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.

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

I’m not a lawyer, and I could be wrong. But I thought seeing a crime being committed and not doing anything about it was an offence?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

“But when you take the further step of saying that law-abiding men are responsible for their criminal fellows”

So do you not believe in society, a la Thatcher?

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