6 ms·

Substantive criticism would be interesting, but you're not really saying anything about what he's saying. You're dismissing it based on who you think is likely

Substantive criticism would be interesting, but you're not really saying anything about what he's saying. You're dismissing it based on who you think is likely to quote it today.

morelisp 5y ago
"Class struggle isn't going to bring anyone into the streets any more" and pointing out the absolute moribund labor party under Corbyn seems to me to be substantive criticism. I also strain to find really substantive criticism in Fisher's original piece. "Russell Brand as popular left vanguard" has not really aged well, he's done the standard turn from proto-dirtbag-left to exactly the kind of media-talking-head-dumbass the leftists Fisher decries predicted he would. I am broadly (but weakly) class-first in my leftism, but the kind of purity Fisher is demanding is bad tactics, but also counter-materialist. Race exists orthogonally to class but still has material implications - which is simply to say, black people still get profiled by cops even if they own a factory. For a good analysis of this, see Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life by Barbara and Karen Fields. Conversely, "the means of production" is not what it used to be - capital operates correlated but not identical to control over information vectors, and owners of those vectors exercise great power over people who can control their own production but not the distribution of it; see McKenzie Wark's Capital is Dead: Is This Something Worse? The left is traditionally focused on class because Marxism, via materialism, made strong arguments this was the lynchpin of inequity. But if you run that same materialist analysis today, the evidence for class's primary, let alone a sui generis status, is the weakest it has ever been.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > which is simply to say, black people still get profiled by cops even if they own a factory. You'd be surprised. While basic prejudice of course exists, much commonplace "profiling" is simply driven by statistical signals that happen to correlate with various sorts of bad behavior. Socially aware minorities who wish to actively mitigate this part of the problem (which is otherwise the hardest to address, for fairly obvious reasons) might want to start dressing up with suit and tie when out in public, and driving cars that are nicely-maintained but not too "blingy". Of course, this goes to show the extent to which police profiling is in fact about broader notions of class and subculture, and not limited to race.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > While basic prejudice of course exists You can stop writing after this, you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality. "Subculture" is also rooted in an ideology not centering class, and as you've used it (and as you ridiculously asserted elsewhere in the comments "the right has always been working to address prejudiced attitudes"), I suspect here it's a dogwhistle.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality. Of course, I could not agree more about that. My point is simply that a class-aware analysis might have plenty to say even about things that are often reduced to matters of "race". > "Subculture" is also rooted in an ideology not centering class Subculture in practice is highly correlated with class. In fact you might even call it a dogwhistle for class itself; though this discounts the extent to which "low-class subculture" may in fact be a fixable problem, in a way that would not increase alienation or marginalization for low-class folks and may well mitigate these things, while driving a renewed "working class cohesion" and perhaps "class conciousness" that should be compelling from even an orthodox Marxist point of view.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      > You can stop writing after this, you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality. It seems like a category mistake to talk about class as "driver" of inequality. Class is a _type_ of material inequality. So it can't "drive" material inequality. Right? What could that even mean? Maybe this is taking "class" to mean something like birth class, like inheritance, or parental status... which then it actually does make sense... but that's not what the word means at all in Marxist terminology. It's not what leftists are saying at all.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  > which is simply to say, black people still get profiled by cops even if they own a factory Certainly a meme I've heard a million times. I think Obama even said it while he was still president. But so what? I don't see what it's supposed to imply. You've got a black guy living in poverty working two part time jobs no benefits, obeying one abusive authoritarian after another over his whole life. Maybe that guy really does feel more solidarity with a black factory owner whose life does not resemble his in any way. But why is this? It's not because that any black people are actually more affected by "profiling" than by their class situation. It's because they're economically conservative in the "embarrassed millionaire" sense -- more likely to view the robber baron as a figure of aspirational emulation than an exploiter. These types of people (they're the majority of every race of course) aren't leftists turned off by class politics, they're just on the opposite side: they're the economic right-wing. They're quite simply on the side of the owning class, even though they're not owners. > if you run that same materialist analysis today, the evidence for class's primary, let alone a sui generis status, is the weakest it has ever been. Huh?? People's day to day lives are still regulated by wages. Children's upbringings are defined by the competition to conform to requirements of the wage-paying institutions. How can class not be primary? Black or white, the odds have to be 90%+ that the last "or else" order you obeyed was delivered under a wage-based threat.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > It's not because that any black people are actually more affected by "profiling" than by their class situation. It's impossible to look at racial disparities in sentencing, qualitatively or quantitatively, and think this. The research is clear: The absolute richest black people get accused and sentenced like working-class white people. Working-class black people get treated like sub-humans. > They're quite simply on the side of the owning class, even though they're not owners. The most successful revolutionary leftist movements in the modern west are those taking up racial issues, from SNCC and the Black Panthers onwards. > Black or white, the odds have to be 90%+ that the last "or else" order you obeyed was delivered under a wage-based threat. The intensity of "else" in an "or else" order matters. Worrying about "the most recent one" is pure sampling bias. That's exactly the problem; the median worst case for working-class white leftists is losing their job. For others, regularly, it's their life. I beg you, read some books by black, female, and queer leftists. They have good ideas.

Substantive criticism would be interesting, but you're not really saying anything about what he's saying. You're dismissing it based on who you think is likely to quote it today.

morelisp 5y ago

"Class struggle isn't going to bring anyone into the streets any more" and pointing out the absolute moribund labor party under Corbyn seems to me to be substantive criticism. I also strain to find really substantive criticism in Fisher's original piece. "Russell Brand as popular left vanguard" has not really aged well, he's done the standard turn from proto-dirtbag-left to exactly the kind of media-talking-head-dumbass the leftists Fisher decries predicted he would. I am broadly (but weakly) class-first in my leftism, but the kind of purity Fisher is demanding is bad tactics, but also counter-materialist. Race exists orthogonally to class but still has material implications - which is simply to say, black people still get profiled by cops even if they own a factory. For a good analysis of this, see Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life by Barbara and Karen Fields. Conversely, "the means of production" is not what it used to be - capital operates correlated but not identical to control over information vectors, and owners of those vectors exercise great power over people who can control their own production but not the distribution of it; see McKenzie Wark's Capital is Dead: Is This Something Worse? The left is traditionally focused on class because Marxism, via materialism, made strong arguments this was the lynchpin of inequity. But if you run that same materialist analysis today, the evidence for class's primary, let alone a sui generis status, is the weakest it has ever been.

zozbot234 5y ago
> which is simply to say, black people still get profiled by cops even if they own a factory. You'd be surprised. While basic prejudice of course exists, much commonplace "profiling" is simply driven by statistical signals that happen to correlate with various sorts of bad behavior. Socially aware minorities who wish to actively mitigate this part of the problem (which is otherwise the hardest to address, for fairly obvious reasons) might want to start dressing up with suit and tie when out in public, and driving cars that are nicely-maintained but not too "blingy". Of course, this goes to show the extent to which police profiling is in fact about broader notions of class and subculture, and not limited to race.
- morelisp 5y ago
  > While basic prejudice of course exists You can stop writing after this, you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality. "Subculture" is also rooted in an ideology not centering class, and as you've used it (and as you ridiculously asserted elsewhere in the comments "the right has always been working to address prejudiced attitudes"), I suspect here it's a dogwhistle.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality. Of course, I could not agree more about that. My point is simply that a class-aware analysis might have plenty to say even about things that are often reduced to matters of "race". > "Subculture" is also rooted in an ideology not centering class Subculture in practice is highly correlated with class. In fact you might even call it a dogwhistle for class itself; though this discounts the extent to which "low-class subculture" may in fact be a fixable problem, in a way that would not increase alienation or marginalization for low-class folks and may well mitigate these things, while driving a renewed "working class cohesion" and perhaps "class conciousness" that should be compelling from even an orthodox Marxist point of view.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    > You can stop writing after this, you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality. It seems like a category mistake to talk about class as "driver" of inequality. Class is a _type_ of material inequality. So it can't "drive" material inequality. Right? What could that even mean? Maybe this is taking "class" to mean something like birth class, like inheritance, or parental status... which then it actually does make sense... but that's not what the word means at all in Marxist terminology. It's not what leftists are saying at all.
DarylZero 5y ago
> which is simply to say, black people still get profiled by cops even if they own a factory Certainly a meme I've heard a million times. I think Obama even said it while he was still president. But so what? I don't see what it's supposed to imply. You've got a black guy living in poverty working two part time jobs no benefits, obeying one abusive authoritarian after another over his whole life. Maybe that guy really does feel more solidarity with a black factory owner whose life does not resemble his in any way. But why is this? It's not because that any black people are actually more affected by "profiling" than by their class situation. It's because they're economically conservative in the "embarrassed millionaire" sense -- more likely to view the robber baron as a figure of aspirational emulation than an exploiter. These types of people (they're the majority of every race of course) aren't leftists turned off by class politics, they're just on the opposite side: they're the economic right-wing. They're quite simply on the side of the owning class, even though they're not owners. > if you run that same materialist analysis today, the evidence for class's primary, let alone a sui generis status, is the weakest it has ever been. Huh?? People's day to day lives are still regulated by wages. Children's upbringings are defined by the competition to conform to requirements of the wage-paying institutions. How can class not be primary? Black or white, the odds have to be 90%+ that the last "or else" order you obeyed was delivered under a wage-based threat.
- morelisp 5y ago
  > It's not because that any black people are actually more affected by "profiling" than by their class situation. It's impossible to look at racial disparities in sentencing, qualitatively or quantitatively, and think this. The research is clear: The absolute richest black people get accused and sentenced like working-class white people. Working-class black people get treated like sub-humans. > They're quite simply on the side of the owning class, even though they're not owners. The most successful revolutionary leftist movements in the modern west are those taking up racial issues, from SNCC and the Black Panthers onwards. > Black or white, the odds have to be 90%+ that the last "or else" order you obeyed was delivered under a wage-based threat. The intensity of "else" in an "or else" order matters. Worrying about "the most recent one" is pure sampling bias. That's exactly the problem; the median worst case for working-class white leftists is losing their job. For others, regularly, it's their life. I beg you, read some books by black, female, and queer leftists. They have good ideas.