Why does the Left hate the working class?

[Peter1469]

I actually brought this up yesterday in my post about the progressive assault on Individualism as opposed to self identified victim groups.

Marxism was sold as a revolution of the working class poor. Today if your a hard working white man with a modest income too bad. You need a special identity group to be a victim, and then no matter how well off or powerful you can still be one.

Not to Marxists.

CRT is not Marxism. It is created by Marxists to destabilize the West.

[Chris]

I'd say Critical Theory and its myriad branches is postmodern neo-Marxism. Postmodernism is, to oversimplify, anti-modernity. Marxists, realizing they were failing in the West, merged with postmodern Criticism mainly by shifting from abstract economic classes to abstract identity classes, race, sex, gender, etc. They want to tear down Western civilization and rebuild it, only they have no idea how or what they'll accomplish that. It's self-destructive.

[Mister D]

I'd say Critical Theory and its myriad branches is postmodern neo-Marxism. Postmodernism is, to oversimplify, anti-modernity. Marxists, realizing they were failing in the West, merged with postmodern Criticism mainly by shifting from abstract economic classes to abstract identity classes, race, sex, gender, etc. They want to tear down Western civilization and rebuild it, only they have no idea how or what they'll accomplish that. It's self-destructive.

Generally speaking, I agree. I have mentioned this before but I was kind of surprised to learn just how conventional most communist parties were well into the 1970s. You can see this, for example, in their official attitudes toward homosexuals and the homosexual movement.

[Chris]

Generally speaking, I agree. I have mentioned this before but I was kind of surprised to learn just how conventional most communist parties were well into the 1970s. You can see this, for example, in their official attitudes toward homosexuals and the homosexual movement.

60s, 70s is when Critical Theory, in the form first of Critical Legal Theory began, $#@! Theory came along decades later.

The common thread is oppression, of one abstraction over another.


It's difficult to talk about CR because it's so irrational, even antirational.

[Mister D]

60s, 70s is when Critical Theory, in the form first of Critical Legal Theory began, $#@! Theory came along decades later.

The common thread is oppression, of one abstraction over another.


It's difficult to talk about CR because it's so irrational, even antirational.

Interestingly, CLT originated in the US.

[Chris]

Interestingly, CLT originated in the US.

Right, CT originated in the 1930s in the Frankfurt School. CLT, CRT, $#@! Theory, etc are all American.

Critical Race Theory, the New Intolerance, and Its Grip on America is a good history of it all. It gets back to what Peter posted: "Just as with Critical Theory, Critical Legal Theory is, then, an instrument to overturn society for those who follow its tenets, this time from a legal perspective."

As such, it is also anti-liberal which makes it perplexing why liberals seem to want to embrace it.

[Dr. Who]

Interestingly, CLT originated in the US.

Perhaps that's because in the US, unlike other legal jurisdictions, case law in one state is not binding on any other state, although they can be cited as persuasive authority, so you have, in the aggregate, a lot of conflicting case law.

One of the basic assertions of CLT is that neither statutes or case law completely determine the outcome of legal disputes, but that extraneous factors like politics, social particulars and wealth also come into play.

Clearly politics influence decisions, since apart from federal and SCOTUS judiciary, judges are elected and the political affiliation of the would-be judge is a consideration. A judge wishing to remain a judge may feel pressured to please the voters in that community. Obvious cases of that kind of judicial bias abound, particularly in smaller communities, both in criminal and civil decisions. In my former occupation, whenever we had an insured being sued as an out of state corporate defendant, the first thing defense counsel would do is try to have the case moved to a federal district court, to avoid the whole problem with the elected judge favoring the local plaintiff in all motions and favoring the plaintiff's experts.

Then you also have the problem of biased juries, which in the past were a significant factor, since neither people of color, nor women could serve on juries at one time. Even the religiosity of a jury in a rape case at one time could be exploited by defense counsel by denigrating the moral character of a woman who didn't attend church or whose occupation or dating habits were seen as less than proper. Again, if you are a corporate defendant, it's almost impossible to get an unbiased jury in some jurisdictions (AKA Judicial Hellholes).

Money or the lack thereof is also a factor. The quality of legal representation available to a poor defendant is substantially different than that of a wealthy defendant and typically a court appointed lawyer is not motivated to provide a comprehensive defense, but rather to seek an expeditious resolution, hence the popularity of the plea bargain. Studies have even proven that in cases of 1st offenses, the demographic to which the defendant belongs, affects sentencing. Wealthier defendants are given shorter sentences for the committing the same crimes as poorer people.

So, there is some merit to CLT, although it's not really theory per se, but simply a critique of the legal system.

[Chris]

Perhaps that's because in the US, unlike other legal jurisdictions, case law in one state is not binding on any other state, although they can be cited as persuasive authority, so you have, in the aggregate, a lot of conflicting case law.

One of the basic assertions of CLT is that neither statutes or case law completely determine the outcome of legal disputes, but that extraneous factors like politics, social particulars and wealth also come into play.

Clearly politics influence decisions, since apart from federal and SCOTUS judiciary, judges are elected and the political affiliation of the would-be judge is a consideration. A judge wishing to remain a judge may feel pressured to please the voters in that community. Obvious cases of that kind of judicial bias abound, particularly in smaller communities, both in criminal and civil decisions. In my former occupation, whenever we had an insured being sued as an out of state corporate defendant, the first thing defense counsel would do is try to have the case moved to a federal district court, to avoid the whole problem with the elected judge favoring the local plaintiff in all motions and favoring the plaintiff's experts.

Then you also have the problem of biased juries, which in the past were a significant factor, since neither people of color, nor women could serve on juries at one time. Even the religiosity of a jury in a rape case at one time could be exploited by defense counsel by denigrating the moral character of a woman who didn't attend church or whose occupation or dating habits were seen as less than proper. Again, if you are a corporate defendant, it's almost impossible to get an unbiased jury in some jurisdictions (AKA Judicial Hellholes).

Money or the lack thereof is also a factor. The quality of legal representation available to a poor defendant is substantially different than that of a wealthy defendant and typically a court appointed lawyer is not motivated to provide a comprehensive defense, but rather to seek an expeditious resolution, hence the popularity of the plea bargain. Studies have even proven that in cases of 1st offenses, the demographic to which the defendant belongs, affects sentencing. Wealthier defendants are given shorter sentences for the committing the same crimes as poorer people.

So, there is some merit to CLT, although it's not really theory per se, but simply a critique of the legal system.

Except, Who, you're simply taking words at face meaning and trying to rationalize a justification when CLT is a specific theory that according to Critical Legal Theory: "CLS finds that the wealthy and the powerful use the law as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy. Many in the CLS movement want to overturn the hierarchical structures of modern society and they focus on the law as a tool in achieving this goal."

[Peter1469]

Perhaps that's because in the US, unlike other legal jurisdictions, case law in one state is not binding on any other state, although they can be cited as persuasive authority, so you have, in the aggregate, a lot of conflicting case law.

One of the basic assertions of CLT is that neither statutes or case law completely determine the outcome of legal disputes, but that extraneous factors like politics, social particulars and wealth also come into play.

Clearly politics influence decisions, since apart from federal and SCOTUS judiciary, judges are elected and the political affiliation of the would-be judge is a consideration. A judge wishing to remain a judge may feel pressured to please the voters in that community. Obvious cases of that kind of judicial bias abound, particularly in smaller communities, both in criminal and civil decisions. In my former occupation, whenever we had an insured being sued as an out of state corporate defendant, the first thing defense counsel would do is try to have the case moved to a federal district court, to avoid the whole problem with the elected judge favoring the local plaintiff in all motions and favoring the plaintiff's experts.

Then you also have the problem of biased juries, which in the past were a significant factor, since neither people of color, nor women could serve on juries at one time. Even the religiosity of a jury in a rape case at one time could be exploited by defense counsel by denigrating the moral character of a woman who didn't attend church or whose occupation or dating habits were seen as less than proper. Again, if you are a corporate defendant, it's almost impossible to get an unbiased jury in some jurisdictions (AKA Judicial Hellholes).

Money or the lack thereof is also a factor. The quality of legal representation available to a poor defendant is substantially different than that of a wealthy defendant and typically a court appointed lawyer is not motivated to provide a comprehensive defense, but rather to seek an expeditious resolution, hence the popularity of the plea bargain. Studies have even proven that in cases of 1st offenses, the demographic to which the defendant belongs, affects sentencing. Wealthier defendants are given shorter sentences for the committing the same crimes as poorer people.

So, there is some merit to CLT, although it's not really theory per se, but simply a critique of the legal system.

Judges have used equity in cases long before CLT came around. Also state bars have long set up funds for legal aid for those who couldn't afford a lawyer. Some big law firms require their associates to do pro bono work.

CLT is just a branch of CT. I am not sure that it is taken seriously in the legal field outside of academia. Practicing lawyers are too busy locating the witness named "Mr. Green."

[Dr. Who]

Except, Who, you're simply taking words at face meaning and trying to rationalize a justification when CLT is a specific theory that according to Critical Legal Theory: "CLS finds that the wealthy and the powerful use the law as an instrument for oppression in order to maintain their place in hierarchy. Many in the CLS movement want to overturn the hierarchical structures of modern society and they focus on the law as a tool in achieving this goal."

The wealthy and powerful do use the law to maintain their place in the hierarchy - how else do you explain all the legislation that directly benefits big business and all the tax loop holes that benefit the wealthy and powerful. They use their wealth to buy favorable law - not by directly paying politicians but by helping to pay for their political campaigns. They also use their vast resources to challenge laws they don't like or manipulate them with skillful legal teams to defeat less well heeled defendants. That's all part of crony capitalism.