Andrew "Drewk" Kliman wrote:
> It is really
> plausible that, given the choice between (a) making $30,000 while
> Blacks also make $30,000, or (b) making $20,000 while Blacks make
> $10,000, the latter is in the interests (real and/or perceived)
> of white workers?
But what if that is not the choice, but rather the choice is between (a) whites making 10k while Blacks also make 10k, or (b) whites make 12k while blacks make 8k? (or something like that?)
Also, relative wages do matter--absolutely--if you get what i mean. it's about power relations and hierarchy, it involves capitalist control over workers but also power relations within the working class.
if we can imagine another socioeconomic system in which everyone is absolutely better off, and that is what we use as our benchmark, then we can never employ the distinction between absolute and relative within the present system. everything is relative, then.
for example, if Blacks sufffer higher unemployment rates due to discrimination, and whites therefore have a lower chance of being unemployed, then some whites are doing absolutely better than they would be in the absence of discrimination. of course, according to the way Drewk has framed the issue, everyone would be better off if there were full employment for all. true enough. so in that sense we can never say that someone or group is fairing absolutely better--even if millions of white workers are employed instead of unemployed, have higher instead of lower wages, have better instead of worse jobs and working conditions, have more instead of less job security, all due to discrimination-- unless there is no "better" imaginable. isn't there a problem here with the way we are using "absolute" and "relative"?
i guess i am repeating myself. so i'll restrain myself. sorry.
Mat