ontology of class and race? (was Alabama and Tibet (?))

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 11:14 AM 7/8/98 -0400, Rakesh wrote:
> Again, race simply cannot and does not really have these mystical qualities.
>The unique power of commodities to determine our social relations however
>is no such illusion. Commodities actually do have such mystical power and
>will only cease to have them through the actual transformation of our
>social relations in which presently the distribution of social labor time
>can only be and indeed is really accomplished through the exchange value of
>commodities.

I think that the basic difference lies not in ontology, but in elective
affinities, to use the Weberian term.  Both race and class (=producers of
commodities) have the same ontological properties of being universals in
the philosophical sense (=concepts expressing essential properties of a
class of objects).  However, their elective affinities (=propensities to
dove-tail with particular interests and claims) are much different.

Race implies victim identity that legitimizes political claims by virtue of
pity e.g. "we are victims of oppression, therefore our claims to a bigger
share are justified."

Class implies contributor identity that legitimizes political claims by
virtue of creating value e.g. "we create things of value, therefore our
claims to a bigger share are justified."

Where I stand, the appeal to creating value is indoubtedly superior to the
appeal to pity.  However, the American 'middle class' seems to be
thoroughly overtaken by the victim mentality and the psychotherapy approach
to problems, hence the considerable appeal of victim identities.

Anyway, these are my 2 kopecks.

PS. I saw your name in the Nation's letters section  in reference to the
critique of the Alertman's column.  I thought you would support his
position, no?

Regards,

Wojtek