First, though, can we really talk about cde Boris behind his back or do you want to forward this query to him, or should I consult?
But looking more closely, aren't you twisting the logic with your intepretation? There are a confusing number of negations in the key sentence, but do you think Boris would deny that economic status isn't correlated to race? Of course it is, also in Russia. But the claim about the "reproduction" of one's racial status is a rather more limited claim. And I don't think Boris is rearguing class v identity, but rather saying that identity is mediated by class. What's wrong with that position?
Cheers, P.
> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:37:28 -0500
> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: BK on "identity"
> Reply-to: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> On Patrick Bond's urging, I picked up a copy of Boris Kagarlitsky's
> trilogy, published by Pluto. In The Return of Radicalism, we learn
> (just after an approving quote from Todd Gitlin): "All identity is
> social, but class is the quintessence of the social. Unlike race,
> sex, culture, or place of birth, class cannot be determined except by
> the positions of the individual in society, and cannot be reproduced
> except through participation in the functioning of the economic
> system" (p. 95).
>
> Really? I don't see how anyone in the U.S. or South Africa could
> claim that race is irrelevant to one's participation in the economic
> system, or how anyone on the planet could claim that sex/gender
> wasn't deeply tied to participation in the economic system. Basically
> this sounds like the same old class v. identity crap that I thought
> was on its deathbed.
>
> So Patrick, what's so exciting about this trilogy? Where should I
> turn for inspiration other than p. 95?
>
> Doug
>
>