>But if race was produced through slavery in the U.S., then that is
>directly related to the relation of surplus extraction, since it was
>(and remains) all about one's systematic relationship to the
>division of labor and access to property ownership.
Still, it is _not_ true that whites, as a "class," extract surplus from blacks & other peoples of color, thus unlike the relation between capital & labor, in which capital, as a class, extract surplus from labor. Capital, on the whole, gains from racism in a variety of ways (disunity of the proletariat; lesser wages & benefits for people of color; reinforcement of repressive state apparatuses; etc.); whites don't (except they "enjoy" _& suffer from_ the psychological wages of whiteness -- Cf., David Roediger, etc.). Whites in the more racist areas tend to do less well economically than whites in the less racist areas.
>Gender too: women under capitalism (and other economic systems) have
>had a specific relation to the division of labor (unpaid domestic
>work, "women's" jobs) and access to property (it wasn't all that
>long ago that women in the U.S. couldn't even get a credit card).
Still, it is _not_ true that men, as a "class," extract surplus from women, thus unlike the relation between capital & labor, in which capital, as a class, extract surplus from labor. Capital, on the whole, gains from sexism in a variety of ways (disunity of the proletariat; lesser wages & benefits for women; privatized reproduction of labor power; etc.); straight men don't (except they "enjoy" _& suffer from_ the psychological wages of heterosexual masculinity). Men in the more sexist areas tend to do less well economically than men in the less sexist areas.
Why is it so difficult to recognize the difference? Why fear discussing it? The difference is theoretically & practically _important_, for otherwise we can't understand _class polarization within the categories of "women," "blacks," "homosexuals," etc._ And class polarization within these categories has been _widening_, which has _practical implications in how we organize_. As I said earlier, the Talented Tenth of women, blacks, homosexuals, etc. have been doing very well lately under the reign of the Third Way, while the poorest "women," "blacks," "homosexuals," etc. have suffered greatly.
>"We'll address the woman question after the revolution!"
Nothing I wrote implies the above. I'm arguing for theoretical clarity & recognition of _specific_ ways in which various relational categories are produced. Treating all relational categories _as if they were the same_ doesn't help us in theory and practice; in fact, doing so constitutes obstacles.
Yoshie