>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.
>
>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.
Most men everywhere have higher incomes than most women, and generally put in fewer hours of labor, too. Most American whites have higher incomes than most black Americans. (A lot of that race effect is also a class effect, but then "race" has some bearing on one's class position.) Race is a lot more plastic a category over time than sex, but still there's some systematic extraction going on.
>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._
I have no such problem at all, and I don't see why it should be for anyone else either. There are also divisions within the category of class, which is why Gitlinesque calls for unity ring so hollow, since they're the analogue of overlooking class polarization within the categories of women, blacks, homoesexuals, etc.
>>"We'll address the woman question after the revolution!"
>
Nothing I wrote implies the above.
No, and nothing you've ever written implies that. But as a general tendency, it's a problem. A lot of hardcore Marxoids think you're pretty unsound, no?
Doug