>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.
Whites, _on the average_, gain higher wages than blacks, even if we compare them within _the same occupational categories_, but it is _not_ true that all whites individually gain higher wages than all blacks. White day laborers earn less than black judges, doctors, lawyers, tenured professors, etc., for example.
More importantly, relative higher average wages for whites make many of them blind to the fact that more racism makes for lesser wages, social programs, etc. for them than less racism does, to say nothing of what whites might gain in the absence of racism. Our argument should be racism is *not* in the interest of white workers, sexism is *not* in the interest of male workers, and so 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.
Gitlin is a reactionary asshole (an apology for assholes).
>A lot of hardcore Marxoids think you're pretty unsound, no?
I am the future of Marxism, if Marxism is to have any future, that is. :-)
Yoshie