Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> I've already explained why, theoretically and empirically.
>
You make a compelling argument. And the benefit of an approach
that is grounded in the dynamics of class relations is that it
specifies the conditions and content of exploitation. But this
doesn't exhaust the matter. Nor does surplus necessarily
define exploitation.
> (1) First of all, _capitalists as a class extract surplus from
> workers_; in contrast, whites, "as a group," can't be said to extract
> surplus from blacks "as a group"; men, "as a group," can't be said to
> extract surplus from women "as a group"; etc.
Class is very much defined relationally and the surplus extraction is rooted in that relationship. Race and gender can manifest themselves in direct relationships but race and gender are also deployed in _intergroup struggle_ over power and resources of various kinds. So segregation, exclusion, discrimination still have a zero-sum quality - whites' forced monopoly over jobs, credit, housing, come at the expense of blacks. And the gains that blacks or women or a cross-racial/gender anticapitalist social movement might get or take would result in a loss of advantages and privileges for whites and men. There still is a racial premium that whites as a group receive in their wages and other benefits. There will have to a change in size of the slices of the pie that go to different groups.
>
> (2) 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. Male day laborers
> earn less than female judges, doctors, etc. White workers can be &
> are sometimes exploited by capitalists of color, male workers by
> female capitalists, etc. also.
What you say is true to a point. I suspect (tho don't know) that the standard deviation in the distribution of income would show a greater crowding of whites' income nearer to their average and the same might hold for blacks. And given that blacks or women or indeed any other minority group are vulnerable to the process of a master status, minorities in higher income/status jobs are more likely to suffer hardships, indignities, discrimination than whites or men, and generally at the hands of whites and/or men. There is a _group_ quality to this.
>
> (3) White workers do gain relative higher average wages than black
> workers do. However, more racism makes for lesser wages, social
> programs, etc. for _white workers as well as black workers_ than less
> racism does, to say nothing of what white workers might gain in the
> absence of racism. The same goes for sexism, heterosexism, etc.
Again, true. Racism does involve costs to whites, much as sexism _can_
be construed as costly for men. The loss of bargaining power of workers
and the divide and rule strategy pursued by business and elites holds
down wages and benefits. Racism and sexism also impose a variety of
restrictions on the dominant group. But none of this negates the
benefits
that whites or men can both _enjoy_ (as a consequence of existing
institutional practices or barriers) and _mobilize to acquire_ in
seeking
to impose or protect racist barriers and restrictions.
>
> Do you have any serious argument against (1), (2), & (3)? Do you
> actually believe that racism is in the interest of white workers,
> sexism is in the interest of male workers, etc.?
I sense lurking in the background is the assertion of a true or objective interest. Rather than enter that quagmire, we ought to remember that you're preaching to the converted or close enough. I certainly wouldn't want to say that its in the _interest_ of whites to discriminate or exploit blacks if by doing so they can reap material benefits. On the other hand, I also can't deny that whites and men have concertedly and collectively pursued strategies that resulted in enriching and reinforcing their dominance.
Dennis Breslin