>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.
No one here -- the least of all yours truly -- denies the above. My argument is that, by pursuing relative advantages (some of which are real, others only imaginary) over workers who suffer from racism, sexism, etc., white & male workers have _materially lost vis-a-vis capital_.
>Nor does surplus necessarily define exploitation.
Exploitation in Marx's sense takes the form of the expropriation of surplus from one class by another in any class society; under capitalism, exploitation mainly takes the form of the expropriation of _surplus value_ from the proletariat by capital. Perhaps, you are defining exploitation in a non-Marxist fashion, following John E. Roemer, etc.? Roemer's definition is as follows: "Exploitation is said to exist if in a given economy some agents must work more time than is socially necessary (longer than the socially necessary labor time) to earn their consumption bundles and others work less time than is socially necessary to earn their bundles" (John E. Roemer, _Free to Lose: An Introduction to Marxist Economic Philosophy_, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1988 p. 20). For critiques of Roemer's definition, see, for instance, Duncan K. Foley's review of _Free to Lose_ at <http://www.columbia.edu/~dkf2/roemer.html>; & Justin Schwartz, "In Defense of Exploitation," at <http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/marxism/DefenseE.htm>.
>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.
_If_ white workers can gain jobs, credit, housing, etc. _only_ at the expense of black & other discriminated-against workers, yes, but _even under capitalism_ economy (whether one sees it nationally or internationally) does not have to be seen as a zero-sum game (since capitalism is a dynamic process of M-C-M', dependent upon the expanded reproduction worldwide), to say nothing of what can be achieved under socialism. The problem is ideological in the sense that many white workers assume that economy can be only a zero-sum game because it doesn't occur to many that they can & should fight & extract more (more jobs, more housing, more wages, more benefits, more vacations, etc.) from capital -- hence the prevalence of racist protectionism. Of course, the extraction of "more!" faces a severe limit under capitalism (e.g., when rises in real wages outpace increases in productivity for too long, capital faces a crisis, so naturally it tries to roll back whatever gains workers have made -- neoliberalism is a good example of this rollback) -- therefore it is necessary to abolish capitalism in order to abolish racism, sexism, etc. _completely_.
>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.
They won't if the gains in question are not gains in a game of musical chairs.
>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.
Undeniably so, which explains the feelings of many privileged women, blacks, etc., for they, too, suffer from sexism, racism, etc. though to a lesser degree than poor women, poor blacks, etc.
Yoshie