Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> Y>
> In terms of racism, if Boushe is wrong, I'd like to see someone show the
> mistake in her numbers -- rather than just trying to refutes facts
> (facts which of course may be wrong) with Marxist theory. [This is not
> an argument against Marxist theory, but against trying to refute factual
> claims by purely theoretical arguments.
I agree in general -- but first one has to establish _what kind_ of facts are needed to establish the assertion in question. Numbers, of course, are not facts but one expression of a given set of assumptions about what 'facts' count in the given circumstances. On the one hand we have a set of numerical generalizations about Category A at time T, ditto another set re Category B _also_ at time T, and we are attempting to establish what the relation of A to B WOULD be under _different_ (and non-existent) conditions.
I'm not sure that is correct. I am sure that the questions at issue cannot be decided by a direct appeal to numbers. I am also sure that we have not yet clearly established the categories to be explained. "White workers" is, for example, a category that includes all the white women who ought to be but are not receiving public aid. Where do they figure in the numbers? Hen there are the white school teachers moonlighting because school budgets are distorted by the effects of racism on residential patterns; and those who would be teaching if teaching in ghetto schools had not burned them out. This discussion is not close to the point where we have the slightest idea as to what any numbers we collect mean.
Please also note that the phrase "white working class" is really not the same as "white workers." I'm not sure that the former even exists.
Carrol
Carrol