-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of amadeus amadeus
Ravi writes:
Turbulo at aol.com wrote:
>
> 1) No, I don't believe working class is primarily an
identity
> (although it can be and should be that as well).I
regard it as an
> objective social reality.
>
"so is being a woman, being queer, or being an animal, etc... what's the difference?" ------ Amadeus, response: Gender, sexuality, race, etc. are subjective culturally- and/or socially-determined markers which the capitalist class can use to divide workers, not to mention clean up on wage differntials. These are abstract concepts created by humans. The concept of race, for example, served as a justification for the enslavement of Africans. Class, while it can be narrowly defined as an abstract cultural identity, can also be determined objectively on the basis of ownership of the means of production.
What are the objective means of defining oppression based on gender, sexuality, or race? Primarily, determining their income, economic mobility, and other material factors!
----------------------------------
How exquisitely circular. A definition is not identical to a determination of objectivity, especially w/regard to social kinds.