> Michael Albert defended, many years ago in Z Mag, the idea that no
> particular left issue or movement (class, gender, race, etc) trumps the
> other in foundational value. Would listmembers agree? Does class
> analysis subsume/define/reinterpret effectively other injustices? And as
> a sort of corrollary: Even if we arrive at a description of the 'working
> class' that sticks, is it of use if members of this broad group identify
> more strongly with stronger sub-groups (religion, skin colour, gender,
> national origin, consumption choices, etc)?
I've maintained for many years that anarchism is an effective way of tackling all of these oppressions as an interrelated system. One of the big wastes of time committed by anarchists and leftists involves arguing over which form of oppression is more important than the other. The class reductionists whine about class and are reluctant to admit that somebody who face gender and racial oppression has to deal with lots of shit before they can even get to worrying about class. The same thing can be said about those who solely focus on identity politics.
bell hooks has written some insightful words about the problems with this competition between oppressions (I forget her exact phrase). I also think that more of us are understanding that all of these things are interrelated.
Chuck0