where do you get that from my text?
> What about the structural
>racism/sexism (you even place class in structural terms sometimes) you go on
>about?
sometimes i place class in structural terms? where do you get the "sometimes"?
and yes, I do think there are racializing and gendered social structures. i typically call it oppression. keywords are social institutions and norms. i think i was nominated for best blog riff of the year once when I said, "If you want to see oppression, just look where people are doing what's normal, what they think is good." i didn't win though.
>This was actually my point before that you did not understand.
this is a summing up statement? or a preliminary statement? what i didn't understand is what yousaid before this sentence -- or after?
>Is
>it just that you don't like it when people talk about class as a structure
>as opposed to other 'identities' or 'subjectivities'?
what would liking or not liking have to do with it? i'm not sure there's anything necessarily "opposed". Like, sometimes I think they are "opposed" but not always.
i'm still not clear though: what is class as a structure? what makes it structural and not, what were your words?, "identities" or "subjectivities"? Why is structure "opposed" to "identities" and "subjectivities"? I'm unclear about this? Maybe I have you wrong?
Earlier you said something about ideology -- that it is "mere" and implied it could be "whisked away". you got a special broom for that? and why are you bogarting it if you do? i mean, i suppose you could be using liquid detergent on ideology -- what's good enough for proctor and gamble stain elimination ought to be good enough for ideology elimination.
you said that "the working class" is "the sum of all who don't own the means of production, or better yet, everyone who has surplus extracted from them because of specific property relationships."
is there math involved or sumthin? i mean, why do they have to be summed? not to mention that now i'm disturbed because i'm thinking of that scene in the Matrix -- all these tubes extracting stuff from people.
you also said that class is a "structurally defined relationship of exploitation".
just ought of curiosity, is there a relationship of exploitation that isn't defined structurally? maybe I'm not clear on how exploitation is defined structurally.
if stuff isn't structural, then what is it?
> Then you use gender
>stereotypes, or identity, to disarm most people (not me ;)) by showing how
>it can hurt too. Anyway, you made me laugh and I guess that is something.
>
>Brad
like someone once said about my blog, "come for the animal porn, stay for the social analysis." or some shit like that.
> > heh. the manly man might have to do with the two "non" manly man
> > occupations you say should be part of any prols movement?
> >
> > but no, that isn't the "manly man" politics I'm necessarily talking about.
> > well, wait yeah. i guess it is: i don't think "ideology" is "merely"
> > removed. i don't think that it can be whisked away in a way that the
> > "structurally defined relationship of exploitation" cannot be.
> >
> > big he-man must do hard dirty work of smashing strucutres. structures like
> > big big building. smash structures. smash smash. smash big building. look
> > at culture? see ideology disintegrate into mere dust. smash smash. *chest
> > pounding* *tarzan yell*
> >
> >
> > shag
> >
> >
> >
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)