********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.

"Capitalism creates structured capital and labor markets, and differential
standards of living, by ethnicity and nation - and by gender." (sic)

sounds good, thanks.

However, wouldn't  pointing out that "mean White people" will still "fuck 
things up. Because of their ideas [read their primarily male history of 
privilege]" will not be ended simply because the material basis behind gender 
and race oppression had been "exposed"? Indeed, wouldn't it take even more 
revolutionary struggle that would only begin with the elimination of the 
capitalist mode of production because "mean White . . . ideas" would still 
prevail over generations? Isn't this observation at least partially apparent in 
the struggles with race and gender oppression in revoutionary Cuba?
I think the observation of the materialist basis of gender and racial 
oppression is insufficient a basis to engage in solidarity and struggle with 
oppressed peoples. We are not "sections" that simply require to be 
"intersectioned". The whole basis of "intersectionality" itself seems a rather  
a "mean White" construct to align White progressive sensibilities with 
"solidarity" with oppressed peoples.  If we are in fact one (working) class, 
why should "we" be conceptualized into sections and reconciled into a framework 
of "intersectionality"?  Such a concept wreaks of that liberal "otherism" idea. 
I almost (only "almost") prefer somebody to argue we are only one "class" than 
such a liberal "Marxist" framework delimiting women and other oppressed peoples 
as "sections" of th working class.

Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 

Reply via email to