Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 20:10:13 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: re: feminist marxism




	
		Mr. Hickman,




	We both acknowledge that race is an artificial concept.  I believe
that the current notion of "ethnicity" is also artificial.  As in the example
I gave you, American blacks are now thought to be a different "ethnicity," 
while, in fact, they are among the original settlers, and therefore
fundamentally define American ethnicity.  The current notions of ethnicity
are excuses not to include people in the true definitions of ethnicity. 
"Celebrating difference" is only celebrating if it presupposes that the
differences are among one ethnic people.  



	As for class, I think it is clear that race and gender are
absolutely part of one's relationship to the means of production.  My
argument was that, whereas capitalists define one's relationship with the
means of production as merely the results of an equitable contest for
"meritocracy", race and gender bias show that race is rigged.  If class
does not distinguish a group socially, how can one argue that there is a
definable "they" who are the bourgeoisie, and a definable "we" who are the
proletariat? 



	Now I would argue that one *nearly* cannot.  I would say that being
bourgeois or proletarian is only a question of what legal relationships you
engage in to make your money.  In that way, people can be both.  However, the
perpetual nature of race and gender bias argue that there will always be  a
basis among people for social discrimination.  This argues for the position
that not only are capitalistic legal relationships(in the "meritocracy"
market) wrong - in and of themselves - but that, since bias is unavoidable,
"meritocracy" itself is bogus (hence the quotation marks) and systems have to
be put into place that force people to bridge social gaps in order to derive
the power to make ends meet.  




	

	peace,


		boddhisatva





     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---