> you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality.

Of course, I could not agree more about that. My point is simply that a class-aware analysis might have plenty to say even about things that are often reduced to matters of "race".

> "Subculture" is also rooted in an ideology not centering class

Subculture in practice is highly correlated with class. In fact you might even call it a dogwhistle for class itself; though this discounts the extent to which "low-class subculture" may in fact be a fixable problem, in a way that would not increase alienation or marginalization for low-class folks and may well mitigate these things, while driving a renewed "working class cohesion" and perhaps "class conciousness" that should be compelling from even an orthodox Marxist point of view.

> You can stop writing after this, you've already agreed with me that class is not the sole driver of material inequality.

It seems like a category mistake to talk about class as "driver" of inequality.

Class is a _type_ of material inequality. So it can't "drive" material inequality. Right? What could that even mean?

Maybe this is taking "class" to mean something like birth class, like inheritance, or parental status... which then it actually does make sense... but that's not what the word means at all in Marxist terminology. It's not what leftists are saying at all.

Class in Marxist terminology is defined by the prevailing relations of production, either social or technical. So, saying that inequality is driven by "class" is but another way of saying that economic fundamentals (such as, according to Marxists, the ongoing concentration and centralisation of capital, or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall; non-Marxists may of course point to other dynamics as more relevant!) are driving inequality. It's not clear what would be inconsistent about this.

Sure it wouldn't be "inconsistent" to say "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall" is "driving inequality" but I don't think that's actually what anyone is saying here.

When Fisher etc. say we must return a focus on class on the left, he means not the Marxist abstract idea of class as groups with aligned economic interests, but the specific classes Marx outlined as relevant under capitalist productive forces. Otherwise he owes us an argument as to why e.g. "black" is not a class despite its massive and identifiable role in America's economic and labor history!

Personally I am more agnostic about Marx's specific conclusions today; but if Fisher wants to call certain classes "class" but others "identitarian" I'll take his terms. But then I get to say "class is a driver of inequality" because it absolutely makes sense to say "Labor's subservience to capital is a driver of material inequality" even as it is also one type of material inequality. (Unless you think it stands so far apart from other kinds of inequality it cannot influence them at all - absolute bullshit.)

As I mentioned above, please also read Wark, where she covers in detail why she thinks Marx's analysis of extant classes is insufficient for today even as it purely pertains to labor relations.

>When Fisher etc. say we must return a focus on class on the left, he means not the Marxist abstract idea of class as groups with aligned economic interests, but the specific classes Marx outlined as relevant under capitalist productive forces.

Right. And to be concrete, it means people who control the distribution of wages, vs. people who are dependent on wages. A focus on class is a focus on the relationship between wage-workers and shareholders.

> it absolutely makes sense to say "Labor's subservience to capital is a driver of material inequality"

Well, I don't get it. Labor/capital is one form that subservience takes. It is a form of material inequality. I don't see how you can say that the subservience can "drive" the inequality.

"Subservience" is not a very specific term here btw, it's basically metaphorical... an individual laborer is literally subservient to their specific employer, but "labor" is not literally subservient to "capital." More specific concrete language would be much appreciated.