Carrol Cox says, amongst other things, Political practice, not
theoretical definitions, will carve out those workers who "count" and
those who don't.
This is a whole other discussion -- as you know from years of practice yourself!
maggie
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Margaret Coleman wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jim and max (mad or not), I agree with this formula as far as it goes,
> > but.... I think this is a little too vague. Not having to work means one
> > thing if you own a modest home, put your kids in public school, pay taxes,
> > drive a moderately priced vehicle, etc. The thing is, most people who have
> > large property incomes support incredibly lavish life styles. I think there
> > needs to me more to the definition. maggie coleman
> >
>
> It seems to me that Jim's definition should be seen as a theoretical
> (lower) limit -- and for that purpose 'vagueness' is I think a strength
> rather than a weakness. Isn't there an old legal adage to the effect
> that hard cases make bad law. Analogous to that in class analysis is
> trying for empirical precision in one's definitions of class. A good
> (i.e. useful) class analysis ought not to account for more than 90% of
> the population.
>
> Add to Jim's definition of the ruling class a sloppily defined bunch of
> petty producers and independent professionals, ignore hard cases like
> multi-millionaire athletes or a few superstar professors in the elite
> universities, and the rest are working class. Political practice, not
> theoretical definitions, will carve out those workers who "count" and
> those who don't.
>
> Carrol
