Charles wrote:
>... briefly, the logical argument is that capitalism has always needed
>non-wage labor forms simultaneous with wage-labor forms in order to keep
>the wage-laborers, well, consenting, if that is ok. It needs to divide its
>total body of workers, so it needs the division or segmentation
>wage-labor/ non-wage labor , whether that non-wage-labor is slave,
>colonial as today. Division of the working class is necessary for
>capitalism just as workers of the whole world, unite, is necessary for
>not-capitalism or ending capitalism.
>
>Agree the historical fact, the empirical permanence of labor segmentation
>doesn't prove it. But it is the factual situation that cries out for
>theoretical explanation.
In addition to other divisions in the working class, isn't it possible that
simply a larger reserve army of labor could substitute for these kinds of
divisions?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
