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
