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
At 09:48 PM 06/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Jim, I see there is more to your definition than I responded to in the
>earlier message One problem I have with defining working class is the
>median income you mention as a measure. Alot of union workers, especially
>blue collar skilled workers,
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, et
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 hav
I too have an unpublished manuscript -- I call it a novel. maggie coleman
Max Sawicky wrote:
> Awhile back, "Mad" Max Sawicky suggested a way to define the working class.
> By bizarre coincidence -- since we _never_ agree on anything -- it roughly
> coincided with my own workable definition. Of
At 11:32 AM 06/02/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
> >
> >
> > "to be a capitalist, one requires at a minimum enough income-producing
> > property to allow leisure for the rest of one's life, long before
> > retirement, while actually adding to one's wealth.
>
>A minor correction. Inste
