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
I too have an unpublished manuscript -- I call it a novel.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
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
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, make a whole lot more than median
income. The
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.
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,
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 course, I look at it from the
opposite direction, looking at the capitalist class. In one of my many
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. Instead of for the rest of one's life I would
suggest for
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. Instead of for the
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
course, I look at it from the opposite direction, looking at the
capitalist class. In one of my many
10 matches
Mail list logo
