From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Sun Dec 12 2004 - 17:48:04 EST
Hi Jerry,
I think those definitional criteria below are the easy ones. How
about people working in the sphere of circulation within the circuit of
capital who would choose to be wage-labourers if that option were present
but who are compelled to function as retail workers who must bear a risk
because they have no alternative?
in solidarity,
michael
At 12:47 11/12/2004, you wrote:
> > Let's begin by seeing whether we can agree on what are
> > some *false* criteria that have been used re the definition of the
> > proletariat:
>
>I forgot a few basics that I hope we can also agree on:
>
>* can we agree that one can be part of the working class even if
> one is not engaged in commodity production?
>
>* can we agree that one can be part of the working class even
> if one is not employed by capitalists?
>
>(one would have to agree to both of the above if one believes
>that state employees can be part of the working class.)
>
>* can we agree that if one is temporarily in the reserve army
>and hasn't become a member of another class then one
>remains a member of the working class? (e.g. the 'frictionally
>unemployed')
>
>* can we agree that members of working-class families, even
>those too young or too old to work, are ordinarily part of the
>working class?
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 13 2004 - 00:00:01 EST