----- Original Message -----
From: Jurriaan Bendien <djjb99@worldonline.nl>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 6:17 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:1355] Re: Re: still more on advertising and productive laour
> Conceptually I agree. However in terms of identifying the productive
labour
> force income criteria are important since beyond a certain level of income
> the socio-economic compulsion to sell labour-power disappears, and those
> involved are not included in the working class.
Just a detail: the logic of this position is at best a bit compressed. If
they have no other source of income, the highly paid worker is compelled to
go on working on pain of a falling living standard and a running down of
their savings. Alternatively, of course, they could invest sufficiently
significant savings and cease to be a wage/salary worker.
At the risk of further enhancing my pariah status, I would argue that
capitalist too are under a compulsion (on pain of slipping into the working
class) to continue to successfully buy labour power to produce commodities.
(Lest I be misunderstood, by heart does not bleed too much for capitalists
temporarily in between losing one and making another fortune by exploiting
labour.)
> Just because Mike W is critical of it doesn't mean I cannot explore the
> transhistorical argument.
Right on, Jurriaan!
Michael
____________________
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
Milton Keynes
UK
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:10 EST