Re: Inevitability Theses

And I suppose they all drive Rolls Royces, have yachts and a few $100
million in the bank. The operational definition of a luxury good is a
good 95% of which is accessible to only 5% of the population. You may
assume that kinds of luxury goods vary from society to society.

Let's not get silly. Are you denying that a) there are such things as
luxury goods, b) they are distributed in some way, and c) there are
essentially two classes of people in society -- those with access to
such goods, and those who lack access to them?

I assume this simple, astounding theory of social classes requires some
profound thought. In fact, it does.

It is not based on the principle of ownership of the means of
production, because this notion has lost its validity -- essentially one
person or family owning a factory or business in a predominately
agricultural society with an overpopulated urban underclass -- since the
time it was first formulated. From an American perspective, this old
concept was also formulated before the Supreme Court decision, "Santa
Clara County v. Southern Pacific" (1886), which gave corporations the
same rights (but not responsibilities) as human beings under the 14th
Amendment.

The luxury good theory of social classes is based on access to
consumables, and access occurs in different ways in different societies
with different ways of distributing especially luxury goods.

Try thinking about it a few days.

//CJR

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl H.A. Dassbach [mailto:dassbach@mtu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:03 PM
To: CJR; Austin, Andrew; wsn@csf.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Inevitability Theses


Sorry I missed the earlier part of this discussion - this is the most
astounding theory of social class I have ever heard.

Now I finally understand Japan - Japan is a classless society because
everyone (or darn near everyone) consumes Gucci, Prado, Channel,
Hermes, etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "CJR" <cjreid@sonic.net>
To: "Austin, Andrew" <austina@uwgb.edu>; <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Inevitability Theses


> I never said there was a strictly logical proof. I said that the
> respondent could not logically refute my arguments.
>
> The empirical proof is that every mass society has access to luxury
> goods, and luxury goods are distributed in such a way as to favor a
> given class of people. Therefore, we have at least two classes in
every
> mass society: those that consume luxury goods, and those that have
no
> access to them.
>
> Can you grasp this concept? Jeez, it can't be that hard.
>
> I know accepting the facts is always hard.
>
> //CJR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu
[mailto:wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu]On
> Behalf Of Austin, Andrew
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:46 PM
> To: 'wsn@csf.colorado.edu'
> Subject: Inevitability Theses
>
>
>
> What is the logical proof that there must inevitably be social
classes?
> I am
> unfamiliar with it, but very interested in hearing it.
>
> Andrew Austin
> Green Bay, WI