Re: Inevitability Theses

Hi, Carl!

The argument you outline in this post is not inconsistent with my earlier
articulated positions. 

But there seems to a contradiction here. You say, "you are confusing a
characteristic of a class society or, touse another lingo [sic], a
characteristic of social inequality, namely, unequal access to goods and
services, for the defining feature of class.."

Then you say, "instead, unequal access is a consequence of the existence
of classes or stratum.. True, the inequality of access is the most visible
material form of classes or, if you will, the reality of social class." 

What's the difference between a "characteristic" and "the most visible
material form"?

If an individual has a crooked nose, his face has the "characteristic" of
a crooked nose, its "most visible material form." Or, the "most visible
material form" of his face is the crookedness of his nose, a
"characteristic" of his face. Is there a redundancy here?

I admit I am more interested in the reality than the theory of social
classes.

//CJR
  
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote:

> 
> In brief, you are confusing a characteristic of a class society or, to
> use another lingo, a characteristic of social inequality, namely,
> unequal access to goods and services, for the defining feature of
> class (or what other's would call social stratum.)  In all societies
> we see unequal access to goods and services but this is a consequence
> and not a cause.  In other words, unequal access to goods and services
> does NOT create or define classes,  instead, unequal access is a
> consequence of the existence of classes or stratum.. True, the
> inequality of access is the most visible material form of classes or,
> if you will, the reality of social class  - the rich live in mansions
> and drive Rolls while the poor live in slums and ride the bus - but
> living in a mansion and driving a Rolls (or living in a slum and
> riding the bus) does not make, i.e. cause and individual to be, rich
> or poor.  Wealth and poverty, i.e. class position, is the
> precondition - you are not wealthy because you drive a Rolls, you
> drive a Rolls because you are wealthy.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CJR" <cjreid@sonic.net>
> To: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" <dassbach@mtu.edu>
> Cc: "'Wsn@Csf. Colorado. Edu'" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 10:41 PM
> Subject: 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
>