----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:00
PM
Subject: Re: some thoughts on
globalism/imperialism & class (fwd)
Reid's argument for the inevitability of classes appears to be
circular.
Reid argues classes are defined by differential access to luxury
goods. Elimination of classes would require elimination of luxury goods,
which is impossible, so classes cannot be eliminated.
Reid defines luxury goods as: The operational
definition of a luxury good is a good 95% of which is accessible
[italics mine] to only 5% of the population.
The defining characteristic of a luxury good, then, is that a majority of
the population is prevented from consuming that good by some
force (not necessarily overt). Consumption of luxury goods is
then an act of power in that luxury-good consumers can prevent
others from consuming luxury goods. We can say that the class
of luxury good consumers wields power over others not in their
class that is sufficient to prevent those others from consuming luxury
goods. This means as long as the luxury consuming class retains this
power there will be luxury goods. Luxury goods cannot be eliminated as
long as the luxury-consuming class (or at least its power) exists.
Reid asserts that because we cannot eliminate luxury goods, we cannot
eliminate the classes defined by them.
In effect we cannot get rid of classes because we cannot get rid of
luxury goods because we cannot get rid of classes ... and so on.
Having said all this, I must agree with Mr. Reid that elimination of
social classes is very likely not feasible, and probably not even
desirable. But the reasons for this are not related to luxury good
consumption.