>Here I think Tahir is right. We simply cannot get _anywhere_ in
>understanding class by describing the individuals in it. Class is an
>extremely high level abstraction, and it must be understood abstraction
>(as a set of social relations) before one can even select individuals to
>describe.
The individuals were only examples. One does not have to be entirely abstract, the abstract definition was simply being tested by looking at individuals. Think of it as an experiment.
>Getting at class (or electrons, gold atoms, or men's trouser styles) by
>first describing "what they are made of" is an infinite procedure. It
>can't be done.
The "what they are made of" referred to the need for a definition, not the examples as I made perfectly clear. No-one suggested that every single human being would need to be tested, we were only examining a few random samples.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas