> > "Middle class" (and especially
> > the silly term "upper middlle class") collapses class into mere
> > stratification, with an endless (and more or less pointless) series of
> > differentia.
I know this is an old sore here, but what's wrong with "middle class" again? What term would you want to use for people who do not sell labour but still make profit for others? For the comfort zone of investment and inheritance which is not about owning profit? Or don't you think that distinction worth making?
I'm sure you're not saying that class relations remain unchanged from Marx's analysis. But perhaps I should check. Is that what you're saying? So if we want to use a Marxist framework it requires some variations.
Catherine
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP at ArtsIT: http://admin.arts.usyd.edu.au/horde/imp/