What leads you to conclude that I think you mean this? What I'm asking is for you to say something, anything at all, as to precisely what a relation of production actually is.
>I mean the stuff that happens in coal mines,
>in factories, on cattle stations, warehouses, shops, etc. (Or the stuff that
>simply does not happen, in the case of an underclass.)
>
>The original debate was about whether "culture" was as significant as
>"relations of production", right?
significant to what? in terms of what?
>With regard to the latter concept, can I
>assume we are talking about the same thing Marx was talking about?
none of what follows tells me what you think a "relation of production" actually is, though! if it is so obvious, if it is so important, then surely it is worth explaining.
Aside from the fact that I don't believe Perelman ever made any comment to me that you describe in your post, and aside from the fact that I don't disagree with it, would you be kind enough to explain why it would matter were Perelman to have said this to me?
So, if you would be so kind as to explain what a relation of production is so I can understand what you mean by relations of production I think we can move on to explore this rather fruitfully. I've provided a concrete example of what I mean: studying how workers--specifically mid to upper level managers--understand themselves, their situation, and their relation to those they manage, etc.
Kelley
Treats management as working class!