> For example, in the first place, by "economic" I do
>not mean primarily the academic discourses called economics or political
>economy or development studies.
> What leads you to conclude that I think you mean this?
I don't. That bit was for Catherine.
> What I'm asking is
> for you to say something, anything at all, as to precisely what a relation
> of production actually is.
I have already given a general definition and examples. As I said to you, i.e. Kelley, on this list and in an offlist email, I really can't define it better than that. If you want more specific details, ask more specific questions.
>The original debate was about whether "culture" was as significant as
>"relations of production", right?
> significant to what? in terms of what?
Significant to and in terms of anything you like. I'm not being sarcastic; that is quite literally what I think..
> 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.
I have done this for Catherine, I guess you missed those posts.
>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?
It doesn't matter at all. It was just an aside. I can go and find it and we can have a debate about that as well if you like. But I'd rather not.
Regards,
Grant.