> And this is very much to the detriment of historical
> materialism, because it tends to lead to mechanical
> materialism, by which I mean the futile effort to read
> psychology right off class position of the sort that
> we saw for example in (pardon me, Marvin) Marvin's
> sketch of a theory of politic attitudes based on the
> source of income.
=============================
I might pardon your remark, Andie, but I'm not able to weigh your response
to the comments I posted yesterday because you haven't yet attempted one. So
your remark is gratuitous.
You'll recall I questioned your assertion that (progressive) political behaviour was effectively a function of (higher) education, and offered instead that the relationship to power and property was more predictive, while trying to incorporate the effect of education within that framework.
It's all here:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070604/010930.html
I don't know which statement(s) led you to to believe that I think political psychology is entirely reducible to "the source of income", and that I'm unaware of or dismiss the defining impact of religion, race, ethnicity, and other "non-economic" factors on political developments in, let us say...Iraq. You're quite mistaken to have drawn that conclusion.