> Philip:
>
> "Marx's claims about class are NOT
> transhistorical. Marx's position is exactly like Geertz's. The history of
> all hitherto existing societies IS the history of class struggle but the
> classes are not the same,"
>
> Yes, and I would say that, notwithstanding the quote about all hitherto
> existing societies, it is not really right to call the estates in feudal
> society classes (nor the pharoahs for that matter). Class implies a certain
> sponaneity of self-reproduction that you only find in capitalist societies
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
First off, let me point out the irony. Namely, that this was told to me in a thread named "Marx without quotations".
Anyway... leave that to one side. Marx (and I feel dirty doing this in such a thread) always reckoned the class dimension of society was fundamental.
Aristotle wrote as he did because of his slaves etc.
Not to mention that, apparently: "The *history* of all *hitherto* existing society is the *history* of *class* struggles.".
Bu then.. this is Marx without quotations, right? So, what's with the need for quotations? I'm perplexed!