re: labour aristocracy

["Matt D." <afn02065@xxxxxxx>]

Rahul wrote:

>As I understand it, Matt, the definition of "worker" that many communist
>parties in the US hold includes university professors, for example, some of
>whom can buy themselves a new BMW every year without sweating. In the
>Chicago suburbs, teachers in the public school systems who have been there
>awhile may make $75,000 a year or more, as do some members of the UAW with
>enough seniority, if I'm not mistaken. Sounds like enough for some serious
>drivin' to me.

Hmm.  But even if we do cast our proletarian net a bit larger, enough to
bring in the $75K (!!! Is this really possible?) school teachers and what
not, we're only adding a relatively few folks, aren't we?

(And while I'm loathe to do anything that might seem pro-professor,
it's true that *most* of them don't pull down that much, isn't it?)

I mean, the median household income for a family of four is still some-
where around $33-35K, right?

Doug?

-- Matt "Hep Labor Sophisti-Cat... Dig?"  D.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---