I too remember reading the literature of the 1960s and 1970s and still have
some of it on my shelves. Stuff based on Marx and Freud; Marcuse, and Erich
Fromm. At the level of the idealist in me, there are still times when I
wish people could transcend themselves and become something greater and more
human than they are. But the realist, or perhaps cynic, in me doubts that
it's likely. Nobody has to turn us into commodities. In our market driven
society, we do it to ourselves, and willingly. Most of us don't even think
about it anymore.
Ed Weick
Visit my rebuilt website at:
http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
> There is an extensive literature about this, much of it coming out of
Marx.
>
> For example, there were many books during the sixties and seventies that
> explored the economic, psychological and sociological consequences of
> capitalistic societies where not only physical objects, but human beings
become
> commodities. Just to mention a couple of examples: Erich Fromm, especially
his
> book "To Have or to Be" (It's been three decades since I've read this
stuff so I
> may get the titles wrong). Norman Brown's exploration of the psychological
> aspects and consequences was an example of many other books of the kind.
If
> memory serves me (and it often does not serve me well these days) The
Frankfurt
> School had some interesting things to say about these matters, as well.
>
> While I am not optimistic about the possibilities for drastic change, I do
not
> think it is impossible to imagine broad-based changes that will, at least,
> change the direction of contemporary societies toward a more humane basis.
It
> may be wishful thinking; I'm trying desperately to hold on to a little
optimism,
> given the recent presidential election here.
>
> Selma Singer
>
>
>
> Ed Weick wrote:
>
> > I don't think that it's profit orientation that's at the heart of the
> > matter. It's more general than that, something I would call
"exploitative
> > relations." A very long time ago, when we lived in small groups as
hunters
> > and gatherers, we probably did not exploit each other partly because
there
> > was no need for it and partly because we had to work too hard just to
stay
> > alive. As population grew, and access to resources became an increasing
> > problem, proprietary rights and concepts of who could access what
developed.
> > Systems of exchange, whether monetary or in-kind appeared -- "I will
give
> > you access to my water provided that you labour for me." From such
> > exploitative relations, classes appeared and consolidated themselves.
It
> > would be nice if it could be otherwise, and it may still be otherwise
for
> > some isolated groups, but I'm afraid we've gone much much too far down
the
> > path we're on.
> >
> > Ed Weick
> >
> > Visit my rebuilt website at:
> > http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
> >
> > > Oh, I'm well aware of the terrible burden on artists and others who do
not
> > make
> > > money a priority. My remarks were intended to be directed toward the
> > > possibilities if we did not live in a profit-oriented society.
> > >
> > > Selma Singer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > r h wrote:
> > >
> > > > Selma,
> > > >
> > > > Money is a necessity but so is work. The problem for me is that I
work
> > > > whether I am paid or not. I work to accomplish an artistic goal.
> > But I
> > > > do need money and will only live as long as I have it to do my work.
> > They
> > > > reason for life is accomplishment and anyone who does so merely for
> > money is
> > > > beyond my experience.
> > > >
> > > > Ray Evans Harrell
>
>
>
