> On 2 Jan 2001 you wrote:_
>
> 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
>
>
> I have been following this thread with interest and am astounded by the
> high level of generalised language and concepts being employed to address
> the socio-economic, political and ecological complexity which increasing
> numbers of people around the planet appear to be concerned about.
>
> Merely 'wishing' that (otherwise) rational human beings..."could transcend
> themselves and become something greater and more human than they are" is
> surely a quite scarey approach to our current dilemna, as is the
conclusion
> that...."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."
Sorry, I did not mean to scare you, but I seriously doubt that people can be
what idealists want them to be. It simply doesn't seem to work that way.
The medieval church and the crusades were built on the simple words of
Christ; Soviet totalitarianism was built on the appealing logic of Marx; and
current capitalism is being driven by neo-liberalism, which when considered
apart from ideology, is not a bad idea. IMHO, one of the greatest of human
faults is to take simple ideas and turn them into high ideals which are then
used to repress, judge and condemn.
As for my remarks about commodification, ask any of the thousands upon
thousands of drivers you see on the road every day if they would be will to
give up their suburban assault vehicles to become decommodified. I'm sure I
know the answer you'd get.
> Such assertions obfuscate, for instance, the central (and, to date at
> least, most successful) role being played by the highly-rewarded
> 'executives' of the global advertising industry who expend (waste)
BILLIONS
> of dollars annually manipulating people around the world to consume a
> mind-boggling array of mass-produced commodities.
>
> But then the extant phase of the now globally-dominant Capitalist mode of
> production is characterised by the ideological hegemony facilitated by not
> only the parasitic advertising industry but the broader Capitalist media
> industry (of which it forms part), and what is euphemistically referred to
> as the (western) 'education' industry as well.
Oi Vey! I'm not sure of what I'm supposed to do here. Stop sending my
daughter to high school? Not hope that she gets to university and does an
MBA if she wants to? Stop reading the Globe and Mail? In my heart of
hearts I hear what you're saying, but in my head I say "So what? I've heard
it all before!" If I were living in the Soviet Union under Stalin, I'd be
reading Pravda. No thanks.
> With the "scientific advances/progress" in the capacity of contemporary
> nuclear/biological weapons to totally eliminate ALL life on the planet
> arousing public concern - along with rising widespread social inequality
> and ecological despoliation and destruction - the imperative for the
ruling
> Capitalist and bureaucratic/managerialist classes is to ensure that they
> are able to maintain the upper hand in the 'ideological' warfare which is
> proving essential to protect and preserve such an anti-social and
> contradictory/irrational mode of social production AND RE-PRODUCTION.
I must admit that reproduction is irrational.
> It is because of this reality that we have been witness, over recent
years,
> to an escalation of the ideological warfare ( backed up of course in
> 'recalcitrant' states by overt and, in the case of Yugoslavia and
> Iraq, 'example' militarism) being waged from well-funded and highly
> influential right-wing/conservative 'think-tanks', 'institutes' and the
> like, from which have emanated the Thatcherite/Reganite 'strategic policy
> initiatives' and so on....('De-regulation', Re-structuring',
> ''Privatisation' etc) which continue to transform both our natural and
> social milieux. At both the ideological and everyday ' world-of-work'
> level, a central pillar of the dominant mindset/worldview driving the
whole
> process has been neo-liberal economic ' theory', underlaid or supported by
> the intellectually anarchic 'paradigm' of
> post-structuralist/de-constructionist theory of public discourse.
Hmm. If we are moving toward deregulation, privatization, etc., we
shouldn't lay it all on Reagan, Thatcher and the neo-libs. Some of it may
make sense. We have to think it through and do it because its the best or
most efficient and effective solution in terms of the common good (how's
that for obfuscation?). The worst thing we could do is do it because we
have pinned some kind of ideological label on it.
> Now whilst the Marxian 'paradigm'/theory (and its Marcusian etc acolytes)
> left much both unexamined and un(der)-explained, it was nevertheless
> sufficiently compelling/efficacious as to transform the
> socio-economic/civic/political relations of millions of peoples around the
> world. Thus, we are where we are today because of the 'success' (a la
> Fukuyama) of Capitalist ideology over alternative worldviews and concrete
> modes of (social) production and distribution/exchange. But as
> social/political and ecological events AND THEIR MOUNTING COSTS continue
to
> demonstrate, the historical ' victory' of Capitalism over any and all
> communitarian/socialist alternatives is likely to prove a pyrrhic one....a
> reality which even Mr Fukuyama has apparently at least partly conceded!
I would guess that high costs and probably large-scale waste are a
concommitant of large and complex systems. Capitalism is wasteful, but so
was Soviet communism. From what I've read of China, it's also very
wasteful. Under capitalism, large corporations, and probably bureaucracies
too, are in a position to pass the costs of their wastage down to everyone
else. Under Soviet communism the wastage never really rose above the
bottom.
I haven't read Fukuyama for some time. I have his End of History, but
prefer to leave it sitting where it is. It struck me as being smug,
pretentious and not very relevant when I read it some years ago. What I
believe he didn't see, though, and what a lot of us may not quite be seeing
yet, is a return of political and economic fundamentalism ushered by
religious fundamentalism, the kind of thing Samuel Huntington deals with in
his Clash of Civilizations. It may already be happening with the strict
application of fundamentalist Moslem law - e.g. flogging the young girl in
Nigeria. We could see the increasing intrusion of Christian fundamentalism
into American politics with the new Pres. Personally, I fear this more than
I fear being commodified by capitalists, but then I don't work in a third
world sweat shop. Perhaps there I would see fundamentalism as a way out.
> The other contributing factor to the 'success' and dominance of the widely
> despised Capitalist system is the abject disarray of its sworn opponents,
'
> the left'. Of course with many of the 'leaders' of the numerous Left
> factions ensconced in well-rewarded sinecures, from whence they continue
to
> launch their attacks on those considered not to be ' true believers', how
> can the managerialist/capitalist classes not succeed?!
>
> What those of the left have thus far failed to achieve is to re-educate
and
> re-unite the hundreds of millions of decent ' working class ' people
around
> the globe who continue to be increasingly marginalised and alienated from
> one another including, in particular, the well-credentialled (but poorly
> educated and pretentious) members of the so-called ' middle class '.
>
> The widening gulf between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' around the world
> - including of course within the so-called ' rich countries ' - surely
> confirms the ancient wisdoms and injunctions enunciated in all of the
> mainstream Christian texts regarding the importance and nature of a 'just
> and equitable' society. Marx merely revealed the socially divisive nature
> of the Capitalist mode of production (he was actually impressed with many
> of the technological innovations and benefits deriving from within this
> particular socio-economic system), and called for a more humane and
> civil-ised society wherein each contributed according to their ability and
> received according to their need.
>
> john foster
In spite of putting in a little touch of sarcasm here and there, I do agree
with much of what you say. My problem is that I don't know what to do about
it and have absolutely zero faith or trust in anyone that says he or she
does.
Best regards,
Ed Weick
Visit my rebuilt website at:
http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
