On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: > At 07:34 AM 9/16/97 -0700, Louis Proyect wrote, inter alia: > >The show tip-toed around the all important question of the capitalist > >system. It made the need to reverse environmental degradation, > >consumerism, etc. a personal choice rather than a *political* question. > >The show evoked themes found in UTNE reader and in Deep Ecology > >organizations. They are poor responses to the challenge we face. > > > >The problem with Affluenza is that it depicts an escape from the consumer > >treadmill *within* capitalism. Wojtek writes: > How exactly are the *political* solutions going to work without changing > individual behaviour? And, for goddess' sake, how can you empirically > distinguish between *political* solutions from personal choices, if both > have the same outcome -- a change in individual behaviour? Where does Louis say that individual choices have *nothing* to do with the matter? He is saying that way more emphasis is put on personal choice at the expense of issues related to political power. He is also saying that this is not a positive thing. I am inclined to agree with Louis. If a business has to choose a location for an incinerator that is known to increase toxin contact, cancer rates, childhood diseases, asthma,decreased immunity funcioning...it is going to choose the Bronx over the upper west side of Manhattan? The Bronx. Why? Because people in the Bronx are not as environmentally conscious as folks on the upper west side? Or because they don't possess as much political power to do anything about it? My suspicion is it's more a problem of the latter. Saying this does not rule out other factors, but it does keep our focus on the more critical one(s). I don't see Louis saying anthing more contoversial than this. > If the *political* solution involves a mere administrative fiat declaring > that undesirable phenomenon does not exist anymore -- we are essentially > reverting to the ancient Soviet practices of voodoo government that both > resolved the problems inherited from the bourgeois society (like crime, > patriarchy, or inequality) and institutued a new social order by mere > pronouncements and manipulation of public images. This is carricature of Louis's argument to put it kindly, but if environmental laws were enforced more seriously, or vigorously, as other types of laws...well yes perhaps 'administrative fiat' wouldn't be such a bad thing...Well actually it wouldn't be a fiat of any sort, it'd merely be the enforcement of the law. Speaking of attitudes, imagine if tomorrow, for some crazy inexplicable reason, Clinton ordered the NLRB to enforce labor law swiftly and according to the letter of the law....Perhaps many workers' attitudes toward trying to organize a union would change....and perhaps with stronger unions more progressive politicians might get elected...and perhaps they might legislate more comprehehsive environmental legislation...Of course this doesn't happen...and we might wonder why. Focusing on personal choice won't help us figure out the problem at hand... If, on the other hand, > environmental pollution. But that is not the reason to discount individual > choice altogether. Again, a caricature of Louis's argument as far as I can tell. > > regards, > > wojtek sokolowski > institute for policy studies > johns hopkins university > baltimore, md 21218 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > voice: (410) 516-4056 > fax: (410) 516-8233 > > POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS > IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. > - John Dewey > > >
