One can attack consumerism without calling for the donning of hairshirts. The consumption described by Mandel -- who was following Marx closely in this regard -- was not consumerism, but using material means to elevate oneself. Virtually nothing that you can see advertised on television would meet that standard.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 11:33:33AM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: > Tom Walker wrote: > > >This kind of hijacking selected words out of context and insinuating that > >they mean something else is pointless. I would say juvenile, but would be > >insulting to children. The context was the role of advertising in the media > >and culture. The point is about advertisers promising people things they > >can't deliver. > > And my juvenile point was that a lot of this critique is a rather > undigested rehash of a lot of Puritan hair-shirt crap. You may think > the quote is out of context - I think it's a revealing expression of > anxiety over pleasure and sensuality. It is also likely to have > little political appeal beyond a rather affluent gang of PC lefties > (or the voluntarily poor). > > I'm with Mandel on this one. > > Doug > > ---- > > Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism, pp. 394-396: > > >6. The genuine extension of the needs (living standards) of the > >wage-earner, which represents a raising of his level of culture and > >civilization. In the end this can be traced back virtually > >completely to the conquest of longer time for recreation, both > >quantitatively (a shorter working week, free weekends, paid > >holidays, earlier pensionable age, and longer education) and > >qualitatively (the actual extension of cultural needs, to the extent > >to which they are not trivialized or deprived of their human content > >by capitalist commercialization). This genuine extension of needs is > >a corollary of the necessary civilizing function of capital. Any > >rejection of the so-called 'consumer society' which moves beyond > >justified condemnation of the commercialization and dehumanization > >of consumption by capitalism to attack the historical extension of > >needs and consumption in general (i.e., moves from social criticism > >to a critique of civilization), turns back the clock from scientific > >to utopian socialism and from historical materialism to idealism. > >Marx fully appreciated and stressed the civilizing function of > >capital, which he saw as the necessary preparation of the material > >basis for a 'rich individuality'. The following passage from the > >Grundrisse makes this view very clear: 'Capital's ceaseless striving > >towards the general form of wealth drives labour beyond the limits > >of its natural paltriness, and thus creates the material elements > >for the development of the rich individuality which is as all-sided > >in its production as in its consumption, and whose labour also > >therefore appears no longer as labour, but as the full development > >of activity itself, in which natural necessity in its direct form > >has disappeared; because a historically created need has taken the > >place of the natural one.' > > > >For socialists, rejection of capitalist 'consumer society' can > >therefore never imply rejection of the extension and differentiation > >of needs as a whole, or any return to the primitive natural state of > >these needs; their aim is necessarily the development of a 'rich > >individuality' for the whole of mankind. In this rational Marxist > >sense, rejection of capitalist 'consumer society' can only mean: > >rejection of all those forms of consumption and of production which > >continue to restrict man's development, making it narrow and > >one-sided. This rational rejection seeks to reverse the relationship > >between the production of goods and human labour, which is > >determined by the commodity form under capitalism, so that > >henceforth the main goal of economic activity is not the maximum > >production of things and the maximum private profit for each > >individual unit of production (factory or company), but the optimum > >self-activity of the individual person. The production of goods must > >be subordinated to this goal, which means the elimination of forms > >of production and labour which damage human health and man's natural > >environment, even if they are 'profitable' in isolation. At the same > >time, it must be remembered that man as a material being with > >material needs cannot achieve the full development of a 'rich > >individuality' through asceticism, self-castigation and artificial > >self-limitation, but only through the rational development of his > >consumption, consciously controlled and consciously (i.e., > >democratically) subordinated to his collective interests. > > > >Marx himself deliberately pointed out the need to work out a system > >of needs, which has nothing to do with the neo-asceticism peddled in > >some circles as Marxist orthodoxy. In the Grundrisse Marx says: 'The > >exploration of the earth in all directions, to discover new things > >of use as well as new useful qualities of the old; such as new > >qualities of them as raw materials; the development, hence, of the > >natural sciences to their highest point; likewise the discovery, > >creation and satisfaction of new needs arising from society itself; > >the cultivation of all the qualities of the social human being, > >production of the same in a form as rich as possible in needs, > >because rich in qualities and relations - production of this being > >as the most total and universal possible social product, for, in > >order to take gratification in a many-sided way, he must be capable > >of many pleasures, hence cultured to a high degree - is likewise a > >condition of production founded on capital.... > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
