Re: Dallas Smythe student
Tom says: The anxiety isn't over pleasure and sensuality per se, but over the commodification of pleasure and sensuality -- a process that is no doubt so far advanced that it becomes hard to conceive of pleasure and sensuality in any other terms. Non-commodified pleasure and sensuality under pre-capitalism and much of capitalism are, more often than not, provided by unpaid women's labor, e.g., Mom's Home-cooked Meals. Commodified pleasure and sensuality under capitalism affordable to the working class are, more often than not, provided by low-paid labor of men and women of color in sweatshops, e.g., mass produced and yet stylish Kenneth Cole goods. But for commodification of pleasure and sensuality, women today would be still spending all day carrying water, preparing food, sewing clothes, and so on (poor women in poor nations still in fact spend much of their time carrying water, etc.!). But for commodification and urbanization, which have come to allow human beings to live independently of the pre-capitalist duty to marry and procreate (or else), we wouldn't know such identities as gay men and lesbians (pre-capitalist male-male same-sex desire appears mainly to have been channeled through hierarchical relations between men and boys, as among ancient Greeks and monks and samurais in pre-modern Japan, without becoming a fixed sexual orientation -- women's same-sex desire generally went unsanctioned even in pre-modern societies that celebrated certain forms of male-male love). Just as wage labor is a necessary stage through which production must pass to become socialized enough for socialism, commodification of pleasure and sensuality is a necessary stage through which (broadly defined) reproduction gets socialized enough for socialism. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
FW: Re: Dallas Smythe student
-Original Message- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 26 February 2002 08:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23239] Re: Dallas Smythe student Tom says: The anxiety isn't over pleasure and sensuality per se, but over the commodification of pleasure and sensuality -- a process that is no doubt so far advanced that it becomes hard to conceive of pleasure and sensuality in any other terms. [snip a lot of very good points made by Yoshie] But more broadly, why all the fuss about commodification of pleasure and sexuality? Isn't it enough zat zey be pleazant and zexy, without also demanding that they be politically correct? And what if commodified products are actually *nicer* than their non-commodified equivalents? This is certainly true of the brewing industry, and quite possibly of many others. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Hey! What is this Yoshie? Theory of inevitable progress? Let me assure Yoshie and Daniel that I am not a woozy pre-capitalist romantic. But I will continue to wonder why such assurances are necessary at all. Look at my primitive tools, youse guys: notebook computers, scanners, printers, spreadsheet programs, web sites, etc. I hope no one is offended when I confess that I actually derive sensual pleasure from using these running-dog bourgeois instruments of oppression and exploitation. HORRORS! But my pleasure doesn't prevent me from bearing witness to the violence that takes place every day in the name of my sovereign right to possess a separate notebook computer for each colour in the rainbow. Let's simplify this discussion: undialectical critique of capitalism: bad undialectical apology for capitalism: bad dialectical critique of capitalism: good dialectical apology for capitalism: intellectually dishonest The latter proceeds by mistaking a dialectical critique for an undialectical critique and correcting it where it needs no correcting. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Just as wage labor is a necessary stage through which production must pass to become socialized enough for socialism, commodification of pleasure and sensuality is a necessary stage through which (broadly defined) reproduction gets socialized enough for socialism. to which Daniel Davies added: But more broadly, why all the fuss about commodification of pleasure and sexuality? Isn't it enough zat zey be pleazant and zexy, without also demanding that they be politically correct? And what if commodified products are actually *nicer* than their non-commodified equivalents? This is certainly true of the brewing industry, and quite possibly of many others. Tom Walker
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Tom Walker wrote: Hey! What is this Yoshie? Theory of inevitable progress? Let me assure Yoshie and Daniel that I am not a woozy pre-capitalist romantic. This thread had (mostly) developed in terms of characterizations of either the participants in the thread or of leftists-in-general. (Tom mostly avoided this trap, since his posts mostly focused on or attempted to define the issues involved independently of who believed what, but Doug's whole concern seemed to be not the issues but a moral characterization of those who disagreed with him. My own 'contribution' to the thread was also on character rather than substance -- I apologize.) If we let Yoshie's post and Tom's response control the discussion, we might say something useful. Carrol P.S. An empirical point. I believe a poll of leftists today whould reveal that Doug's position is that of the overwhelming majority. I believe -- I don't know, and neither does anyone else on this list.
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Let's simplify this discussion: undialectical critique of capitalism: bad undialectical apology for capitalism: bad dialectical critique of capitalism: good dialectical apology for capitalism: intellectually dishonest The latter proceeds by mistaking a dialectical critique for an undialectical critique and correcting it where it needs no correcting. Tom, we can't focus on the individual's role when discussing solutions to the planet's problems (as Shawna Richer says Sut Jhally does) such as the individual's consumer choices. That's not a dialectical critique of capitalism. That's more like a program of Global Exchange, Oxfam, Simply Living, and so on. All staffed and supported by well-intentioned people, I'm sure, but that's ultimately a liberal dead end. Socialism's point is not so much to oppose commodification as to take collective control of _what has already been socialized through commodification_ by abolishing the private ownership of the means of production. Criticisms of commmodification make sense mainly when what's being commodified, that is privatized, is _already explicitly publicly owned or customarily in the public domain_, like air, water, electric power, public education, public transportation, public broadcasting, and so on. When a housewife becomes _a wage laborer_, her labor power becomes, well, _commodified_, but socialists don't object to that, do we? When what used to be provided by unpaid women's labor becomes _commodified_ -- for instance, care of the old, now often provided by nursing homes -- should socialists bitch and mourn commodification as such? Or should we rather seek to turn a commodified service provided by capitalists into a social program provided by the government, raise wages and benefits for workers, etc.? -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Yoshie wrote, Tom, we can't focus on the individual's role when discussing solutions to the planet's problems (as Shawna Richer says Sut Jhally does) such as the individual's consumer choices. That's not a dialectical critique of capitalism. That's more like a program of Global Exchange, Oxfam, Simply Living, and so on. All staffed and supported by well-intentioned people, I'm sure, but that's ultimately a liberal dead end. Socialism's point is not so much to oppose commodification as to take collective control of _what has already been socialized through commodification_ by abolishing the private ownership of the means of production. May we allow for the possibility of more than one dead end? I agree that individual consumer choices, no matter how well-intentioned do not add up to social transformation. However, taking collective control and abolishing private ownership are actions. As verbs they demand nouns. Who is the we to do the doing? The party? The state? The masses? Organized labour? A bunch of folks who show up at demos and read theory? The p-p-p-proletariat? I ran into a former colleague this morning on his way to deliver a talk about his organization's Community Development Institute, a high-minded enterprise that teaches folks social skills for the world of the 1970s. I admire such dogged . . . well doggedness. I guess. Organized labour? Don't get me started. Unions are my bread and butter (not to mention rent and all the rest). Despite occasional rhetorical flourishes, they are not in the business of fundamental social transformation. If Doug can be cynical about anti-consumer hairshirts, allow me my reservations about the class in itself, of itself and for itself. Funny you should mention the individual (or the Individual). My sandwichman project and my graphic dwell on the mythos of the self-made man. Can't get more individual than that. Note I said _mythos_ not myth. The OS is crucial and conveniently suggests precisely an operating system. That operating system can perhaps be better understood through a series of thought experiments: 1. Take simple living for example. Read Benjamin Franklin's prescription for self-sufficiency, the locus classicus of the self-made man genre. What you will see is that voluntary simplicity is pure, unadulterated Ben Franklin. Those other guys, Horatio Alger, Andrew Carnegie and a host of 19th century success touts represent a digression. 2. Take Aunt Jemima. Now think of Oprah Winfrey. What do they have in common? How are they different? In what sense could one imagine Jemima morphing into Oprah? I'm not the first to make the connection. See http://www.cegur.com/html/oprahimage.html. What's the point? Oprah shows that even a woman -- EVEN a woman of colour can become a self-made man, provided she's willing to lose enough weight. That is to say to renounce that which, by its excess, signifies her otherness -- her mammytude, shall we say. No personal offense intended to Ms. Winfrey, but her celebrity in racist America (like pre-Bronco O.J.'s celebrity) rests on her being the exception that proves the rule. 3. Do a google search on self-made man; next do a google search on autonomous subject; finally do a combined search. With only a very few exceptions, there isn't an overlap between texts that use the terms. Why is this so when the pair of terms is virtually synonymous (leaving aside connotations)? Isn't it, then, precisely the relationship between the individual and the collective that remains the problem? If that's so isn't it begging the question to pre-emptively reject individual solutions and posit a collective revolutionary subject to do all the abolishing, socializing and taking control? Doesn't even the possibility of a collective revolutionary subject come down to a matter of individual commitments to build such a collective? Aren't these all rhetorical questions? Criticisms of commmodification make sense mainly when what's being commodified, that is privatized, is _already explicitly publicly owned or customarily in the public domain_, like air, water, electric power, public education, public transportation, public broadcasting, and so on. When a housewife becomes _a wage laborer_, her labor power becomes, well, _commodified_, but socialists don't object to that, do we? I don't know where to begin to respond to a question that assumes socialists don't object to the commodification of labour power. It was not Marx's position that wage labour represents the pinnacle of human emancipation. I'm inclined to agree. And it is not the case that the commodification of women's labour is a recent innovation. It also is not the case that socialists (including women) have always, unequivocally supported full participation of women in the labour force. Nor can such positions be dismissed on purely ideological grounds (against patriarchy) without also taking into account the strategic and tactical considerations behind claims
Re: Re: Dallas Smythe student
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,
Re: Re: Re: Dallas Smythe student
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
RE: Dallas Smythe student
I am way behind in e-mail messages, but would recommend Smythe's book, called Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and Canada to everyone. Smythe had been a visiting prof at Temple the two years before I started there, and it seemed like everyone was reading him when I arrived. My teacher Tran van Dinh was especially fond of Smythe's perspective, which he saw as an antidote to some of the more economic determinist readings of Marx. Smythe also wrote the Foreword to Dr. Tran's book, Independence, Liberation, Revolution, a real under-appreciated classic. Some may be familiar with Tran's pieces that appeared in Monthly Review over the years, especially on the Vietnamese Revolution. Smythe considered the production and reproduction of consciousness an important part of Marxist theory. mat
RE: Re: Re: Re: Dallas Smythe student
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. not even Prozac or Viagra? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ;-)
Re: Re: Re: Dallas Smythe student
Doug, From reading your position on consumption over some time, and Mandel below, I believe Mandel is not with you, nor you with him. Mandel opens with >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 which is hardly about moving up to designer sheets. Why you always react with your "hair shirt" response to any criticism of consumption which does NOT raise living standards is beyond me. Do you skip Mandel's parenthetical " (the actual extension of cultural needs, to the extent >to which they are not trivialized or deprived of their human content >by capitalist commercialization)."? Gene Coyle 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
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Not being a mind reader, I haven't the slightest idea what Doug's a lot of this critique refers to. Sut Jhally? The Media Education Foundation? Dallas Smythe? The critique of consumerism in general? (and here we could branch off into other specifics, Marcuse's repressive sublimation? the voluntary simplicity movement? Juliet Schor? etc. etc. etc.). Your juvenile point, Doug, is too vague to be a point and so sweeping as to be every bit as reactionary as the Puritan hair-shirt crap you conjure up. Fascinating passage from Mandel and a paradoxical pledge of allegiance to, presumably, Mandel's first sentence -- but not his second. Mandel's SECOND sentence begins with a catalogue of and homage to precisely those conquests that have been arrested in North America during the quarter century since the source text, _Late Capitalism_, was translated into English: the shorter work week, the weekend, paid holidays, politically sacrosanct pension universality, affordable post secondary education. That same sentence concludes with the qualification, to the extent to which they are not trivialized or deprived of their human content by capitalist commercialization. Pardon my slow, deliberate reading but *trivialization* is precisely what Jhally's comment referred to and what you, Doug, lampooned as puritanical crap. The anxiety isn't over pleasure and sensuality per se, but over the commodification of pleasure and sensuality -- a process that is no doubt so far advanced that it becomes hard to conceive of pleasure and sensuality in any other terms. Hard? Conceive? Ha ha. Perhaps I should have said something about penetration, too. It's an anxiety that you obviously share, Doug. Otherwise, how to account for the compulsive eroto-detective work, the discovery of revealing expressions (what one might decades ago have referred to as Freudian slips). Fear not, Doug, your anxiety is my own. I have no wish to renounce pleasure in the name of an abstract critical purity. But as for having little political appeal, consider that the unabashedly anti-pleasure fundamentalist right gets an incredible amount of political mileage out of the anxiety that, presumably, no one but affluent PC lefties and the voluntary poor share (not to mention you and I, Doug). Doug Henwood wrote, 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). Tom Walker
Re: Re: Re: Dallas Smythe student
Doug Henwood wrote: a lot of this critique is a rather undigested rehash of a lot of Puritan hair-shirt crap. A lot of X is Y. This is the sort of thing that gets an English 101 theme marked down for pure sloppiness. Carrol
RE: RE: Dallas Smythe student
Re: Tran Vanh Dinh. Listed here in Edwin Moise biblio. Moise is a big source in Gabriel Kolko book from mid 90's on Vietnam War, specifically on North Vietnamese land reform that has been for decades subject to alot of debate esp. from Trotskyists and others I'm familiar with. Michael Pugliese Edwin Moïse Bibliography: The Communist Viewpoint ... National Independence, Unity, Peace and Socialism in Vietnam. Moscow: Progress ... Le Nhu Huan and Tran Van Binh, eds., Nam Dinh: lich su khang chien chong ... www.vwip.org/mb/commview.htm --- Original Message --- From: Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2/25/02 9:25:51 AM I am way behind in e-mail messages, but would recommend Smythe's book, called Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and Canada to everyone. Smythe had been a visiting prof at Temple the two years before I started there, and it seemed like everyone was reading him when I arrived. My teacher Tran van Dinh was especially fond of Smythe's perspective, which he saw as an antidote to some of the more economic determinist readings of Marx. Smythe also wrote the Foreword to Dr. Tran's book, Independence, Liberation, Revolution, a real under-appreciated classic. Some may be familiar with Tran's pieces that appeared in Monthly Review over the years, especially on the Vietnamese Revolution. Smythe considered the production and reproduction of consciousness an important part of Marxist theory. mat
Re: RE: Re: Dallas Smythe student
Forstater, Mathew wrote: Tom writes: The anxiety isn't over pleasure and sensuality per se, but over the commodification of pleasure and sensuality this is Smythe's view, in my understanding. Mine too. But in all the analyses of this genre I've seen - and along with Jhally, I'm thinking of things like Adbusters, the Rev Billy, a lot of the Pacifica audience - I don't see anything like the careful distinctions that Mandel makes. What I see in the anti-commercial gang is just the kind of asceticism that Mandel criticized in orthodox Marxists, though without the class angle. My friend Carrie McLaren, who publishes the 'zine StayFree http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/index.html, isn't quite out there with the hair-shirters, but she does have a streak of it. She was alarmed to hear that a mutual friend had dyed her hair. I think dyeing hair is just fine (though I haven't taken it up yet). I'll bet a lot of the Buy Nothing people don't like makeup either. I'll bet a lot of PEN-Lers don't approve of makeup or stylish clothes either. Doug
Re: Re: RE: Re: Dallas Smythe student
Hey, I got my hair streaked gold last week! It doesn 't show up much on white though. And the stylist assured me it would wash out, which it did. But I still don't understand why ANY criticism of consumption makes the critic a hair-shirter. Gene Coyle Doug Henwood wrote: Forstater, Mathew wrote: Tom writes: The anxiety isn't over pleasure and sensuality per se, but over the commodification of pleasure and sensuality this is Smythe's view, in my understanding. Mine too. But in all the analyses of this genre I've seen - and along with Jhally, I'm thinking of things like Adbusters, the Rev Billy, a lot of the Pacifica audience - I don't see anything like the careful distinctions that Mandel makes. What I see in the anti-commercial gang is just the kind of asceticism that Mandel criticized in orthodox Marxists, though without the class angle. My friend Carrie McLaren, who publishes the 'zine StayFree http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/index.html, isn't quite out there with the hair-shirters, but she does have a streak of it. She was alarmed to hear that a mutual friend had dyed her hair. I think dyeing hair is just fine (though I haven't taken it up yet). I'll bet a lot of the Buy Nothing people don't like makeup either. I'll bet a lot of PEN-Lers don't approve of makeup or stylish clothes either. Doug
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Slanderous lies. PEN-L has a strict fashion code, and my makeup is impecable. Doug Henwood wrote: I'll bet a lot of PEN-Lers don't approve of makeup or stylish clothes either. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: Dallas Smythe student
Re: Tran Vanh Dinh. Listed here in Edwin Moise biblio. Moise is a big source in Gabriel Kolko book from mid 90's on Vietnam War, specifically on North Vietnamese land reform that has been for decades subject to alot of debate esp. from Trotskyists and others I'm familiar with. Michael Pugliese Edwin Moïse Bibliography: The Communist Viewpoint ... National Independence, Unity, Peace and Socialism in Vietnam. Moscow: Progress ... Le Nhu Huan and Tran Van Binh, eds., Nam Dinh: lich su khang chien chong ... http://www.vwip.org/mb/commview.htm --- Original Message --- From: Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2/25/02 9:25:51 AM I am way behind in e-mail messages, but would recommend Smythe's book, called Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and Canada to everyone. Smythe had been a visiting prof at Temple the two years before I started there, and it seemed like everyone was reading him when I arrived. My teacher Tran van Dinh was especially fond of Smythe's perspective, which he saw as an antidote to some of the more economic determinist readings of Marx. Smythe also wrote the Foreword to Dr. Tran's book, Independence, Liberation, Revolution, a real under-appreciated classic. Some may be familiar with Tran's pieces that appeared in Monthly Review over the years, especially on the Vietnamese Revolution. Smythe considered the production and reproduction of consciousness an important part of Marxist theory. mat
RE: Re: Dallas Smythe student
Doug Henwood wrote: I'll bet a lot of PEN-Lers don't approve of makeup or stylish clothes either. Michael Perelman writes: Slanderous lies. PEN-L has a strict fashion code, and my makeup is impecable. me too. I'm sure that most of you want to know that when I sit at the computer writing my drivel, I'm naked, except for my body make-up. There's nothing more stylish than a naked almost-50-year-old man. -- Jim Devine
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Michael wrote: Slanderous lies. PEN-L has a strict fashion code, and my makeup is impecable. Hey, I know a business professor here at UC Berkeley who recently dyed his hair purple. Should we invite him to this list? He is quite a nice and extremely clever fellow from Israel who is opposed to economists receiveing Nobel Price since he doesn't think this subject is worthy of it. I don't know how much he would agree with the idea of the necessity of socialism but his makeup looks quite suitable for this list to me. Sabri
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Carrol, Do you see what I mean? economists receiving Nobel Price since he ... You have serious spelling problems with this language and you better do something about it. Moreover, what is this calling what everybody else calls football soccer, what everybody else calls wrestling football and the like? You should know that these are not acceptable to me. Hey, also stop calling my country Turkey; it is Turkiye, O.K.? By the way, I should apologize from my Indian fellows because we call their country the land of turkeys, that is, Hindistan. Sabri
Re: Dallas Smythe student (separated at birth?)
What I see that I object to is not so much asceticism as good old fashioned oppositional smugness. I object to it, though, with some humility. There's a long tradition of smugness alternating between politically correct asceticism and bohemian hedonism. For chrissake think of the sixties maoists and hippies, often the same people at different points in their hormone-crazed personal trajectories. Oppositional hedonism and asceticism are mirror images of each other and together the pair is a mirror image of the mainstream A H twins. Keep in mind that the hedonistic and ascetic positions are going to stand out more than some wishy-washy dialectical appreciation of nuance. To paraphrase another famous Canadian communications guru, sometime indeed the medium is the massage. Doug Henwood wrote, What I see in the anti-commercial gang is just the kind of asceticism that Mandel criticized in orthodox Marxists, though without the class angle.
Re: Re: Dallas Smythe student
On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 11:33:33 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: 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. [...] I may be interpreting wrongly, but what's wrong with non-artificial self-limitation, including a criticism of and revolt against, for example, sexual display for purposes of advertising? Aren't some limitations helpful in releasing freedoms in other dimensions? I agree with Mandel's quote of Marx, that we must be capable of many pleasures, hence cultured to a high degree, but can't a criticism of sexuality that is uncultured, cheap, and ultimately anti-social (because it is not based on love or affection or even lust, but upon greed) contribute to a higher degree of culture? These all may be rhetorical. Ignore if you like. Bill
Re: Re: Dallas Smythe student
Sabri Oncu wrote: Carrol, Do you see what I mean? economists receiving Nobel Price since he ... You have serious spelling problems with this language and you better do something about it. Moreover, what is this calling what everybody else calls football soccer, what everybody else calls wrestling football and the like? You should know that these are not acceptable to me. Hey, also stop calling my country Turkey; it is Turkiye, O.K.? By the way, I should apologize from my Indian fellows because we call their country the land of turkeys, that is, Hindistan. About 50 years ago I learned to decline one noun in Turkish -- but I can't remember either the English meaning or the declension; and I'm uncertain about the word: I think it was _dil_ but I'm not sure. Carrol Sabri
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Sut Jhally sounds like my kind of fellow alumnus. Unfortunately his lecture is on a Friday afternoon, one of my most congested. I'll see what I can do. I disagree with one claim in the article. Dallas Smythe wasn't the first to look at media as economic institutions. I wouldn't claim Walter Benjamin as first because absolute priority is difficult to establish. But he was certainly looking at the media as economic institutions long before Smythe. While were on the theme of advertising and the apocalypse, I've dusted off my sandwich boards and have begun flaneuring around again in earnest. The rationale and highlights will unfold serially on sandwichman.blogspot.com. Tom Walker
Re: Dallas Smythe student
Eugene Coyle quoted: Designer Kenneth Cole's latest glossy multipage spread in magazines and on billboards offers pithy advice on how to live from Sept. 12 on: Buy some shoes, Jhally says wryly. Really, after a while, it became obvious that nothing had really changed. You knew advertising was back when sex and triviality made a return. Gadzooks! Sex!! Triviality!!! Band together and protect the youth from these threats Remind me what's progressive about this? It sounds like Donald Wildmon. Doug
Re: Dallas Smythe student
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. Perhaps advertisements have improved Doug's sex life. If so, perhaps he could tell us how. Doug Henwood wrote, Gadzooks! Sex!! Triviality!!! Band together and protect the youth from these threats Remind me what's progressive about this? It sounds like Donald Wildmon.
Re: Dallas Smythe student
From the article Gene sent: When intellectuals talk among themselves, they talk in a way that is impossible for a general audience to understand, he says. They may be talking about great things, but they're in an intellectual alley. Unless we talk to that kid, we're just hanging out with people who already agree with us. Not enough academics are willing to take that risk. The first job of education is to get people to see the world they live in, to pull back the curtain and allow people to see what's behind it. Last night I was at a concert some good friends who came from Turkey gave. They happen to be three of Turkey's most outstanding Sufi musicians. They were accompanied by the Shaik of the American Mevlevi order who read several poems of Mevlana Cellaletin-i Rumi as they were playing. Below is one of those poems. I remembered it when I read the above: The Intellectual The Intellectual is always showing off; the lover is always getting lost. The intellectual runs away, afraid of drowning; the whole business of love is to drown in the sea. Intellectuals plan their repose; lovers are ashamed to rest. The lover is always alone, even surrounded with people; like water and oil, he remains apart. The man who goes to a lover gets nothing. He's mocked by passion. Love is like musk. It attracts attention. Love is a tree, and lovers are its shade. Sabri
