It seems to me that you can't even begin to talk about the consumerism issue among the majority of Americans until some form of real economic security is in place; otherwise the response Doug reports will be repeated over and over with considerable justification. Universal economic security is the logical (and political) precondition of moving to different consumption patterns. That doesn't mean there isn't value though in sketching out the big picture of how irrational the work-and-spend cycle is, which Schor does well. [In a less discussed part of her analysis, she's also used the example of women's lipstick to show how some commodities' value consists primarily in the social status it confers.] 50 years from now we could have (at least) a 20 hr work week society without giving anything up in income, and probably a lot saner society, if we converted all productivity gains into more free time. The obvious problem with this is that there are no mechanisms to make democratic social choices on this scale about the economy; without that, shorter term policy proposals to move in this direction will be likely incoherent or subject to objections from workers. To put it very crudely, establish democratic control over the economy first, then talk seriously about combining economic security, shorter hours, and a less consumerist way of life. But certainly the vision of a different way of life combining those elements would be a valuable carrot for the left in arguing why democratic control of the economy is important. Thad At 03:59 PM 6/16/97 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a message dated 97-06-16 18:44:01 EDT, you write: >>"Harvard prof tells working class to tighten belts; working class raises >>middle finger in response." >> >>How do you do this critique without risking snobbery? >> >>Doug > >While I too use much of Schor's work, I have always been bothered by a few >things: >1. there really is a lack of class analysis--the work uses income as the >defining factor, and ignores the fact that very wealthy people consume and >waste a whole lot more than people in the working class--whether they are >part of the union aristocracy or not. >2. It ignores an analysis of where consumerism comes from--consumerism is to >capitalism as the sacraments are to Catholicism. Consumerism is fostered by >capitalism: it is what keeps us in debt and makes banks rich. For people to >reduce consumption, they must somehow reject the heart of capitalism. >maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
