gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) (04/05/88)
The economy we live in is driven by consumption. The desire to
acquire products and services is what encourages people to work
and invest, thereby making possible the production of surplus
labor value which, as capital, feeds further expansion of the
economy. The sale and consumption of the products and
services completes the circuit, validating the labor of
the workers (whether or not the goods are of any real use to them.)
Since most players on the economic field are directed by a desire
to increase the "bottom line", they fall into conformity with the
prevailing system, that is, the expansion of consumption.
Consumption can be made most efficient, thereby growing at the
fastest rate, if the worker-consumers are all alike. It is easiest
then to fit them into job slots, and provide goods which can be
expected to appeal to them. Substantial variation causes inefficiencies.
For example, if workers are attached to large families living in
particular towns, it will be difficult to move them around to meet
business needs. Similarly, if the potential market for a type of
product is divided into many segments with strong and differing
preferences, the market will be fragmented, and production and
distribution will be unable to achieve economies of scale.
This uniformity can be most readily achieved by the atomization of
society. That is, each person's attachment to particulars must
be weakened or eliminated, whether to family, religion, community,
party, social group, "race", region, and so on. And, paradoxically,
this weakening of ties and atomization of the social fabric can be
most immediately brought about through the promulgation of "individualism."
Individualism is always portrayed as something at odds with group
membership, although in fact it is membership in groups which provides
persons with their strongest and most effective means of being
particular. A person in a small group is usually well-known to
other members of the group and has a needed function within the
group. The strongest groups, such as families and sometimes religious,
political, or business groupings, often contain elements of compulsion
which solidify the individual's position within the group at the same
time as they may seem to suppress her or his individuality; for the
group is as bound to the member as the member is to the group.
When everyone is completely individualized, on the other hand, entirely
"free" of obligation and relationship, that is, when the social fabric
is completely atomized, then everyone is in every practical sense the
same. And, to the extent that persons differ, they are more vulnerable
to pressures from the system as a whole, since there are no intervening
or supporting institutions.
Do the great corporations and institutions which make up the framework
of our economic system plot to bring about this state of affairs?
No, they don't have to; the pressures produced by a consumption-
oriented economy suffice, and the great players are as susceptible
to those pressures as the others. Those who produce the goods and
services also produce the education or propaganda required
to instill in the population a knowledge of, and desire for, the
products. This is, of course, advertising; an industry whose size
and high profile reveals its central importance, and its effectiveness
as well.
At the same time as the population's tastes are being homogenized
a kind of spurious particularism is developed, such as the difference
between Pepsi and Coca-Cola, or, better yet, the difference between New
and Classic Coca-Cola. This pseudo-particularism is characterized by
products which differ trivially so that they can appear different
while being produced by the same methods (and often in the identical
factories) and so that the advertising for one will reinforce, rather
than diminish the advertising for another. Pepsi and Coke advertise
with youth, teeth, splashing water and frosty cans, for each other;
7-Up advertises for both as well as itself by calling itself "The Uncola".
Everyone has had the experience of finding a product, say, tea,
displayed for several feet of shelf space in a supermarket under
several different brands and packagings, yet all the same, pekoe
and orange pekoe, in spite of the fact that there are dozens or
hundreds of other types of tea.
Pseudo-particularism has an additional benefit: it reassures the
consumers that they really are particular, in spite of the fact
that, as far as the system is concerned, they aren't. This spurious
form of particularism is especially strong among the present and
future leaders of the system and evidences itself in such trivia
as red suspenders, antique cars, and cranky politics. In point
of fact, the system needs leaders who have the same quality of
replaceability as the workers and the components of the machines
they work with; a quality which can be brought about only through
standardization. Here, the intellectual circle is completed.
These leaders profess individualism while they practice self-
standardization. The illusion is complete.
--
G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\
The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) (04/06/88)
In article <3714@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes:
#
# The economy we live in is driven by consumption. The desire to
# acquire products and services is what encourages people to work
# and invest, thereby making possible the production of surplus
# labor value which, as capital, feeds further expansion of the
# economy. [...]
#
You begin with Marx's premises and definitions, and you end with Marx's
conclusions -- no surprise. I wonder if you are aware of his influence,
or whether his ideas are so pervasive that you got ahold of them without
knowing their source?
The whole "surplus labor value" idea is basically bunk. If you start from
this premise, only utter totalitarian communism makes sense.
I'm not an economist, but I can get one for you if you want to discuss this
further. And, yes, this discussion DOES belong in a group about individualism,
since Marxism is one of the most anti-individualist (anti-*man*, really)
political theories ever described.
--
Paul A Vixie Esq
paul%vixie@uunet.uu.net
{uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul
San Francisco, (415) 647-7023gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) (04/07/88)
In article <860@vixie.UUCP> paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) writes: } In article <3714@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes: } # } # The economy we live in is driven by consumption.... } } You begin with Marx's premises and definitions, and you end with Marx's } conclusions -- no surprise. I wonder if you are aware of his influence, } or whether his ideas are so pervasive that you got ahold of them without } knowing their source? Via Marcuse. But wait! I do not regard either Marx or Marcuse as authorities, just sources of ideas. } The whole "surplus labor value" idea is basically bunk. If you start from } this premise, only utter totalitarian communism makes sense. 1. Would you care to demonstrate the second of the above two sentences? 2. Where does capital come from? } I'm not an economist, but I can get one for you if you want to discuss this } further.... I'm interested in the social effects of economic forces, among other things. Many economists are not. A redeeming feature of K. Marx was his idea that economic phenomena do not occur in an abstract vacuum. -- G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (04/08/88)
In article <3714@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) writes: > >The economy we live in is driven by consumption. I'm not sure what "is driven by" means. The actual production is determined by both the demand and the supply. The supply for automobiles in the middle ages was zilch, so (surprise!) no production happened. Thus the desire to consume is not the only thing that determines the behavior of the economy. >The desire to >acquire products and services is what encourages people to work >and invest, thereby making possible the production of surplus >labor value which, as capital, feeds further expansion of the >economy. Yes, but the ability to produce products and services is, in some sense, more important, because without any production, consumption is impossible. "In some sense" makes this a fuzzy statement, but it is no more fuzzy than yours. By the way, what is the difference between "surplus labor value" and "non-surplus labor value"? Realize that if the "surplus labor value" does not wind up in the hands of the person who did the labor, then that person will eventually become smart enough to decide not to produce that labor. >Since most players on the economic field are directed by a desire >to increase the "bottom line", they fall into conformity with the >prevailing system, that is, the expansion of consumption. Run this by me again. Whose bottom line is increased when who expands consumption? It seems that for me to increase my consumption helps your bottom line, so this "prevailing system" has nothing to do with how selfish people will behave. >Consumption can be made most efficient, thereby growing at the >fastest rate, if the worker-consumers are all alike. Yes. Unfortunately for this argument production requires specialized skills, so if we make everyone the same, our ability to produce will fall apart, so consumption will stop. >For example, if workers are attached to large families living in >particular towns, it will be difficult to move them around to meet >business needs. Similarly, if the potential market for a type of >product is divided into many segments with strong and differing >preferences, the market will be fragmented, and production and >distribution will be unable to achieve economies of scale. You started out by saying the consumer is the most important person, but now you are trying to sacrafice his freedoms to a higher goal, which seems to be to maximize the total consumption. The purpose of a group is to benefit its members (in the judgement of its members), not to maximize its consumption. >Individualism is always portrayed as something at odds with group >membership, although in fact it is membership in groups which provides >persons with their strongest and most effective means of being >particular. This does not fit with my experience. If, to do something unique, I have to obtain permission from a group, this decreases my chances of doing it. You seem to be assuming here that if a bunch of people are subjected to the same environment, then they will all tend to become the same, and that groups are the only way to eliminate the sameness. If people have personal freedom then this isn't necessarily so, since people will adapt their environment to themselves given the chance. >When everyone is completely individualized, on the other hand, entirely >"free" of obligation and relationship, that is, when the social fabric >is completely atomized, then everyone is in every practical sense the >same. Their desires to consume will be different, and their abilities to produce will be different. So what do you mean by "in every practical sense the same"? >And, to the extent that persons differ, they are more vulnerable >to pressures from the system as a whole, since there are no intervening >or supporting institutions. The only pressure from the system as a whole would be, in an ideal world, for each person's production to have at least as much value as his consumption. I want to keep this pressure, otherwise the species starts devolving. More constraining pressures that reduce personal freedom are generated by the intervening and supporting institutions themselves. >These leaders profess individualism while they practice self- >standardization. The illusion is complete. Well, I don't watch TV, and I don't drink Coke or Pepsi or 7-up, so the kind of self-standardization you are talking about hasn't happend to me. >G Fitch Tim Freeman -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo.css.gov!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf