pollution is other people than Wojtek

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 23 01:52:18 PDT 1999


In message <3.0.6.32.19990922141856.00d4a890 at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>, Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> writes
>BTW, the "want-to" argument from a marxist is shocking. By the same logic,
>we can argue that there is nothing wrong with capitalism because workers
>would not be working for their minumum wages if they did not want to.

Wojtek, you yourself argued just a few posts ago that there was no material advantage to having a car. You costed it down to the last penny, and proved that there was no benefit in having a car as opposed to using public transport.

You said 'The car has always been more of a fetish than a practical item'.

Of other people you feel confident to say that they are motivated by some sexual fetishism and basic consumerist stupidity. And then when it comes to you yourself, you say 'I have to have a car, I have no choice in the matter'!

What you mean is that the cost-benefit analysis is wrong. The car meets your needs more effectively than other forms of transport. You should have the generosity of spirit to make the same assumption of others. They are not in the grip of perverted car-lust, any more than you are. They just made a practical calculation. -- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list