new economy rant from Jim O'Connor

[Michael Perelman]

Jim O'Connor's message was wonderful.  Jim Heartfield's also made some good
points.  Both the intellectuals to that Heartfield mentioned and Jim O'Connor
may look down on the consumption of canned meat, but for different reasons.
O'Connor's critique of consumption related to the way capital is able to
manipulate consumption.  Susceptibility to manipulation was not unique to the
working-class.  Upper class people too also try to follow trends and, even if
they're different trends from the ones that the working-class follows.

Marx did believe as Heartfield notes that consumption, along with political
activity, was a means to liberation.  Marx refers to the consumption of reading
material; O'Connor refers to the consumption of brands, such as Nike.  I cannot
believe that Marx would be particularly enthusiastic about the susceptibility
to brands.

Marx's discussion about the positive use value of consumption came in the
Grundrisse, as Doug's extract from Mandel suggested.  In Capital, especially in
the discussion of fetishism, Marx was following the approach that Jim O'Connor
attributed to him: namely that markets were controlling people, rather than
inverse.

So Marx applied it consumption, but not mindless consumption.  Rather he called
for consumption that would expand the mind, along with powers of the
working-class.

I thought the most insightful part of O'Connor's message was the consumption
was a mediated process, as his examples of reading books indicated.

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu