Michael writes:
> Widespread print literacy, which happened to take hold in Europe first,
lead to both democracy and increased psychological individuation. Both of
these latter things are indispensable treasures, two of the greatest
achievements in human history.
Individuation is fine in moderation, but when it leads to individualism and attachment it is a great danger.
> Capitalism did not invent identity.
No it didn't. If my post led you to believe that was my belief I apologize for my poor communication. In actuality, identity/individualism creates capitalism. The Westeren/Abrahamic notion of stable, individual identity requires constant reinforcement since it is based on a misperceptiopn of reality. Consequently, the acquisition/consumption of goods is a continuous, ever-growing process necessary for maintaining the illusion/delusion of individual identity (These fragements I have shored against my ruin, etc, etc.).
> If we want to be taken seriously by lots of people, we must stop being so
damned imprecise and hyperbolic in this area, IMHO.
In my opinion, we must stop promoting misinformation about the nature of reality and identity.
Doug posted:
> Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism, pp. 394-396:
> 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.
Consumption is fine so long as it is not used as a method of creating a false sense of stable identity.
> 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'.
Unfortunately, this is a mistake. The concept of "rich individuality" is just another way of propping up a false sense of identity. Had Marx expanded his horizons to Eastern thought he might have avoided this error.
> 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.
The first half is correct. But the aim is wrong. Why seek to create an illusion that demands over-consumption to maintain it? While needs must be acknowledged and met, rather than posit a goal that re-entrenches the problem, I think it better to use the Buddhist framework to avoid this error: right action; right mindfulness; right speech; right livelihood; right concentration; right effort, right intentions; right view.
> 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.
Right minfulness.
> . . . 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.
Right livelihood.
> 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.
Right livelihood.
> 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.
Buddhism has always recommnded the middle way between asceticism and mindless consumption.
> 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.
Again, Buddha had worked out this system over 2000 years before Marx pointed out the need for it.
By focusing on the framework of action we can avoid the problem of reinforcing identity/individualism. Understanding a human being as the product of causes, conditions and forces and, therefore, in flux, eliminates the fetishization that results in unecessary consumption.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister