[lbo-talk] Re: Socialist Planning and politicization of consumer choice - was Butter Vs. Margerine

Kelley the-squeeze at pulpculture.org
Sun Sep 21 06:41:52 PDT 2003


At 07:42 PM 9/20/03 -0700, Gar Lipow wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:00:58 -0400
>Kelley <the-squeeze at pulpculture.org>
>
>wrote (in passing)
>
>>... but man, i'll tell ya: this issue is one of the reasons i grow
>>increasingly concerned about the issue that bodi raised on another
>>thread: the poilticization of consumer choices.
>>ugh. they are already politicized now, of course, but i can't imagine
>>what happens when those choices become a topic for public debate where
>>we're talking about "socialist planning". ughfuckingughughugh.
>>
>>kelley
>
>Kelley - at one point Albert and Hahnel did advocate policies that would
>have led to this. Not only just about every critic but most supporters had
>the same reaction you did, so they don't make a point of it any more. They
>may have changed their minds. At any rate socialist planning does
>not require discussion of individual consumer choices, and most
>supporters of socialist planning would be against any optional add-ons
>that let people know the amount of fat you ate, the amount of whiskey you
>drank, and would be against any semi-official forums where people would be
>encourage to bring the subject up. (People might be rude and bring the
>subject up in dinner parties, grocery stores or resteraunts or any other
>circumstances where they observe your consumption, just as some do now.
>Presumably you defend against that through ignoring them, humor, return
>rudeness or whatever forms of self-defense you use against rude and
>irritating people now.)

huh. i didn't even think about A&H! i haven't paid attn. to the parecon thread. sorry: i'm looking forward to the debate that is likely to take place: all but a few people will read what A&H actually write.

Maybe we just mean different things, but I'm going to assume that, in a non-market socialism, someone has to decide what is going to get produced. how A&H deal with that, I don't know. I'm interested, so I'm just going to read when I get a chance.

leaving aside parecon, someone recently mentioned that he might help others in medical need, as long as they didn't make choices that had led to their illness. i spewed my second guiness--the breakfast of champeens!--all over my keyboard. *chortle*

i assume that this attitude is pretty widespread. people don't want to expend their own or societal resources on choices other people make if they've deemed those choices "bad."

now, please realize that i'm just screwing around here and hardly serious, but let's talk about something really trivial. i personally think that clean feet and clipped toenails are good enough but apparently some people think that everyone must have pedicures.

well, who's going to _pay_ for those pedicures? i'm not: wash your feet and clip your toenails. i'll pay for the soap, water, washcloth, and clipper. i think our societal resources are better spent on other things.

don't laugh: during drive time on a local station, they have questions to which people respond during call in. recently, the question was: do you wash your feet. you'd be surprised at how many people said they don't. just let the water and soap run over them as they clean the rest of their body. other people flipped out and said they were gross.

again, i'm just having fun with this but, seriously, if people get so worked up now over what kind of clothes other people wear in public or whether or not other people have pedicures NOW or wash their feet the right way or what kind of toilet paper it is acceptable to use, what happens when it is _really_ obvious that societal resources are being spent on those choices and we have to decide if we want to continue the practice.

If it is deemed that eggs are bad, based on the kind of research and reasoning that lead people to conclude they were bad between, what?, 1970 - 2000, then--what?--are we going to decide that people who've eaten eggs regularly are responsible for their heart attacks? so, hey, butch up, choad, and die. you fucked up. are we going to curtail the production of eggs in line with what "society" decides is the maximum number of eggs a healthy individual ought to eat?

what about people who are overweight? well, frankly, if they need to lose weight, then maybe they shouldn't get as much money with which to buy food. force them suckers to drop the flab. men? more than 25% bodyfat, butch up choad! women? more than 30% drop and give "society" 50, maggot.

oooooooooooo. damn it. waitaminute. it can't just be about eating less, it ought to be about a specific exercise regimen in conjunction with reducing caloric intake. know why? cause it's unhealthy to lose weight by cutting cals alone: for every 3 lbs. of fat you drop, you lose a lb. of muscle. you need to exercise so that you'll only lose 1 lb. of muscle to every 6-8 lbs. of fat. losing muscle is bad for the metablism doncha know. less muscle, body burns fewer calories (which is _one_ reason why people drop weight and gain it back). so, "society" has a freakin' interest in how you drop the flab because how you drop the flab impacts your health.

the tub o' lards are costing society money, damn it. and, of course, they're just gross to look at. gots to have an aesthetically pleasing environment and ugh and ick, if i have to look at something like this--http://hektik.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=dc11&id=IM000378 or this http://hektik.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=dc11&id=DSC08479 or this http://hektik.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=dc11&id=DSC04934

-- i'll just lose my lunch. another waste of societal resources!

i don't want to pay for your hummer but i would pay for everyone to have a hog because people should have hogs.

ahhhh. i just had to entertain myself this a.m. :)

kelley



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list