I'm truly astounded by the density of you alleged non-individualists and your sophomoric reduction of all possible forms of individualism to capitalist selfishness. How sad for our side of the spectrum that so many otherwise lovely people disdain the very basis for making the world better.
BTW, it's Brian, not me, that is blinded by rote dogma. Everybody who's had a chance to think about the topic knows the self is fleeting and transient. Hell, that's both self-evident from experience and also taught to every toddler in every religion. Who genuinely thinks the self is permanent and unchanging? That's right: nobody.
Nonetheless, Brian says: "The self is empty" and therefore not worthy of study. Brian apparently bases this near-claim (watch: he'll soon retract it) on his understanding of Buddhism. Sociology is a waste of time, he implies. Again, one wonders why then politics matters at all either. Of course, it doesn't, if you stick to what Brian's logic.
BTW, Brian's also peddling baloney about the attachment of ordinary people to the concept "consume." That's a verbal fiction patrician leftists stamp on the backs of commoners, as penalty for commoners not rallying to the wisdom of the stamper. Nobody sets out to consume -- to use up products -- on purpose. Did you set your home on fire today? Smash your stereo with a sledge hammer? People are trying to have decent, enjoyable lives by making the best possible choices from within a very tightly limited set of options. Transferring blame for those limits from capitalists onto commoners is a very old, very tired, and very, very politically costly pseudo-radical travesty.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: The Consumer Self
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, BklynMagus wrote:
>
> > Dear List:
> >
> > Michael writes:
>
> > > I say it again: You are simply wrong about individualism.
> >
> > Cling, Baby, Cling!!! LOL.
> >
>
> Give it up, Brian. Arguing with Michael about this is like
> arguing with a devout Catholic about the existence of God.
> I don't think there is a meaningful argument that will lead
> him to question the value the notion of the free, separate
> individual. (--And ironically, I can't resist pointing out,
> when people like Michael and James H. celebrate the
> "subject", they are not generating a unique, idiosyncratic
> insight; they are clearly demonstrating that
> they have been well socialized into a society that values
> freedom and individuality.)
>
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk