From: <james at communistbanker.com>
Here you move from ruling ideas - ideology - to conspiracy.
^^^^ CB: No you didn't say "conspiracy" , Oh God.
^^^^^^^ In a number of US cities, there really was a conspiracy against mass transit - see for example Caro's biog of Moses. And that clearly isn't in society's interest. On the other hand ideology will, of course, shape people's desires - there is no extra-ideological space of preference formation. But that doesn't tell you anything about the legitimacy of these wants, and what you want (for yourself and for others) is no more ideology-free than anyone else's. As to corporate decisions, I see the problem more as one of not meeting enough needs rather than creating too many needs.
^^^^^^ CB: What a relief. For a minute I thought you were going to start talking about "conspiracy theory".
Yes, the process of origin and formation of all needs/wants/desires involves ideology/ideas. And the ruling class of the age has a disproportionate impact on this process. The car commodity formation is a specific example of the ways in which the ruling class effects its dominance of this process.
On the puzzle of too many needs vs not meeting enough of them, this is the classical economic question of choice among scarce resources, I think. The more needs created , the harder to meet all of them. Once you get a lot of people thinking they need/want the latest model of car every year, it becomes harder to meet that need. The felt need could just be for a car, and the used car and repair and mechanics industry could satify it, rather than a "new" model car every year. The newness of models every year is somewhat phony. The ideology of a new car model every year is an example of the impact of ruling class ideas affecting mass want structure ( Please don't say "conspiracy" around here). Planned obsolescence is another aspect of this "ideology".
^^^^^^^
CB on the 1950s: "We were in the Golden Age."
James: I think this is pure romanticism, and going back to a golden age is no basis for progressive politics (I know you're not arguing for a return to 1950s values). During periods of stable growth, the people who benefit most will tend to remember it fondly, and not want for too much (true of the nineteenth century labour aristocracy in the UK, too). But as society develops, we create new needs. This isn't a big conspiracy to grow misery. It means that we are able to provide good new things - international travel, centrally heated and air conditioned houses, great television shows (not mentioning the 'c' word).
Maybe when we're running society people will want less stuff. But we cannot proceed on the basis that they will. Organising society for human need has to mean organising for what humans think they need, not what elites think they need. Otherwise you're no better than Robert Moses.
C'mon comrade, let rip with production!
^^^^^^ CB: Comrade, nothing but the best for the working class. We must demand the best quality and the optimum quantity for ourselves. Surely, we Marxists have our own sublated version of Caveat Emptor. We want to encourage the working class,of which we are an integral part, to be choicy in the market place, no ? Great televisions shows ? We could do without 9/10ths of them probably.
My reference to the "Golden Age" is a reference to the state of mind of the very working masses to whom you want to make these decisions. Wasn't that time golden by the decision and opinion of a lot of workers in the U.S. ?
My point on the '50s is if U.S. workers' judgment was that it wasn't barracks or hairshirt capitalism or savagery, why couldn't we live with it again without being "anti-progress" ? Capitalism doesn't just automatically materially progress just by the passage of time. An ever growing GDP just does not ensure better and better stuff for us. We have to be more choosy, discriminating in our tastes,even. Don't just accept everything they throw at us.
By the way, I am not part of "the elite" imposing my views on people of what I think they need. I am one of the rank and file people, one of the humans, as you term it, telling you what I think I and we, the working masses,need. Charles Brown is one of Us, the People . Robert Moses is one of them in the elite.
Why not the best for the working class, comrade ?