>> 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. In the Grundrisse Marx says: 'The
>> exploration of the earth in all directions, to discover new things
>> of use as well as new useful qualities of the old; such as new
>> qualities of them as raw materials; the development, hence, of the
>> natural sciences to their highest point; likewise the discovery,
>> creation and satisfaction of new needs arising from society itself;
>> the cultivation of all the qualities of the social human being,
>> production of the same in a form as rich as possible in needs,
>> because rich in qualities and relations - production of this being
>> as the most total and universal possible social product, for, in
>> order to take gratification in a many-sided way, he must be capable
>> of many pleasures, hence cultured to a high degree - is likewise a
>> condition of production founded on capital....
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
I believe Karl M never observed a Dolce&Cabana or Gucci ad, or knew the meaning of predatory advertising directed at children, or had experienced "food" that just looks like food, with a nutritional value below cardboard.
Although he probably *had* observed the arrogance of people who believed they were "...cultured to a high degree". Those people have always been around, they are called the ruling class.
The "new need arising from society itself" is to slow down the mass destrucion of the earth by curbing our consumption. Wants and desires are not "needs", unless we're talking about obsession and compulsion.
How can anyone stick to a 19th century definition of the terms Marx was using, and then claim that someone ELSE is a luddite?
Hypocricy?
Leigh