> Leigh Meyers wrote:
>
> >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".
>
> You must have missed the bit that Mandel quoted from Marx, about the
> civilizing function of capital, or the distinction he made between
> "the 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)...."
>
> And I think D&G and Gucci make some beautiful stuff. What's wrong
> with a lovely shoe?
>
> Doug
Isn't it the class signifier component of the Gucci shoe Leigh is objecting to rather than the shoe itself? With a bit of practice I could make a beautiful and comfortable shoe that could be profitably sold for 1/4 the price of the Gucci in most instances. The Bianco and Biarosa womens summer shoe looks almost identical to a pair of $10 Keds. Rubber sole, canvas upper with web stripe and lace up. What makes them worth $500 and $550 respectively?
John Thornton