[lbo-talk] Fwd: REVEREND BILLY

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

> jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> 
> >Isn't it the class signifier component of the Gucci shoe Leigh is objecting
> >to
> 
> I don't know - you'll have to ask him. I've certainly run into lots 
> of leftists and countercultural types who proudly wear anti-chic 
> clothing on principle.
> 
> >  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.
> 
> Right above your comment was this quote from Mandel:
> 
> >  > "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)...."
> 
> Is it really that hard to grasp this distinction?

Not difficult to grasp but you also objected to Leighs condemnation of 
Gucci shoes not beautiful shoes. Leigh may object to fashionable 
footwear, I don't know, but his objection as I read it was of Gucci and 
Dolce & Gabbana not lovely shoes and handbags. He was wrong in 
thinking Marx didn't address this issue but correct in picking Gucci as an 
example.

John Thornton