> jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> Isn't it the class signifier component of the Gucci shoe Leigh is
>> objecting to
>
When I typed:
"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."
I was just pulling names out of the hat.
Doesn't: predatory advertising directed at children
or "food" that just looks like food, with a nutritional value below cardboard.
...figure into the marxist model on the minus side of the balance sheet?
Starbucks...
Ask Rev Billy about Starbuck's... There a legitimate reason to exorsize starbucks, make it levitate AND turn purple... all the evil entities will flee!
I know you want him on your show Doug.
> 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.
I don't wear che' shirts and cammy pants.
Is that what you mean?
> 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?
Hunh... what did you say? I was napping.
Leigh