[lbo-talk] Barbara Ehrenreich

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at aapt.net.au
Thu Aug 13 07:38:05 PDT 2009


At 6:31 AM -0700 13/8/09, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:


>I understand that there is this romantic / messianistic vision of
>the poor / working class / third world suffering for the functioning
>of the global capitalism or sinful humanity in general. It creates
>a sense of purpose or sacrifice in that suffering akin to the x-tian
>idea of "messiah" suffering for the human kind to redeem it. In a
>similar way many families of those who died or were wounded in Iraq
>nonetheless supported Bush's vision of 'war on terror' - because
>that vision gave them an illusion that the death or suffering of
>their loved ones was for something, some 'greater good' enjoyed by
>the nation as a whole.

I suppose that's right, the poor of the third world are suffering for the sins of the first world, now that you mention it. I hadn't thought of it that way. And of course the over-consumption of the rich world is a sin against the planet, against humanity, against future generations. Yes, a great analogy, I like it.


>The sad truth is that all that suffering is for nothing - it is
>marginalized, unnecessary, and pointless. Nobody benefits from it,
>it is not redeemed at some higher level by the creation of value,
>even if that value is appropriated by someone else. It is like
>rubbish - thrown away, purpose-less, and forgotten. It has no value
>to anyone, even capitalists, imperialists and kindred 'enemies of
>the people.'

You apparently equate not consuming with suffering. Which is only true if taken to extremes. And especially when it is involuntary. But equally, consuming to excess can lead to suffering. As I think you pointed out in your last post about consumption of a high fat diet.

We can afford to consume considerably less without any suffering at all, in fact we'd be better off in many ways.

The point I was making before about the culture of the 70's was that the working class could afford to be under-achievers and under-consmuers. Because they felt secure. Over-consumption is a symptom of insecurity, social insecurity in that not buying certain things can stigmatise a person, but also economic insecurity in that people who feel insecure will buy things to compensate for past deprivations.


>That is probably the most tragic aspect of it - but then most other
>forms of suffering is unnecessary and pointless as well. It is only
>the warped, perverted, fucked up x-tian ideology that falsely
>elevated suffering to the level of virtue, at least in the Western
>culture of messianistic masochism.

You really do take things to extremes. I wasn't suggesting that anyone fast to death as a protest. Merely that you work as little as possible and go to the beach instead. (And think of it as an act of class warfare.) Buy a lot less stuff, but don't go without anything you need. You tell us you don't need a car, so you refuse to have one. Exactly! That sort of thing.

Personally, I need a car. I don't imagine myself as some kind of Christ, so I have a car. In fact I have a Mercedes, there I confess it. Lovely car actually, leather upholstery, electric windows, weighs at least a ton I suspect. But comfortable and reliable. Fuck you and fuck the third world, I'm keeping it. As long as I don't have to suck up to a boss to keep it, you have to draw the line somewhere. ;-)

So don't you start worrying (while you're waiting for the bus) about me being a suffering martyr. It isn't like that. I did suffer a bit self-consciousness about getting about in a Merc at first, that's true. A bit embarrassed to be seen in it. But you get used to it, after awhile you can get used to anything. I'm OK now.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list