> This is why, I think Eric, you might want to flesh out your position. It
> sounds as if it's wavering toward the manly man real politics stuff. I know
> that's not what you mean, but I can see how it's misinterpreted.
You are right, of course, and I've been thinking it every time I type something on this thread. I'm on a little vacation, so I'm not going to devote too much time to it right now, but I would definitely not agree with Brad's dismissal of consumption because it doesn't fit with Marxist theory. As journalists like to remind us, two-thirds of the U.S. economy is based on consumption, as is a large portion of our nonlaboring existence, so it seems a little silly to act as if it doesn't exist. I'm guessing that Brad, and others, think that only production and distribution matter because they are where surplus value is created and politics is possible, respectively, but I think that's wrong.
My poorly formulated objection here has been to talking about consumption in terms of identity: these people consume these things. Doug says it's fun to talk about these things, and I agree: the study a few years ago showing that the most-owned dog on the Upper East Side was the terrier and in Harlem it was the pit bull made me laugh. But all it did really was confirm what I thought I knew about people. It validated my prejudices, which is exactly the opposite of what politics should do, methinks.