Incentive to work?

[Liquid Swords]

I'm talking to my friend right now about communism and he is telling me that people would have no incentive to work in a communist society. I'm having a hard time convincing him otherwise. What can I tell him that would change his mind?

[mykittyhasaboner]

well in order to trade with other people, you have to work or produce something, so theres just as much incentive in a communist as there is in a capitalist society. tell him that the incentive in a capitalist society is an illusion, because it is. supposedly if you work hard enough you become rich, but what can you say of the people who work everyday to support there whole family, and are living shit neighborhoods, and have lower standards of living, and no health care.

[shorelinetrance]

besides helping out your community/making it a better place?

gee, i don't know.

why do leftists argue with such idiots?

[BIG BROTHER]

In a communist society your incentive is, that if you help out your community in the long run you are helping yourself.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Any work one does will directly or indirectly aid them and help them develop.

[Liquid Swords]

I just explained to him all of the things you guys listed and he told me that while communism is a good idea, it could only work on a smaller scale, like a city. He went on to talk about human nature and all of that nonsense that I'm sure you've heard before.

I tried telling him that communism could only work on a global scale, but then he said there are too many black people and left. :(

Oh well, I tried, I guess you just can't change some people's opinions. Thanks for the help everybody.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You need to research this topic further so that next time around you can answer this question and not rely on others. Incentive is the topic of contention amongst non-Leftists. On philosophical and ethical issues capitalism's only warriors can be found in either 1.) the bourgeoisie circles or 2.) libertarian frat parties. To put it simply, capitalism stinks. Nobody likes defending mass lay-offs, poverty, 8-10 hour work days, corrupt politics, and mass advertising.

We must remind others that communism cannot be achieved overnight. We do not wish to rid the world of financial incentives tomorrow. Communism will be established when supply outperforms demand - when we have utilized technology not for purposes of war, but for productivity. Menial jobs like mining will be made enjoyable. We have the means of ridding manual mining from the face of the Earth by creating remote-powered drone "diggers," but instead we focus our resources on drone bombers.

Communists are in fact very greedy individuals - who also recognize the worth of working together. By abolishing money over 30% of the labor force can be freed up (cashiers, bankers, advertisers, marketers...) and we can resort the new labor pool to lowering the average work day to 3-4 hours. Capitalism, however, offers nothing of the sort. The 8-11 hour work day has remained the same since the 1930s.

Incentive will come from the fact you enjoy your work. People are naturally compelled to teaching, art, medicine, vet care, and other careers. If material rewards are still needed - they can be made. Retail stockers would, for example, get first dibs on new merchandise entering their store.

And if all else fails - we establish energy accounting whereby all of the above is still achieved - but you don't get the power to consume unless you're registered as working. :laugh:

[RHIZOMES]

I tried telling him that communism could only work on a global scale, but then he said there are too many black people and left. :(

There's your problem. A racist isn't going to accept egalitarianism.

[RedFlagComrade]

It takes years of study to gain the reams of neccessary expertise followed by decades of gruelling work helping, healing, curing, or operating on sick people and even watching them die, to be a doctor.

The entirely money-orientated capitalist will ask what the incentive is in an equal-wage society.

Point out that Cuba-a staunchly communist country and the only true one left-has the 2nd highest doctor to patient ratio in the world.

-The education of physicians in Cuba has exceeded the internal requirements-so Cuba has basically been exporting their doctors to other more needy third world countries for periods of service there.
-Cuba's missions in 68 countries are manned by 25,000 Cuban doctors, and medical teams have assisted victims of both the South Asian Tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake.
-Cuba currently exports considerable health services and personnel to Venezuela in exchange for subsidized oil. (a much needed commodity in Cuba-a country living under the US trade embargo that keeps a stranglehold on its economy, the only reason that cuba isnt an economically wealthy communist country)
-Nearly 2,000 Cuban doctors are currently working in Africa.
-Since the Chernobyl nuclear plant exploded in 1986, more than 20,000 children from Ukraine, Belarus and russia have traveled to Cuba for treatment of radiation sickness and psychologically based problems associated with the radiation disaster.
-Cuban doctors play a primary role in the social welfare program established in Venezuela under current Venezuelan president Hugo chavez.
-The ALBA program offered by Venezuela and Cuba offer free optical treatment and eye surgeries to all Latin American and Carribean citizens.The scheme was intended to expand to 500,000 operations a year in 2006

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm talking to my friend right now about communism and he is telling me that people would have no incentive to work in a communist society. I'm having a hard time convincing him otherwise. What can I tell him that would change his mind?

Check out the technocracy model of socialism.

[An archist]

Peer pressure, if you don't work, you're making it harder for other workers.

[Bastable]

why do leftists argue with such idiots?

perhaps to make them not-idiots?

[Kronos]

I'm talking to my friend right now about communism and he is telling me that people would have no incentive to work in a communist society. I'm having a hard time convincing him otherwise. What can I tell him that would change his mind?



There are a million ways to approach this issue. Here is one of them.

Ask him to define "incentive". He will tell you "aspiring to own property in exchange for my work". Then ask him "what is the difference between a communal ownership of all property, by all people, and the private ownership of property by individual people" He will pause, scratch his head, and say "with private ownership, I can decide what I want to own." Ask him "what would you want to own that other people would not want to own." He will reply "well, it depends on my preferences and my tastes." Then ask him "what would inspire you to want one commodity rather than another." He will answer "I don't understand the question." You will say "okay, for example, why would you want a Dodge rather than a Chevy." He will say "there could be many reasons why I would. One reason could be because I think the Dodge looks cooler." (here is where you break him down) You ask him "if the function of the Dodge remains the same for anyone, how and why does the quality of "coolness" arise in your opinion and not another's opinion." He will look at you with a blank stare. Then you say "the reason why you have the opinion here that the Dodge is cooler has nothing to do with its real objective, material value, which would be the same for anyone. Instead, the reason why you want the Dodge is because the semiotics in advertisement are symbolically selling you an image and an identity. So, the real value of the Dodge takes on two realities: first there is the objective function of the Dodge which would be the same for anyone, that is, its utility and its use is universal. Second, there is the idea that the Dodge has another value that has nothing to do with its objective function. In this sense, the subject which desires the Dodge over the Chevy is not doing so because of its real objective qualities, but because the Dodge symbolizes an aesthetic quality which transcends its actual reality." At this point he will be smoking a cigarette and looking around. He will say "dude, I have no idea what you are talking about." You will have to dumb it down a bit. You will try this approach- "there is a concept which has been developed by Marxists over several years called "consumer fetishism". The idea attempts to show how material commodities take on two distinct values, one of which is false, and at the expense of the real value that is objective. The productive processes involved in manufacturing the Dodge are objective and certain, that is, the relations of the forces of production that are required to produce the Dodge are quantifiable and absolute. The function of the Dodge is also- it is a machine that has finite capabilities which remain the same for anyone. This is the material value of the Dodge. The second kind of value is aesthetic, which means, the value and quality of the Dodge is ideological and is not determined by the forces of production- it is no longer worth what it cost to produce it, but becomes subject to the ideological desires of the consumer who wants it. These desires are generated through advertisement sublimation." Here he will again scratch his head. Now you are going to have to cut to the chase and forget the technical, philosophical approach. You will say "dude, the only reason why you want that Dodge is because it makes you feel better than someone else, and this is the practice of what Marxists call class alienation. Essentially you are buying the Dodge because it represents a status value which helps you establish your identity in society....but this identity establishment itself is the result of the initial class divisions in the capitalist/consumerist discourse- first, your class consciousness evolves. Next, your realization and estrangement experiences itself in conflict with other classes, all of which are doing the same thing. Finally, you develop desires which help you feel better than other competing classes. This desire is expressed in your habits as a consumer....in what you buy." Now he is really lost. He hasn't a clue what you are trying to explain to him. Now you say fuck it and hit him with this: the only reason why you have "preferences" is because you are alienated from everyone else, and the only reason why you are alienated from everyone else is because of the capitalist system. In a communist system, where there is no private property, you would never desire a commodity for any other reason that its objective use, because there would be no mediation in competing class interests, and class consciousness would not exist- there would be no "cool" or "uncool". The incentive to work in the communist system is to produce better commodities which function more efficiently. The value of what is produced is no longer virtual, but real."

[cappin]

If man is inherently greedy, then why are there so many communists?- People who are willing to work together and for each other.

The only problem faced is measuring exactly how hard someone has worked compared to someone else and who has rightfully earned what. It's a problem in a society that has to work as one body and distribute its production fairly to each part. The problems are: Who decides this? Who has the insight for all of these people? Who's to say it isn't flawed in judgment and will lose the objective feel of things? That's the downfall of all government; it's corrupt because a select few individuals with common brains do not = the millions, possibly billions, they're meant to represent.

Capitalism can dumb down its consumers to keep them herded and create desires that they condition them to have so that they don't conflict.

Flip on the tv, see a commercial, see the latest products, see the many people you want to be like that have these products, buy the products, repeat.

Average joe, Johnny, and his neighbor have what they want: their flat screen tvs, of course; acceptance(selfish, really); the illusion of working together toward one goal(how greedy); the hopes that one of them will have the cooler item so that they will be admired(sinister) and the capitalist society that makes it happen. *Sarcasm in ('s.

People aren't selfish. Everyone wants nothing more than to be loved and cherished and looked up to at costs they may not even consider. And they are, unfortunately, by the people who don't know that they're being used for the bourgeois image that they so envy. If someone wants to be rich, it's perfectly innocent. They want to live lavishly because they want to be wanted. Who doesn't? Who isn't guilty of love?

"I will get that mansion on the shore if I have to kill 5,000 Haitian slaves to do it!" Is actually harmless. He wants it because he is a creature of instinct. He wants pretty flashy things, and above all, the basic instinct of survival. He wants to sustain a lineage, he wants money to support it, and to attract the ones who want it too.
The peacock doth ruffle his feathers.

[shorelinetrance]

perhaps to make them not-idiots?

thats a good one.

[ckaihatsu]

Now you say fuck it and hit him with this: the only reason why you have "preferences" is because you are alienated from everyone else, and the only reason why you are alienated from everyone else is because of the capitalist system. In a communist system, where there is no private property, you would never desire a commodity for any other reason that its objective use, because there would be no mediation in competing class interests, and class consciousness would not exist- there would be no "cool" or "uncool". The incentive to work in the communist system is to produce better commodities which function more efficiently. The value of what is produced is no longer virtual, but real."


Kronos, I love the walkthrough -- it had me cracking up -- but I have to ask you to reconsider the last part. You make it sound as if human society would abandon aesthetics altogether once goods and services were liberated from being commodities. Your description really brings to mind a robes-and-sandals kind of communism, in which personal interactions would be so rewarding that nothing else, not art production, or aesthetics, or personal preferences could get a toe-hold in people's constantly rewarding personal interactions or in the economy of the society.

So no artistes would want to 'trick-out' their ride or have someone else do it for them, as is done even today? No options would be available from the communist state auto manufacturer because everyone would only care about functionality and nothing else?

This discussion revolves around one of the grayest of gray areas there is, in my opinion -- the fuzzy line between substance and style. In many cases -- say, in the service sector -- it is almost impossible to draw the line at all. With all due apologies to labor, Is someone really doing you a functional service or is it more like a garnish as you go about your chores?

With tangible, manufactured goods like cars and trucks the difference is easy, of course, because of the measurable functionality of what a car or truck does for us.

I created a simple chart to illustrate this sort of interplay between substance and style:

Humanities - Technology Chart
http://tinyurl.com/2h82yl


I'd imagine that a communist society would be much more *manufacturing*-oriented, which is certainly a more honest kind of economic system than the sorry excuse for an economic system that the U.S.-based, dollar-hegemonic system has become since the U.S. military hit the wall in Vietnam.

The *service* aspect could be fulfilled at the grassroots, local, person-to-person level.

The world aches for a system of value oversight that will allow us to realize the abundance of the vast manufacturing technologies at hand while providing some level of mass employment so that labor can be readily tapped without being exploited and sucked dry.

Let the archetypal 'friend' know that the production of aesthetic value requires human labor, just as manufactured products do. He would have to exchange something of value for the plain car or truck, and then exchange something more if he wanted to 'trick it out', or customize it, to make it more to his personal liking -- more visually appealing.


Chris



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/12-tips-to-improve-the-quality-of-your-free-time.html
http://digg.com


12 Tips to Improve the Quality of Your Free Time


Are you happier at your job, or during your free time? Unless you’ve followed the research of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi you would probably be surprised at the actual answer. He conducted studies which recorded peoples current levels of happiness at random points both during work and off-hours.

The surprising conclusion? People felt happier on the job, even though they said they would rather be at home.

Csikszentmihalyi believes that this is because, even if they dislike their job, work provides a constructive environment. It has rules, challenges and can be formatted to focus your otherwise wandering attention. Leisure, without any structure, can become to boredom and apathy.

A good portion of lifehack.org is devoted towards productivity. That means improving the quality of your working hours, so you can work less, get more done and achieve more on the job. But, what is the use of freeing up extra time from work if it will make you less happy?

Is Your Free Time Boring?

If Csikszentmihalyi and his research on the state of flow is any indication, the quality of most peoples free time is pitifully low. Worse, you might not even realize that your time off needs a checkup. This problem made me wonder how I could improve the quality of my own free-time.

The solution for some people is just to fill their entire time with work. By making themselves incredibly busy, they never have to face boredom or the possibility of an unstructured environment. However, the downside of this is that this often becomes a deathmarch as commitments overload the amount of time you have in each day.

The Art of Laziness - How to Be Happily Unproductive

My solution to Csikszentmihalyi’s dilemma was to become better at structuring my free-time so it can be engaging, but doesn’t become more work. Here were a few of the ideas I’ve found successful in trying to master the art of laziness:

1. Get a Hobby - Pick up a creative activity that doesn’t have any goals attached. This is something that you enjoy doing, but doesn’t have the looming deadlines, schedule or to-do lists that is common to your workplace. I know corporate executives that manage to squeeze twenty minutes a day into their hobby and love it.

2. Learn a Skill - Learning can be incredibly enjoyable when there is no GPA, performance evaluations or letter grades. Try learning a new language, take up martial arts or learn public speaking.

3. Store Opportunities - How often do you see a flyer for an event or activity, but dismiss it because you don’t have the time? My suggestion is to save those interesting activities so that you can apply them when you do have time. Prepare opportunities for your time off in advance.

4. Write Your Book - I’ve heard statistics that say 8 out of 10 people would like to write a book in their lifetime. Perhaps now is the time to start working on the first draft. I’ve found personal projects like these can be an enjoyable diversion from the externally imposed goals of work or school.

5. Exercise - If you don’t like running or going to the gym, don’t force yourself. But there are many different interesting sports and activities that can move your body. Exercising can releases hormones in your brain which improve your mood.

6. Always Have a Book - Unsatisfied with channel flipping? Having a book (not just reading blogs) requires you to use your brain. Light reading can be a great way to stay engaged without burning yourself out.

7. Use Your Social Circle - Csikszentmihalyi noticed that flow didn’t only come from work and mental tasks, but socializing as well. Conversing with friends is actually a fairly complex mental task, requiring you to read signals and body language, think fast and respond to comments.

8. Games - Games have been around long before Nintendo came around. The prevalence of games in most cultures is probably because playing games is a challenging mental task that produces a state of flow. Learning and playing a game can provide an engaging environment without the stress.

9. Create Something - Creativity is often seen as having good ideas. But if you look at the root word of creativity, create, then creativity can be seen as simply building something new. Pick something small, but meaningful, to create. Spending an hour or two working building something can be incredibly rewarding and enjoyable.

10. Appreciate - I’m sure I’m not alone in that I like listening to music to relax. Improving upon this would be trying to go deeper into the music you are listening or the art you are looking at. Try to appreciate how different elements work together and build on each other. This can be a more engaging experience than simply building off your first impression.

11. Be in the Now - Focus on whatever you are experiencing in the moment. This sounds trivial at first, but it is actually incredibly difficult to sustain. Being in the now is what Eckhart Tolle believes to be the secret to happiness. Concentrating on your muscles, senses or the environment around you takes mental effort when buffeted by distracting thoughts.

12. Work on Yourself - I’m sure few of us can claim that 100% of our time is used exactly how we would like it to be. Commitments with work, family and school can mean that a sizable portion of your time is working on goals that aren’t entirely your own. Spending your free time working on yourself, your habits, your goals and your projects can take more energy but can ultimately make your free time more rewarding.

About Author: Scott Young is a university student who writes about productivity, habits and self-improvement. Scott has been featured on the Be Happy Dammit! Show.
Author: Scott H Young
Posted: Thursday, December 20th, 2007 at 11:00 am

[Red Equation]

Capitalism is an illusion, all you have is the wealthy class, flaunting their wealth, the borgeouis class struggling to imitate the wealthy class, and the poor class struggling to survive and provide.

[Dean]

I'm talking to my friend right now about communism and he is telling me that people would have no incentive to work in a communist society. I'm having a hard time convincing him otherwise. What can I tell him that would change his mind?

Does he support capitalism? You should ask him why someone would want to work in a system where money, rather than the product of labor, is the goal of labor activity. And then point out how few workers in a capitalist economy actually produce relevant, necessary goods; how many occuations ential movement of money and manipulation of economic factors, rather than productive labor.

[Kronos]

ckaihatsu, have a look at some of the ideas of Debord, Veblen and Baudrillard, especially those of the "pathetic fallacy", "conspicuous consumption" and "reification", concepts based from Marx's idea of "commodity fetishism".

There are also a few youtube videos of Zizek in which he explains "ideology" in Lacanic terms (you should watch them all...they are excellent). I think all the angles here are very closely related and especially well expressed in the psychoanalytical approaches of Freud and Lacan.

Once you familiarize yourself with some of this, let's discuss it.

You make good points though and indeed this area is very grey. We must redefine aesthetics and its place in human culture.

[3A CCCP]

I'm talking to my friend right now about communism and he is telling me that people would have no incentive to work in a communist society. I'm having a hard time convincing him otherwise. What can I tell him that would change his mind?

To put it very simply, in a Socialist society one works for his personal possessions and for the betterment of the country. In a capitalist society one works to eke out a living and to make some rich guy richer.

Americans have no clue as to the good feeling you get when you are earning your living and simultaneously building and strengthening the Motherland. How could they? Their work just makes a rich guy richer!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[ckaihatsu]

To put it very simply, in a Socialist society one works for his personal possessions and for the betterment of the country. In a capitalist society one works to eke out a living and to make some rich guy richer.


I agree this would be the mode of life during a socialist revolution, a transitionary period to a global communist society.



Americans have no clue as to the good feeling you get when you are earning your living and simultaneously building and strengthening the Motherland. How could they? Their work just makes a rich guy richer!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail


Mikhail, I find this part rather condescending -- *anyone* *anywhere* who has worked in any sort of social service capacity will have experienced the kind of feeling that you describe.

What would be different during a socialist revolution is that *everyone* would be working in that capacity, and everyone would see the results of it emanating everywhere, to all parts of the globe. Once the capitalists are overthrown and every last person liberated we would see it on a permanent basis.


Chris




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, have a look at some of the ideas of Debord, Veblen and Baudrillard, especially those of the "pathetic fallacy", "conspicuous consumption" and "reification", concepts based from Marx's idea of "commodity fetishism".

There are also a few youtube videos of Zizek in which he explains "ideology" in Lacanic terms (you should watch them all...they are excellent). I think all the angles here are very closely related and especially well expressed in the psychoanalytical approaches of Freud and Lacan.

Once you familiarize yourself with some of this, let's discuss it.

You make good points though and indeed this area is very grey. We must redefine aesthetics and its place in human culture.


Kronos, thanks for the recommendations. I'm not going to prioritize this area of study, but I hope it will suffice to say that I am familiar with the concept of the commodification of style, or aesthetics.

Again, I don't think the realm of aesthetics will ever go away, no matter what the mode of production -- it is an outgrowth of substance, but also inextricably tied up with substance -- what comes to mind is the way that the appearance of a flower attracts bees -- is the appearance in the realm of style, since there are so many elaborate styles, or is the appearance more about substance, since it contributes to the attracting of bees, thereby facilitating the spread of pollen?

If the numerous, elaborate flower types were *strictly* about attracting bees and facilitating reproduction then I wonder why there are so many varieties, or styles, of flower types. It would seem that once a certain type worked, functionally, then there would be a *decrease* of varieties to that particular style which worked.

So nature shows us that the diversification of styles is endemic to the *function* of reproduction, which itself is a necessity -- substance.

In the realm of human culture we have the commodification of both substance and style, spawning a horrendous dark side. I just finished watching a PBS documentary called 'Dying to be Thin' which shows the price that women pay in pursuit of the bourgeois ideal of beauty and femininity -- basically anorexia.

This, sadly, is also one of the few avenues that women have in the direction of power in society. Women have traditionally been relegated to the domestic sphere, in the shadows of greater society. By playing the femininity card women -- self-admittedly -- are able to wield beauty as an instrument of potential dominance by displaying their considerable, evident commodity-value. In this way they are able to have a role in the market, and to assert themselves outside of the domestic sphere, on their own terms, though according to bourgeois rules.

While I abhor what women are doing to themselves and their self-image in pursuit of the ideal, I also have to make an argument on the side of aesthetics. If I compare a typical supermodel-type model to a typical plus-size model, here's what I see: the conventional model is so thin that she takes on a doll-like appearance, which is -- *not* arguably -- an aesthetic ideal. By commodifying her appearance she is adding value to the fashion clothing that she is modeling.

When I see the plus-size model, I am attracted to the model, not to the clothing -- she represents more of a sexual ideal, rather than an aesthetic ideal. She may be more appropriate to model clothing for plus-size women, but then again, she may *not* be, since she is straying from the *aesthetic* ideal, the doll-like appearance.

Capitalism, unfortunately, is related to the Western tendency towards reductionism as an approach to its investigative powers, and we see plenty of commodification and fetishization of all sorts of things, including people and parts of their personalities. People -- especially in their formative, society-transitional teenage years -- want to be accepted for who they are, in their entirety. Capitalism, along with bourgeois-influenced society as a whole, is more interested in the portions of people that are marketable and salable -- therefore we have the rise of buzzwords, and "buzz", and the current terminology describing people as "whipped" or "broken" -- as though their wholeness has given way to the emergence of an Alien-like offspring that can be packaged and marketed, without the person him/herself.

Kronos, please feel free to respond, and/or to elaborate on the topics you've raised.


Chris

[Kronos]

Again, I don't think the realm of aesthetics will ever go away, no matter what the mode of production -- it is an outgrowth of substance, but also inextricably tied up with substance -- what comes to mind is the way that the appearance of a flower attracts bees -- is the appearance in the realm of style, since there are so many elaborate styles, or is the appearance more about substance, since it contributes to the attracting of bees, thereby facilitating the spread of pollen?

Aesthetics will never go away, but the symbolizations attributed to aesthetics are determined by the mode of production. This symbolization is what and how the art represents something. Where there are competing classes, art will be interpreted according to class interests. The aesthetics of identity are an example. The value of an aesthetic element is directly proportionate to its use in establishing a desired image (which is false consciousness), and is virtually in conflict with another image. In the capitalist/consumerist discourse, for instance, John not only buys a product because he likes the aesthetic qualities about it....but also because it signifies a for his a sense of value, of importance, or power, of status, etc. John buys those jeans because "they are not the jeans you get at Wal-Mart. Losers shop at Wal-Mart for clothes. These are better, more expensive jeans. Buying expensive jeans means I have money. Having money means I'm important, powerful, and ideal in the society I live in."

Notice that there are two realms of circulation at work here- there is the objective function of the product, the material use, and then there is the symbolic use, which ascertains its value only if there are conflicting classes in the sphere of the discourse. See the point here? There is a value attributed to aesthetics in this mode of production which is contingent to the class identities which interact in this mode. In other words, this "value" is not at all "real", but a virtual metaphor manifested in semiotics. In a classless society, this false consciousness would not exist.

I'm not sure about the bee example, though. I'm not a bee so I wouldn't know why he picks the tulip over the rose, if and when he does. I would say that bees have no comprehension of art, since they cannot simulate or synthesize "natural" phenomena into unnatural forms of replication/duplication....as in a painting, for example.


In the realm of human culture we have the commodification of both substance and style, spawning a horrendous dark side. I just finished watching a PBS documentary called 'Dying to be Thin' which shows the price that women pay in pursuit of the bourgeois ideal of beauty and femininity -- basically anorexia.

This, sadly, is also one of the few avenues that women have in the direction of power in society. Women have traditionally been relegated to the domestic sphere, in the shadows of greater society. By playing the femininity card women -- self-admittedly -- are able to wield beauty as an instrument of potential dominance by displaying their considerable, evident commodity-value. In this way they are able to have a role in the market, and to assert themselves outside of the domestic sphere, on their own terms, though according to bourgeois rules.

While I abhor what women are doing to themselves and their self-image in pursuit of the ideal, I also have to make an argument on the side of aesthetics. If I compare a typical supermodel-type model to a typical plus-size model, here's what I see: the conventional model is so thin that she takes on a doll-like appearance, which is -- *not* arguably -- an aesthetic ideal. By commodifying her appearance she is adding value to the fashion clothing that she is modeling.

When I see the plus-size model, I am attracted to the model, not to the clothing -- she represents more of a sexual ideal, rather than an aesthetic ideal. She may be more appropriate to model clothing for plus-size women, but then again, she may *not* be, since she is straying from the *aesthetic* ideal, the doll-like appearance.

This is a long story, actually, and probably worth a thread of its own. I will say briefly that along with the class conflicts inherent in the capitalist/consumerist discourse, there are also gender conflicts which are generated more or less through the same means. Sexuality in this mode of production is repressed so that it can be censored and re-expressed through the same virtual symbolizations. Essentially you have an ethical system that convinces you that you are perverted, and then regulates your desires through marketing advertisements so that it can then sell you back your desires. This is a comic tragedy, really, to watch all the consumer cogs fumble about trying to impress and be impressive. Consumers are very strange creatures, in my view. Most of them are so utterly confused they can't even lie correctly.

[ckaihatsu]

Notice that there are two realms of circulation at work here- there is the objective function of the product, the material use, and then there is the symbolic use, which ascertains its value only if there are conflicting classes in the sphere of the discourse. See the point here? There is a value attributed to aesthetics in this mode of production which is contingent to the class identities which interact in this mode. In other words, this "value" is not at all "real", but a virtual metaphor manifested in semiotics. In a classless society, this false consciousness would not exist.


Yeah, absolutely -- I guess I tend to chalk all that up under the terms 'status' and 'status symbols'.



Sexuality in this mode of production is repressed so that it can be censored and re-expressed through the same virtual symbolizations. Essentially you have an ethical system that convinces you that you are perverted, and then regulates your desires through marketing advertisements so that it can then sell you back your desires.


Not just sexuality, of course, but also any sort of malady that can be conceived of or invented -- I see this as being part of the Western tradition of pathologization -- the Western approach tends to look for the disease -- even to the point of it not being there and so the problem has to be invented -- and then just focuses in on only that phenomenon, treating it in isolation, and often on a temporary basis.