Aesthetic Materialism

The reason that the situationist analysis of the "spectacle" is a better theoretical lens than the Frankfurt School's concept of the "culture industry" is that the concept of the "culture industry" is based on a concept of "regression" that allowed theorists like Benjamin and Adorno to pass off reactionary cultural politics as Marxism.

      Give 'Em What They Want   There is no greater thought-terminating cliche than "revealed preference". If you ever meet a person using this phrase, run. For those not familiar with this phrase, it was coined by economist Paul Samuelson in 1938, in his paper, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior."  Samuelson was a self-described Keynesian economist who later wrote a popular economics textbook, "Economics: An Introductory Analysis."  (As Samuelson himself once remarked, "Let those who will write the nation's laws, if I can write its textbooks.")  He also wrote a popular newspaper column about economics.  Gradually, the term spread through the field of economics, and then into broader culture. Samuelson's initial discussion of revealed preference was modest and technical, describing a way of measuring consumer behavior.  And understood that far, revealed preference is a perfectly reasonable standard by which to make...

  I am opposed to the degrowth movement.  I'm in favor of growth: growth of the population, growth of scientific knowledge, growth of technology, growth of industry, growth of art, growth of music, growth of creativity, growth of diversity of culture, growth of diversity of lifestyles. I think one day, the world will outgrow capitalism. 

  I've written before about the history of the "national question," without putting forward my own viewpoint.  So what is it?  I am an anti-nationalist.  As I've written before, I think nationalism is a scam.  An "imagined community." But that's just a negative assertion.  What positive proposal do I make, as opposed to nationalism? Am I saying that the nation-state is too small?  Or that it's too big?  Am I pushing for larger scale organization, or smaller? The answer, of course, is both.   First, let me say, very clearly, as I've said before, I oppose one world government.  Totally. But apart from that, a wide variety of forms of organization are possible.  And different forms are desirable for different purposes. But I would say that, for the most part, today, in the early 21st century, the nation-state is too big.  Certainly, in the case of the United States, not to mention China or India, the nation-state is way too ...

  One thing that I hate is that, in political discussions, people are almost never engaging with your ideas in a rational or even an emotional or empathetic way - they're just trying to label you, to categorize you, to stick you into a specific slot and make you equivalent with all the other people that they've filed away there, so that they don't have to think about you at all. If you are in any way critical of capitalism, they call you a communist, and make you equivalent with Stalin and Pol Pot. If you are then, let's say, critical of Stalin, they call you a Trotskyist. Then, if you're critical of Trotsky, they call you an anarchist. As if there are only two possible positions on the left: the extreme authoritarianism of Bolshevism, or absolute rejection of the legitimacy of any kind of government at all. There are thousands - perhaps millions, or billions - of possible political positions between and outside of anarchism and Bolshevism (and of course there are m...

  Seven years ago, I wrote my long post about why capitalism is ending . Here's my argument, but using far fewer words: