Aesthetic Materialism

  When we describe people as "reasonable" or "logical," these are usually regarded as synonyms.  And in many contexts, this is probably true.  But in my experience, in certain contexts, logical people can be quite different from reasonable people - almost opposites. By "reasonable," here, I mean something like what Aristotle called the "golden mean," which is perhaps comparable to Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, called the "middle path" - that is, remaining moderate and not going too far in either extreme.  "Moderation in all things," as the saying goes.  It means being open to hearing ideas or criticism from any source, without prejudicially rejecting them or automatically dogmatically adopting them, and always being ready to change your mind.  In short, it means holding onto one's own beliefs "at arm's length," as it were.  It means being nuanced in one's picture of the world and recognizing that realit...

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 ...