Re: [pf] we took the wrong track, in the '50s and '60s

by prichter1

06 December 2000 00:30 UTC

David A wrote,
> by WW2 we were only then ready to leap into unnecessary 
>  consumerism, and marketers understood that and took full advantage of 
>  it, it seems to me.

David, if you read early 20th century history, you will find that advertising 
made strong headway in the years around WW I and into the twenties, and 
consumerism/marketing began long before WWII -- there was considerable 
retrenchment around the Depression years, but the impetus was set in motion 
long before. The Industrial Revolution was predicated on the idea of mass 
production = mass usage.  It took a while, but consumerism, now a high art 
form, has a very long history.  Perhaps not as sophisticated, but as 
sophisticated as it could be given the theory development/economic 
understandings of the times.  I think the anthropologist Marvin Harris has 
some insights here, if you want references. Can't remember offhand. I had 
researched this when someone corrected a sermon I did using the same info 
that you offered.

I have to say that I do agree with Betsy on her analysis.  I have been doing 
some pleaasure reading of late (my way of dealing with some 
isolation/depression that I'm feeling right now) -- I've re-read some of 
Howard Fast's novels. Howard is a great storyteller and an old leftie, 
blacklisted in the McCarthy era (actually jailed, I believe).  He has an 
amazing way of weaving the political into his novels, some of which I had 
missed before. At any rate, his on-going theme of the power of corporations 
behind the political figureheads is something that I do see clearly.

The only thing that I can add to what Betsy wrote:  I wonder what is going on 
with the global trade organizations while the media are so preoccupied with 
Florida and the election. What are we missing?  I also think that the 
judiciary is also subject to behind the scenes pressure. I don't think it's 
any coincidence that most of the judicial decisions are going Bush's way.   
There is no way that this system is going to admit fallibility in terms of 
election process. Bush was certified the winner and that's the way it's going 
to go down, no matter how many votes aren't counted. JMHO.

Another thing I want to add to Betsy's post:  the progess that the civil 
rights and anti-war movements were making in the sixties and into the early 
seventies did not just die out because people lost energy. They died out 
because government programs like COINTELPRO killed them. And lots of the 
leaders. As Nixon would say, make no mistake about it.

Those of us who have been waking up and enabling others to wake up are indeed 
dangerous. As a silly 20-something trying to achieve something in civil 
rights all those years ago, I had a file on me. Ridiculous. I was such a 
minor player it wasn't even funny. I was too busy manicuring my nails in 
between demonstrations. But at some level even I was taken seriously and 
intimidated. This is not a figment of my imagination, I have evidence.  This 
is why it is so difficult to speak truth to power. It is dangerous business. 
It is much easier to run around in SUV's, slurping Starbucks lattes, going to 
the latest action flick or mall, or watching David Letterman. Or better yet, 
Katie Couric. 

Cynical tonight,
Priscilla