Message-ID: <s2d22229.019@crs.loc.gov> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:12:21 -0500 From: Jonathan Sanford <mailto:JSANFORD@CRS.LOC.GOV> Subject: Why capitalism is NOT sustainable -Reply To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Dear B. Diamond,Your criticism of conspicuous consumption and the presumed passion for acquisitiveness has little to do with the sustainability of capitalism. The latter is a method for organizing production, not a definition of the kinds of products that result. Presumably, privately owned art studios and theaters could produce vast quantities of art and drama that the public might clamor to buy-- acquisition of ideas and feelings rather than things. That would still be capitalism, particularly if the art studios and theaters got so profitable that they sold shares to the investing public. Then entrepreneurs would discover methods for transmitting those images and dramatic presentations to the broader public through technical amplifications. Sounds a lot like the press and media and "record" companies. In fact, the sale of services bulks larger in our national product than does the sale of products. And as my illustration of arts and drama suggests, a lot of our products are essentially services in a new guise.
So I think you need to separate your feelings about contemporary society from your analysis of the long term viability of capitalism itself.
Jon Sanford