Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:22:10 +0000
From: manotas-AT-zedat.fu-berlin.de (Anna-Sabine Ernst * Gerwin Klinger)
Subject: M-I: Re: R Pearson: Das Argument (and underpants).



>From: "R Pearson" <spectres-AT-innotts.co.uk>
>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:23:39 -0000
>Subject: M-I: Re: Das Argument (and underpants).
>
>Thanks for the comments on Das Argument from Chris and Anna-Sabine.
>I only know WF Haug from his work on 'Commodity Aesthetics', and I left the
>work somewhat puzzled. On the one hand he has some very keen analyses of
>commodification and creates a stimulating engagement with the issues from
>both a philosophical and a political level.
>For example Haug cites this quote from Das Argument:
>
>"The masses are being manipulated while pursuing their interests.
>Manipulative phenomena, therefore, still speak the language of real needs
>even if it is as it were an alien expression of those needs which are now
>distorted beyond recognition."
>"The objective realities of happiness and unhappiness form the basis of
>manipulation" [from Das Argument 5 1963]
>
>All good stuff, nicely thought-provoking and neatly contraversial. But what
>puzzles me is his comments on men washing and printed underpants! Haug
>seems to think that frequent bathing and such follies as a pair of
>underpants with a print on the front (and thus no fly hole) are baleful
>influences on the working class.
>What I'd like to know is where the hell is he arguing from and whether his
>comments in defence of East Germany are indicative?
>
>Russell Pearson

Just a short comment:  Critic of 'Commodity Aesthetics' is a serious
question. The problem of "selling commodies" produces overwhelming efforts
to interfere in the sensibility of the potential consuments by aesthetizing
the boy of the commodies.  What we like or unlike is formed here. We can
speak of alienation. Critic of "commody aesthetics" wants to re-approriate
this competences. Haugs comments in defence of East Germany are indicative
- as fare as I see.

A hint to this question: In 1980 a "Socialstic Conference" took place in
Kassel. Main question was to clear the position of the left organisations,
sects and groups to the Green Party, which just was founding. The GP
declared to be an alternativ power: critic of industrialisation in west and
east, the GP was critical to the capitalistic system, but it wasn't under
control of the CPSU or SED. So there were a lot of sceptism in the
traditional old-left in the enviroment of DKP and SEW (German Communist
Parties). The question of decision to clear the position of the lefts to
the GP was, wether they would critic the Nuclear-Power-Plants in the
socialist country or not.
Haug conference-statement evaded this question: For him nuclaer power
plants are only an exampel for a more general problem. And than he spoke of
the ecological effects of commody aesthetics, which is also
commodie-chemistry. - All clear?

Gerwin Klinger




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---