Marcuse wrote a number of essay dealing with the "obsolescence" of Freud, Marx 
and socialism. His sense of obsolescence was that it did not invalidate those 
thinkers or theories but rather demonstrated the regression of social 
possibilities since they were proposed. My sense here is different. I am 
referring to Marcuse's usage of obsolescence. This creates a bit of an 
ambiguity. Marcuse meant one thing by obsolescence but I mean another. Let's 
fix that by complicating it. Marcuse meant two things by obsolescence, one of 
those meanings borrowed from Vance Packard's The Waste Makers and the other his 
transformation of it. But wait. There is a fourth meaning and that goes all the 
way back to Thorstein Veblen who viewed the prevailing social system as 
obsolescent. Veblen thought that was a bad thing. But several economic thinkers 
in the 1920 saw it as something to be promoted, along with "conspicuous 
consumption." So we have four meanings with one of them have both a positive 
and a negative charge. Very confusing.

A few years ago, I became aware of Marcuse's obsolescences and dove into them. 
Marcuse theorized the obsolescence of Freud et al. but he adopted planned 
obsolescence uncritically and untheoretically from Packard's discussion. Left 
unstated by both Marcuse and Packard was the fact that the latter's criticism 
of planned obsolescence was essentially Veblenian. Unknown to both Parkard and 
Marcuse, the promotion of planned obsolescence itself owed a debt to Veblen So 
it's Veblen all the way down! So in 2022, I presented a critique of Marcuse 
based on his implicit Veblenianism along with a critique of Veblen based on 
Theodor Adorno ( 
https://econospeak.blogspot.com/2022/03/selling-mrs-conspicuous-consumption.html
 ) , Georg Simmel ( 
https://econospeak.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-that-deep-feeling-that-something-is.html
 ) , and Harold Rosenberg ( 
https://econospeak.blogspot.com/2022/03/or-should-that-be-one-dimensional-org.html
 ). More recently I recycled some of that material in THE ACCUMULATION OF 
CAPITAL IS VERY LIMITED.. ( 
https://econospeak.blogspot.com/2025/07/the-accumulation-of-capital-is-very.html
 ).  the third in a three part series that sums up where I am at these days.

In an 1843 letter to Arnold Ruge, Marx famously said, " ruthless criticism of 
all that exists..." What I have learned from Marx is that to criticize 
something, you have to get inside it. Anyone can snipe at cosmetic flaws or 
presumed flaws but to criticize ruthlessly one must see things from the 
perspective of the object of criticism to get to the heart of what's wrong with 
it.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#39145): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39145
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116161664/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to