4 ms·

Such an important thinker of the last century. She elucidated upon Capitalism's failure to provide the abundance that it promised, by instead producing desire:

Such an important thinker of the last century. She elucidated upon Capitalism's failure to provide the abundance that it promised, by instead producing desire: we will never have enough, even though abundance is well within our reach.

trevyn 7y ago
And yet, we can each choose that we have enough, and then delight in the abundance that actually does exist. It’s an internal switch.
- nabla9 7y ago
  You are absolutely correct that each individual can choose, but it won't solve issues in society. What you want is groups of people to choose to have enough. First smaller, then larger. Eventually they change the culture. It's important to change the structures of society so that it's easier to consume less. Cost of making individual choices that go against the structures are often very hard. Cycling to your job in Netherlands versus LA are two very different decisions.
  - bobosha 7y ago
    >It's important to change the structures of society so that it's easier to consume less. Unfortunately, radical change like your idea requires upheaval and disruption and often ends up with unintended consequences.
- telesilla 7y ago
  For those of us fortunate enough to be educated and well-paid and with good work conditions, yes. This is not the case for a large part of the world. I'd like to live in a world where I know that everything I purchase does not come from a situation where harm is caused, so those who produce what I consume can also have the choice to live with abundance.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    > I'd like to live in a world where I know that everything I purchase does not come from a situation where harm is caused The thing is, harm is an abstract and in this case absolute term. If you take for example free range chicken, they're still being consumed, but they experience more freedom throughout their life. The workers who build the Fairphone still don't get paid much, but at least they get paid more adequate and are treated better.
    - telesilla 7y ago
      Absolutely agree, it's a difficult line to draw but better to try, with the examples you give, rather than knowingly (or in ignorance) cause harm.
leftyted 7y ago
It's extremely misleading to talk about Hannah Arendt's suspicion of capitalism as if it's a defining feature of her thought. What she despised was progress for progress' sake, a feeling she traced to the (supposed) ancient Greek prejudice against productivity. Like the article mentions, in her hierarchy of human activity, action is above work which is above labor. Our society, she argues, has become a laboring society, where public space (space reserved for action) has been expropriated. She would prefer a society based around action. She never claimed that capitalism failed to produce abundance but, rather, she questions the idea of productivity and abundance as ends-in-themselves. Arendt was extremely critical of 20th century socialist societies, which she saw as stripping people of actual freedoms that existed in capitalist societies and replacing them with illusory freedoms. For her, socialism, as implemented in the real world, was a continuation of what she disliked about capitalism (the expropriation of the public sphere). Moreover, she viewed collective ownership as a contradiction in terms.

trevyn 7y ago

And yet, we can each choose that we have enough, and then delight in the abundance that actually does exist. It’s an internal switch.

nabla9 7y ago
You are absolutely correct that each individual can choose, but it won't solve issues in society. What you want is groups of people to choose to have enough. First smaller, then larger. Eventually they change the culture. It's important to change the structures of society so that it's easier to consume less. Cost of making individual choices that go against the structures are often very hard. Cycling to your job in Netherlands versus LA are two very different decisions.
- bobosha 7y ago
  >It's important to change the structures of society so that it's easier to consume less. Unfortunately, radical change like your idea requires upheaval and disruption and often ends up with unintended consequences.
telesilla 7y ago
For those of us fortunate enough to be educated and well-paid and with good work conditions, yes. This is not the case for a large part of the world. I'd like to live in a world where I know that everything I purchase does not come from a situation where harm is caused, so those who produce what I consume can also have the choice to live with abundance.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > I'd like to live in a world where I know that everything I purchase does not come from a situation where harm is caused The thing is, harm is an abstract and in this case absolute term. If you take for example free range chicken, they're still being consumed, but they experience more freedom throughout their life. The workers who build the Fairphone still don't get paid much, but at least they get paid more adequate and are treated better.
  - telesilla 7y ago
    Absolutely agree, it's a difficult line to draw but better to try, with the examples you give, rather than knowingly (or in ignorance) cause harm.

leftyted 7y ago

It's extremely misleading to talk about Hannah Arendt's suspicion of capitalism as if it's a defining feature of her thought. What she despised was progress for progress' sake, a feeling she traced to the (supposed) ancient Greek prejudice against productivity. Like the article mentions, in her hierarchy of human activity, action is above work which is above labor. Our society, she argues, has become a laboring society, where public space (space reserved for action) has been expropriated. She would prefer a society based around action. She never claimed that capitalism failed to produce abundance but, rather, she questions the idea of productivity and abundance as ends-in-themselves. Arendt was extremely critical of 20th century socialist societies, which she saw as stripping people of actual freedoms that existed in capitalist societies and replacing them with illusory freedoms. For her, socialism, as implemented in the real world, was a continuation of what she disliked about capitalism (the expropriation of the public sphere). Moreover, she viewed collective ownership as a contradiction in terms.