Treats

The fashion critic for the Times tries to square the circle of pathological consumerism: "To be sure, there is nothing wrong with shopping, nothing wrong with the concept of treats and extras. There is a human desire for beauty and its delight and self-expression. People should have access to that pleasure, at whatever price point they can manage. There is something comforting and reassuring about abundance, especially at a time when there seems to be a free-floating sense of malaise in the air." She knows how pathetic this sounds, having access to pleasure at the right price point, and she spends much of her piece contradicting her own thesis by describing societies ills: "There’s a tendency to be preachy about the sustainability of all this. And there’s no question it is an issue:" Yes it is an "issue". One for which she has no answer. “Win the culture, win the country,” Mr. Kirk said. Charlie is the dog who has caught the car. Now what? Fun winning the contest but now all the wicked problems are yours. Failed nation states increasing expotentially, a militant disgruntled population with very high expectations, insurance companies folding, Freddie Mac and Fannie May deep in risky mortgages, etc. etc.... Richard Seymour: "Capitalist democracy is an inherently contradictory and unstable formation, in which each half of the chimera operates on entirely different principles." It works to the degree it has created those consumerist subjects, homo economicus, who can overlook injustice and repression and exploitation if given enough treats. But at some point the treats run out. Abundance is exposed as generational theft. The whole con is exposed and people get pissed.