than.. say, the mechanics of trying to regulate rampant greed Out of every corporation which is sustained by that dead-end; maybe Lapham has a more cogent overview?

http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110

[. . .]

[Interviewer]
Capitalism, as you mention, is future-oriented. Do you think it relies on historical amnesia?

Well, there’s a new book called "Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism," by the eminent historian Joyce Appleby. And her argument — and I think it’s probably true — is that capitalism is an historical phenomenon. It’s not a given. It’s not human nature. It arises at the end of the 16th century in Holland, but then is developed over the next four centuries for the most part in England and America. It’s had a life span of four centuries.

[. . .]

We shape our tools, and our tools shape us. And by that shaping us, they shape our attitudes, our moral sense, our sense of self-interest. Competition is the spirit elixir of capitalism. This is not true in the more traditional society where the emphasis is on community, hierarchy, order, where people are terrified of starvation.

[. . .]

Would you say that a chronic dissatisfaction is part of that dark side?

It’s the impertinent dynamism of ‘more’. It is a voracious, devouring appetite for more. And if we’re not careful, unless we get control of it, it will devour the earth. Capitalism had a particularly fertile soil in America because there was so much land available. People could just go west. Take land from the Indians by force. The same thing in Mexico. Call it Manifest Destiny, but it essentially was the seizure of property. There was an abundance of resources. Every man can become king for the day or make the Forbes 500. And it’s the individual as opposed to the community.

[. . .]

So what I mean is ... the zeitgeist is just so inimical to any social, cooperative aims -- that matters like MSG or HFCS don't even rise above the radar noise-floor -- in the perpetual pursuit of more.. More... MORE ad infinitum.

Which-all, I think [one. more. time.] echoes the Point of The Tyranny of Words, only far beyond what Chase was addressing (re. bafflegab words with no common referent, mainly re. political speech, especially in the '30s.)

IF.. we've conditioned selves to be oblivious to matters like the effects of corporate reengineered/patented(!) frankenfoods, instead: expend energies in the half-assed/unbaked rantings of the tea party fad, all the while portending a renaissance of the Old Souf, pre-civil-war (a simple way to erase from consciousness: who Won?)

THEN.. such lunacy would seem to derive from [a lot of what Lapham says and im[iies in his short essay.]
Which then would explain why corps shall Not be disabused of peddling more and More of the same shit, without a soupçon of awareness of just who / and how Many are getting fucked by their profit-making venture: because we are conditioned to deem that irrelevant to the koans of personal-profit über alles in die welt.

ie. Nothing Will be done about that, or re. poisoned aquifers (final battles will be over water, of course). nor loss of species, as a result of biped overpopulation ... nor the first 1000 things on a longer list of known-matters demanding critical thinking (if the planet is to sorta survive as a biped nest?)

Pretty pathetic, eh?



(Unless Lapham has got it completely wrong.)
To me that doesn't seem to be likely, but then I'm a one who thought he saw the US inflection point Happen.
In mid '68. And observed its persistently [-] slope ever since, varying only in rate-of-descent a little +, a little -, each few years. Are not the yahoos manifestly in ascension, in these parts, right now? Rest case.

HFCS? what's That?