Liberales, marxistas y consumistas: dos textos que merecen más

Los libros con los que trasteo a veces brindan reflexiones memorables. Tras leer ciertos pasajes, me quedo con la sensación de que debería dedicar alguna entrada a esos temas que abordan llegando a conclusiones e intuiciones similares a las mías. A la espera de que algún día me digne escribir esas entradas (y ante la sospecha de que seguramente eso no ocurra), dejo constancia de dos ejemplos de esos textos absolutamente deliciosos que tanto me han impacto y motivado en los últimos días.

Sobre la distinta visión del mundo que tienen las dos grandes escuelas de pensamiento en economía (ejemplo máximo de cómo los mismos hechos históricos no tienen por qué llevar a la misma interpretación), Gavin Wright nos dice en su The Political Economy of Cotton South (p. 182):

"With countless variations, two great traditions interpret and evaluate historical trends in  the relationship between  households  and markets: the  tradition of most economists,  descended from Adam Smith, which views  the  spread of markets and specialized production as a progressive development, an improvement of resource allocation, an encouragement to advancements in knowledge  and progress, and an opportunity for higher standards of  living on  and off the farm;  and the tradition of Marxian writers  (though in this American application with a strong Jeffersonian flavor as well), which views the market as an invading, intruding force, a maelstrom  that  lures or  sucks households  into  its orbit, whirling  them  in  historical  circles beyond  their control, and permitting no escape. Usually  these traditions talk past each other, obscuring the extent to which each one contains elements of truth  in describing the same historical developvents,  and  failing  to  ask why  it  is  that  some  cases  fit one  version,  some  the other."

En The Industrious Revolution, Jan de Vries aborda el espinoso tema de definir "consumismo" (p. 5, nota 13):

"Consumerism is a term I will seek to avoid wherever possible in this study.Often invoked, it is rarely defined. Stearns ventures to offers a definition remarkable chiefly for its shortcomings: “Consumerism describes a society in which many people formulate their goals in life partly through acquiring goods that they clearly do not need for subsistence or for traditional display.” Peter N. Stearns, Consumerism inWorld History. The Global Transformation of Desire (London: Routledge, 2001), p. ix. Steven Miles does not get us much further when he proposes that “the study of consumerism should actually attempt to come to terms with the complexities that lie behind the act of consumption. In effect, while consumption is an act, consumerism is a way of life.” This distinction depends on an uncomplicated definition of consumption that, as we shall see, fails to take seriously the important distinction economists make between the acquisition of goods and ultimate consumption. Once one accepts that an act of consumption gives utility in a variety of dimensions, including cultural dimensions, Miles’s distinction collapses. Steven Miles, Consumerism as a Way of Life (London: Sage, 1998), p. 4".

Creo que el desafío que plantea de Vries a la hora de definir "consumismo" se resuelve si renunciamos a la peligrosa y siempre endeble diferenciación entre "necesidades reales y ficticias" y optamos por una definición que se centre en la sostenibilidad del consumo. Me va a tocar escribir una entrada. Maldita sea...