[FRA:] Adorno & Horkheimer: towards a new Manifesto?

[Lev Lafayette]

On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 09:19 -0800, Christopher Cutrone wrote:
> Exchange-value *appears* as a mere social convention but is actually
> objective, in the sense that we actually live in a society driven by
> the utilitarian ethos of "the greatest good for the greatest number,"
> in which productive efficiency in *time* is the measure.

That's not really objective at all. Quantifiable and factual, certainly.
But exchange values are not independent of the participating actors,
their (real and distorted) expressions of will, which is what would be
required if they were objective.

If human beings were not social animals, we would still derive use-value
from nature (indeed, as any animal does), but there would not be
exchange value.

> Use-value *appears* objective, in the sense of being about concrete
> utility, but is actually social in origin, because human needs have
> been changed and indeed created by society. 

"Human needs have have been ... created by society"? 

That's a trajectory I don't particularly care to follow. The notion of
human wants being partially the result of social construction can be
taken seriously. The radical philosophical constructivism that claims
that there is no objective human wants (or objectivity at all) leads
down a very damaging path.

Regards,


Lev