This post is a response to a video response by a youtuber called n0 thankyou to a blog post by me which was itself a response to a video by him.
Honestly, I admit that I didn’t do a good job of defining my terms in my blog post. That was my mistake. However, I feel like it’s too late to go back and argue about definitions now. Let’s just say that you are right about the definitions and I got them wrong. I agree that we probably want mostly the same things, but maybe we are just arguing about the justifications. You brought up several points in your video so rather than one essay this blog post is going to be broken up into different sections addressing different points which you made.
Now let me respond to this video:
My basic argument is this: Almost any kind of consumption creates demand, and any increase in demand leads to more production, or at least encourages more production. In that sense, I don’t know if (or how) consumption can really be totally wasteful (i.e. not encourage or lead to more production).
For example going back to my point about otaku art being “commercial”, couldn’t it be said that all those otaku artists and creators who are competing against each other in order to gratify us are also on some kind of grindset? Just liking or even viewing someone’s art on Twitter encourages that.
As for war being a form of human sacrifice which leads to useless expenditure (i.e. deaths of soldiers do not lead to an increase in production), it could also be argued that human deaths in war are not useless in terms of increasing production. This is because the creation of war economy itself facilitates centralisation of capital, which allows for more technological discoveries leading to increases in production down the line. War could be considered to be an extreme case of s0-called Creative-Destruction. Similar arguments could be made for ancient human sacrifices, which may have led to social cohesion and therefore allowed further increases in production down the line through centralisation and unity. But since we are talking about capitalism, maybe there is no need to go into that. I am willing to grant that things were too different in the past to say that things have not changed substantively.
I am glad to hear that you do not believe excess energy directly leads to death. I was very confused when I thought you said that. I must have misheard you. I watched the whole Denpa 2 video at once, so maybe I was not actively listening by that point. If I understand the pond analogy a bit better this time, excess energy needs to be expended and can lead to death through war and other forms of human sacrifice if it is not spent through other more peaceable means, but it is not the sole cause of death.
Since there is almost no way to consume unproductively (i.e. without encouraging production), then maybe the only way to reduce production is simply to consume less. That would mean cutting off the consumption of art as well, since encouraging the creation of art is also a way of encouraging production, and the mass consumption of art encourages the mass production of art.
Now I understand that encouraging production is not the same as directly causing it. But ultimately, isn’t the reason there is an excess of production (beyond what is strictly necessary for survival) because there is an excess of demand? And that demand is caused by an excess of consumption, because firms would cease trying to increase productivity if their products did not sell.
It’s not that I disagree with the point that excess energy is what makes it possible for the demand to be met at all but I feel like if there wasn’t a demand for the products then there wouldn’t much of a need to expend the excess energy at all. Expenditure also can lead to further production for the sake of more expenditure.
I of course agree that the value of otaku culture is unquantifiable to a large degree. And yes, maybe I was misled to believe that your position implied it had no qualitative value. That said, I do believe that its products have quantitative value, and that its consumption also has quantitative value (it can be measured), again because it is its consumption which leads to demand which motivates productivity. It is not that its qualitative value is derived from its quantitative value, but rather that its qualitative value can add to its quantitative value. What I mean is that by emphasising its qualitative value, it is possible to increase its quantitative value.
Finally, I would like y0u to know that I am not making these points to say that you are wrong, but because I would genuinely like to know more.
