RE: Capitalism and Consumerism......

RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/16/2008 11:44:21 AM)
I'll start another thread so as to not mess with NG's topic...

seeksfemslave -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/16/2008 12:24:22 PM)
quote: LadyE Yes, Seeks point is true. But it adds nothing to the debate and leads us down the misleading and fruitless path of finding scapegoats for our situation. this is what I said quote: seeks Considering only the economics...single parenthood most certainly is a major contributing factor to child poverty. I see no scapegoats !

LadyEllen -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/16/2008 12:31:50 PM)
And what relevance does your truism have to the debate Seeks? I could post "the high rate of unemployment in Muslim communities is a contributing factor to poverty for Muslims" It would be true, but not relevant to the debate and would likely lead into a diversion of the debate into the relative merits of Islam compared to good old WASP values - ignoring that the high unemployment rate amongst Muslims is a symptom of other causes more relevant to the debate. E

Politesub53 -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/16/2008 4:09:57 PM)
How would we then change the system ? Both socialism and capitalism have the inherent flaw that they are mostly run by people with ulterior motives. Neither has proved to be truly democratic AND social, as against socialist, society. Unless everyone is working on state run projects, we need capitalism to supply work and financial opportunities, and a strong social aspect to help the needy. In my opinion the answer lies with schooling, teaching everyone to read and write, better education on sex,drugs and drink, and to give kids a sense of purpose. Like it or not, they are the future.

Zensee -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/16/2008 5:05:40 PM)
Quite so Ps53 - it is human nature, not the -ism that is at fault. Some -isms pander to our baser drives than others but ultimately it is our habit of turning the reins over to the criminal element and wandering off while they have their way. Education and involvement is the only way to keep it honest, whatever system. Z.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 1:50:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Collectively, you are quite correct we could have a revoloution and start again. You and i both know that wont happen, so all we can do is attend protest groups and argue for change. I wouldn't want a revolution - not in a million years. Change has to come from the grass roots and is best served through slow, steady progress. The problem is, PS, a widespread will for change does not exist. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Its not a cop out to blame politicians, who fail to carry out what they promised to do once they got in. Even if we did as you suggest and change the system, there is no guarantee that politically, things will be better. Of course it's a cop out. We all know we have a political system that is undemocratic; there is little pressure to change this from the public, so how can we moan when our country operates along undemocratic lines?

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 2:18:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks But what opened the way for us to be lulled into our present stupor? For me, chief among various factors was the fall of the Soviet Union. I think the drop in tension following the Cold War allowed the idea that a big house filled with goods = paradise to be sold to us. Previously, the rank and file were genuinely concerned by the threat of nuclear war, besides which home cinema and two foreign holidays a year seemed an irrelevance. With that threat removed, the way was open for all that 9-10-ish talk of an everlasting peace of luxury; the end of history. Possibly, RL, the fall of the USSR was the 'evidence' needed to promulgate the view that Western Democracy offers the maximum in terms of stability and prosperity - see Fukuyama et al, the notion of the end of history. Our leaders and thinkers (Isaiah Berlin etc) came to the conclusion that the most stable system is one where people have the freedom to chase their individual aspirations and nothing else. Collective ideals came to be seen as dangerous, as those believing themselves to be virtuous would aim to take control of society: the wave of revolutions in Africa, the Middle East and South America served to magnify the paranoia in England and the United States. Ultimately, consumerism is pushed by design; that is, to suppress any collective ideals before they even get off the ground. And, where they do get off the ground, this will be seen as grounds for spying on the Trade Unions, or draconian measures taken at left-wing demonstrations, or the provision of propaganda surrounding the protests in places like Genoa, where we see 300 lunatics on our TV screens rather than the 300,000 peaceful demonstrators. When Thatcher called the Trade Unions "the enemy within", she meant a collective threat to the individualism of England. In my view, this is the area where England and the United States have most in common - there's not two more paranoid nations on this planet when it comes to collective ideals.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 2:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I think it's a bit of a stretch to link the lack of voting as a result of consumerism. It would certainly take some explaining, but were you to listen to the full explanation, you'd realise that it's far from a stretch. Consumerism is interwoven with this whole celebrity lifestyle. Watch your television for an hour and the sequence will go something like this: a) A programme with well known celebrities sitting around in coffee shops, wearing designer clothes and boyfriends picking them up in fancy cars. b) An advert follows the programme for the said clothes/car. c) Next advert: do you need a loan? This is where people's focus is. See the previous post to RL for an explanation of why our leaders are deliberately sending us down this path. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit What about professional football? I know hundreds of people off the top of my head who worship a football team, but don't even bat an eye to a candidate for this years election. Yes, football and team sports serve a purpose, too. Team sports is an English phenomenon exported around the world and our leaders at that time were aiming to a) instill a sense of fair play and competitiveness - all part of breeding the English gentleman and b) provide an environment for young men to relieve their aggression and one where they could shake hands at the end of the game and have a beer together - no harm done etc. To answer your question though, Consumerism has become the ideal by which many of us live our lives, whereas football is a hobby.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 2:45:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Any government intervention in the economy is socialist in nature. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd call it regulatory; Socialism is bound up in state ownership of the economy; a referee is not the same as an owner. You have a different take on it - fair enough. quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed I'm sorry, but you have yet to generate a convincing cause-and-effect argument linking these two facts. Please see my reply to RL. quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed I believe that is a myth. Nearly all grass-root parties never get off the ground due to lack of funding and lack of publicity. Surely, were the interest in place, the funding and publicity would follow? Socialist parties in England simply do not have the support to be a major player in English politics - it's that simple - most people do not share their views.

Politesub53 -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 2:58:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Its not a cop out to blame politicians, who fail to carry out what they promised to do once they got in. Even if we did as you suggest and change the system, there is no guarantee that politically, things will be better. Of course it's a cop out. We all know we have a political system that is undemocratic; there is little pressure to change this from the public, so how can we moan when our country operates along undemocratic lines? Hi NG, as it says in my quote, there is no guarantee that a new system would be any better. After the Russian revoloution, the poor were still poor, and the power was still in the hands of the ruling elite. There has never been a system that ensures that, those elected into power, carry out the wishes of the masses.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 3:02:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Child poverty has increased due to the number of one parent families and absent fathers. There is no point denying this isnt part of the reason, even if its not the only reason. Of course it's a factor, as is the value system that perpetuates low aspirations.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 3:06:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I could post "the high rate of unemployment in Muslim communities is a contributing factor to poverty for Muslims" Ellen/Seeks, it'll be useful to steer clear of Islam on this thread - the alternative is the OP being lost in an altogether different discussion.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 3:12:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Hi NG, as it says in my quote, there is no guarantee that a new system would be any better. After the Russian revoloution, the poor were still poor, and the power was still in the hands of the ruling elite. There has never been a system that ensures that, those elected into power, carry out the wishes of the masses. There are no guarantees in life, but there are some obvious flaws that could be resolved in order to reduce the potential for corruption and thought control, e.g. the PM appointing members to our second house of law management, the establishment being bound up in birth right etc.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 3:17:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Any government intervention in the economy is socialist in nature. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd call it regulatory; Socialism is bound up in state ownership of the economy; a referee is not the same as an owner. You have a different take on it - fair enough. What "referee" gets to impose his own new rules on the game whenever he wishes? Only the owner can do this. The state owns the game because the state unilaterally determines all of the laws (rules) that affect how economics works in the state. For example, in Canada some thirty years ago (one of the last Trudeau governments) the state imposed wage and price controls to combat inflation. Another example, Britain nationalized its coal industry. Another example: gas taxes that impoverish rural areas while subsidizing mass transit in urban areas. These are not the acts of "referees" and they certainly have a huge impact on the economy. There is only one rule in capitalism: caveat emptor. Anything more is socialist in nature. We are not capitalists. We are socialists who either lean towards more or less state intervention. And it is in our collective interest to be socialist, for none of us wants to find out the medicine we've been taking is sub-standard, or the food we eat is contaminated ... both of which are risks in a purely capitalist marketplace. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed I'm sorry, but you have yet to generate a convincing cause-and-effect argument linking these two facts. Please see my reply to RL. I'll address that seperately. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed I believe that is a myth. Nearly all grass-root parties never get off the ground due to lack of funding and lack of publicity. Surely, were the interest in place, the funding and publicity would follow? I wish that were so. But how can people be interested if they've never heard of you? How can they hear of you without publicity? And how do you obtain publicity without financing? Business is the gate-keeper that keeps grass-roots movements from getting off the ground.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 3:29:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Collective ideals came to be seen as dangerous Doesn't add up, NG. The state promulgates and promotes many collective ideals: citizenship, military service, pay your taxes, don't cheat the system, obey the law ... quote: Ultimately, consumerism is pushed by design; that is, to suppress any collective ideals before they even get off the ground. Webster's dictionary defines Consumerism as "the promotion of the consumer's interests" or alternately "the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable". How does this suppress collective ideals?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 3:47:48 AM)
General comment: I have been accused of making posts not central to the debate by pointing out that many are not interested in politics but are very interested in consumerism and that some people inflict poverty on themselves. Well the OP states quite clearly that consumerism is dangerous and deflects attention from the democratic process.. It follows does it not that those not interested in politics cannot be deflected from it and that deflecting those who are dedicated to consumerism is not democratic. As things stand in the UK a serious reduction of consumerist behaviour would in fact cause an increase in poverty across the board so in that sense it, consumerism, is not dangerous but essential to maintaining living standards. With regard to self inflicted poverty I responded to posts about poverty in the current system. I see no chance whatsoever of creating a society in which there will not be poor people. Idealistic political dreamers have existed throughout the ages and so far the Utopian society has not arrived. The best solution economically speaking is to maximise peoples freedom with the spur that failure will bring about a lowered living standard. No amount of top down political coercion/persuasion/hand out seems to work.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 3:59:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed What "referee" gets to impose his own new rules on the game whenever he wishes? Only the owner can do this. Not so. In the event the owners fail to manage their administrators, said administrators take control. They're not the owners, they're simply not being managed or held accountable. As a people, we won the power to run this country a long time ago; as a consequence, we elected a pragamatic solution to nigh on bankruptcy and poverty. This legacy remains with us in that we value regulation in the market place, but we're chasing equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed The state owns the game because the state unilaterally determines all of the laws (rules) that affect how economics works in the state. What's your definition of "the state"? quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed I wish that were so. But how can people be interested if they've never heard of you? How can they hear of you without publicity? And how do you obtain publicity without financing? Business is the gate-keeper that keeps grass-roots movements from getting off the ground. Let's take English Socialist parties as an example. People have heard of the Socialist Workers Party and the likes of George Galloway. Ultimately, the majority of people do not agree with their message.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 4:09:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Collective ideals came to be seen as dangerous Doesn't add up, NG. The state promulgates and promotes many collective ideals: citizenship, military service, pay your taxes, don't cheat the system, obey the law ... It does when you include the full sentence; collective ideals came to be seen as dangerous, as those believing themselves to be virtuous would aim to take control of society. My point was/is concerned with collective ideals aimed at changing the system, rather than the collective ideals aimed at preserving the system, i.e. those you mention in reply. quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Ultimately, consumerism is pushed by design; that is, to suppress any collective ideals before they even get off the ground. Webster's dictionary defines Consumerism as "the promotion of the consumer's interests" or alternately "the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable". How does this suppress collective ideals? It suppresses collective ideals because rampant consumerism reduces human behaviour to accumulating items, usually for individual pursuits. This can only detract from energy being channeled into shared political goals. Edited for quotes out of place.

luckydog1 -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 4:30:48 AM)
Loveisallyouneed, it seems wrong to use the dictionary definiton of Consumerism, while ignoring the dictionary definition of Socialism. Which as NG said is based on state Ownership of the means of production. Just about everything you cite as socialism, predates socialism and is found in most (all) forms of political orginization, going back to the code of hamurabi, and the ancients

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 5:01:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Not so. In the event the owners fail to manage their administrators, said administrators take control. They're not the owners, they're simply not being managed or held accountable. As a people, we won the power to run this country a long time ago; as a consequence, we elected a pragamatic solution to nigh on bankruptcy and poverty. This legacy remains with us in that we value regulation in the market place, but we're chasing equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. Here in Canada we chase both. You can get as rich as your abilities permit, but we still expect the same treatment when it comes to medical care whether you're rich or poor. Here the goal is to establish a minimum standard consistent with dignity and the essential requirements of the individual/family. However, we are free to achieve a standard as high as we wish for ourselves through the lawful pursuit of any financially rewarding activity. As I've tried to point out, socialism is not a monolithic structure, but rather it is a spectrum of political beliefs involving some degree of state intervention in the economy. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed The state owns the game because the state unilaterally determines all of the laws (rules) that affect how economics works in the state. What's your definition of "the state"? In the above usage I'm thinking of the government: elected representatives, appointees, and bureaucrats. The people who actually have the authority to make laws and regulations which, if transgressed, bring on legal penalties (fine and/or imprisonment). More loosely it can also include the electorate. However, in countries without a right to recall an elected representative, the electorate is powerless during the interim between elections. I call this a "democratically elected dictatorship" because, in effect, the government has absolute power during its time in office. Note that minority governments (parliamentary systems) or grid-locked American-style governments are exceptions to the rule. Here in Canada minority governments are quite rare (only two in my lifetime).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875