RE: Capitalism and Consumerism......

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

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

Message

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 5:13:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 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. Okay, but there has never been a form of government that tolerated ideals that would lead to its dissolution. Every state has a keen sense of self-preservation. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed 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. I disagree. Their shared political goal is anything that facilitates consumerism: lower taxes, reduced regulation, whatever reduces prices and increases buying power. Used to be people took pride in buying local, supporting the local economy, etc. Now, people prefer to buy goods made in China from Wal-Mart, because they're cheaper than anything that could be made locally. So what happens to the local economy? Consumerism, which is a manifestation of capitalism, doesn't really care until the individual in question loses his job and can't find another.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 5:33:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 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. I am not ignoring the definition for socialism: I am applying it to the real world. Governments de facto own everything, for there is nothing over which they cannot lay claim through the passing of legislation. A simple declaration of martial law is sufficient. If you want to own people: pass a law drafting them into the military or some other needful service. quote: 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 Indeed, further than that. As a species we are social by nature. Capitalism by its very definition is anarchy. 'Get the most profit for the least investment' can only lead to fraud and product adulteration. Thus governments of every age have had to be socialist in nature to ensure stability and reliability. To see capitalism in its raw state look to the early years of the Industrial Revolution in England: child labour, unsafe working conditions, starvation wages, excessive working hours ... it was these conditions and others that gave rise to modern concepts of "socialism".

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 6:00:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed I call this a "democratically elected dictatorship" because, in effect, the government has absolute power during its time in office. An "elected dictatorship" is a contradiction in terms. The government does not hold absolute power as the people hold the power to replace them via the ballot box.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 6:43:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 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. Okay, but there has never been a form of government that tolerated ideals that would lead to its dissolution. Not through force, granted, but certainly through democratic means. quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 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. I disagree. Their shared political goal is anything that facilitates consumerism: lower taxes, reduced regulation, whatever reduces prices and increases buying power. Consumerism in its current state is bordering on mindless; this is exemplified by patterns of products being disposed of prior to use, e.g. the level of food wasted in this country. This is underpinned by advertising that is clearly distorting supply and demand; false needs are being created. In contrast to this, Capitalism is governed by production and aims to provide for a genuine need in society. The critique of Consumerism that I'm offering here, and one that is distinct from Capitalism, is that advertising is leading people down a path of reducing their lives to a chase for items; this rampant Consumerism goes far beyond wealth creation to generate prosperity. While Consumerism is political in the sense its a form of economic policy, consumers are in no way interested in the essence of politics and that is by design: chasing items is a very narrow version of the essence of politics. Edited for misplaced quotes.

meatcleaver -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 7:17:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Consumerism in its current state is bordering on mindless; this is exemplified by patterns of products being disposed of prior to use, e.g. the level of food wasted in this country. This is underpinned by advertising that is clearly distorting supply and demand; false needs are being created. In contrast to this, Capitalism is governed by production and aims to provide for a genuine need in society. The critique of Consumerism that I'm offering here, and one that is distinct from Capitalism, is that advertising is leading people down a path of reducing their lives to a chase for items; this rampant Consumerism goes far beyond wealth creation to generate prosperity. While Consumerism is political in the sense its a form of economic policy, consumers are in no way interested in the essence of politics and that is by design: chasing items is a very narrow version of the essence of politics. Edited for misplaced quotes. I'm struggling with how you equate capitalism with providing for a genuine need in society. As far as I'm aware, the object of capitalism is profit, not need. If capitalism ever provided for need, there would have never been any social movements calling for its reform and the curtailment of the power of capital. One thing for sure, capitalism is psychopathic when left to its own devices. I would argue that rampant consumerism is the inevitable consequence of capitalism. Consume for the sake of consuming and so increase production demand and profit. The whole point of capitalism is to consume and expand the economy. The only need capitalism fills, is the need of the capitalist. Any other need being fullfilled, is purely incidental.

LadyEllen -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 7:28:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent This is underpinned by advertising that is clearly distorting supply and demand; false needs are being created. In contrast to this, Capitalism is governed by production and aims to provide for a genuine need in society. What false needs and genuine needs do you mean? Just because the essence of marketing is to meet customer need, this does not preclude anyone from identifying new needs and marketing to them; because they are new needs previously unknown, part of the marketing mix is advertising to make customers aware of the new need. Once the customer has accepted the new need, he buys the product and it then becomes a normal everyday need like those which existed before. Capitalism plays its part in moving the world forward by backing those new needs with the investment required for them to become normal everyday needs in return for the profits which will follow from widespread purchase. Anti-perspirant deodorant - not a need, until we were made aware of it by advertising; now something which very few do not buy and use. Marketing created the need and the vast majority responded. Our general standard of living was improved and we all see that anti-perspirant deodorant is a good thing. Indeed, had we not thought in the first instance we were made aware of it, that it was a good thing, it would not have become so popular. E

Rule -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 7:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Anti-perspirant deodorant I have never used it and will never use it.

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 7:39:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent This is underpinned by advertising that is clearly distorting supply and demand; false needs are being created. In contrast to this, Capitalism is governed by production and aims to provide for a genuine need in society. What false needs and genuine needs do you mean? There's an example in the post to which you replied - post 64.

LadyEllen -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 7:47:54 AM)
You mean food NG? Yes, its ridiculous that so much food gets wasted - but this is the nature of the market we have in food retailing, that is very price competitive with all sorts of inducements being offered for us to choose one outlet over another. The problem is exactly the same in my industry (road transport) - everyone offers the same thing in exactly the same way, so it becomes a commodity whose selling point becomes price. Whoever offers the lowest price, gets the business. In the supermarket of course its a lot more complex, as they have such a wide range of goods on offer - but ultimately they all sell the same things which they purchase for around the same cost, distribute for around the same cost and thus must retail at about the same price. So they seek to induce us to choose one supermarket over another by BOGOF deals, special discounts on certain items, lossleaders and so on - and its this which leads to two problems; one is the growing issue of obesity as people try to get best value from all the deals they have accepted by eating all that was on offer, and the other is that food will be wasted. I dont see any way around this except by severely curtailing the free market economics which produce the situation and/or by severely restricting customers' freedom to buy what they want. Its not an issue of consumerism gone mad so much as it is a function of a price competitive sector. E

NorthernGent -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 7:52:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I dont see any way around this except by severely curtailing the free market economics which produce the situation and/or by severely restricting customers' freedom to buy what they want. Its not an issue of consumerism gone mad so much as it is a function of a price competitive sector. E I see a way 'round it: responsible consumption. Providing the information in order to enable an informed choice would be useful. The alternative argument is lost in a plethora of campaigns, advertisements and television programmes celebrating the consumer lifestyle.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 8:03:08 AM)
Greetings NG, As I understand it, socialism or Marxism, completely does away with currency so that each person receives back based upon how the contribute to the whole. Based on this, I know of no country that is completely socialist. My perception is that Canada, Europe and other areas, tend to take a more socialistic approach to handling policy. There are things, for the common good, that must be handled in a socialistic fashion, but the determining factor comes down to "what is the common good?". In the US, where personal liberties are very valued, and our Constitution emphasizes, then socialistic approaches should be questioned, and questioned again, before they are implemented. I feel that in a republic, there will be some areas that will require a socialistic approach, and some that will not. As time progresses and these are tried, hopefully we will learn from history and someone will eventually find a good balance. This will require discussion that includes those that are extreme to either side, and those in the middle, so that these ideas can be thoroughly discussed. I of course lean towards less socialistic means, and more towards individual responsibility. Good topic. Live well, Orion quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Inspired by CL's thread and various replies to his OP..... The vast majority of people in the West are capitalists; Capitalism is our heritage. We invest our time to earn a return; we invest our money to earn a return. The idea that somehow the US is capitalist whereas Canada and Western Europe are socialist is a mere fallacy: we simply offer varying shades of social provision. It goes without saying that there's nothing inherently flawed with regard to the concept of earning a return on our time and labour. Consumerism in its current state, on the other hand, is an entirely different fish; it's dangerous. It's dangerous because attention has been shifted away from the democratic process towards fashion and fads (by design, I might add). In a nutshell, in countries where only 50ish% of the people turns out to vote, the people have effectively been disenfranchised and the lunatics are free to take over the asylum. It follows, thus, attacks on Capitalism or Socialism serve only to prop up the status quo and do nothing to address the current disillusionment with the democratic process. Feel free to add comments.

LadyEllen -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 8:03:54 AM)
Ah... but NG, here you are expecting people to be responsible - which is a non-starter given the state of mind of most in this country - and we also have to deem responsible; according to whose standards exactly? What is responsible? We provide plenty of information already - its all over every food product after all; yet who could tell me now (without looking) how many grams of fat in a pint of whole milk? We dont read it and one could have all the information in the world, but its of no use whatever if no one takes any notice. We also have government recommendations on how many calories we should get from fat, carbs and protein each day - can anyone tell me those figures, without looking? I would suggest only those predisposed to know them would be able to answer - those slimming and those seriously engaged in sports. And for the rest of us, if we want that packet of cream cakes and we have the money - do we buy it, or do we think "no it would be irreponsible to consume so many" or "no I shall end up throwing some away"? We buy it and probably get a second pack in a BOGOF deal, and throw most of it away or get fat. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 8:31:10 AM)
By any standards NG is an authoritarian, he just doesnt know it. eg Responsible consumption. Who decides what actually is responsible. When people dont accept it what then. There is no shortage of information imploring people to behave responsibly. Look at the vicious messages on cigarette packages. Do people obey? What should be done ? His view on consumerism is wrong. Simple fact. I predict responsible attitudes to driving will soon forbid the ownership of a car unles you are able to include as a passenger an OAP an immigrant and cyclically a member of each officially registered. UK minority group That sound responsible to me.

meatcleaver -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 9:01:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I of course lean towards less socialistic means, and more towards individual responsibility. Individual responsibilty is just an empty catch-phrase. What you are suggesting, is that there is less individual responsibility in socialist leaning societies than in more capitalistic leaning societies, this is just a fallacy. Let's ask a simple question. Why does America (the richest country in the world!)have more poverty and less social mobility than western European countries? (2006 OCED report). Is it because there is more individual responsibilty in America? I suggest it has nothing to do with individual responsibility but the fact Americans have to look after themselves because no one else will. Individual responsibility is just a rightwing propaganda catch phrase, with an aim to justify the rich contributing less than their fair share to the upkeep of society, the very society that allows them to accummulate wealth. Anyone who isn't rich that buys into such nonsense, has lost the cheese on their cracker.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 4:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I of course lean towards less socialistic means, and more towards individual responsibility. Individual responsibilty is just an empty catch-phrase. What you are suggesting, is that there is less individual responsibility in socialist leaning societies than in more capitalistic leaning societies, this is just a fallacy. In a socialistic society I have more safety nets if I cannot put food on the table. So it is not a fallacy, it is fact. quote: Let's ask a simple question. Why does America (the richest country in the world!)have more poverty and less social mobility than western European countries? (2006 OCED report). Is it because there is more individual responsibilty in America? I suggest it has nothing to do with individual responsibility but the fact Americans have to look after themselves because no one else will. Yeah it sure does have to do with individual responsibility. You are correct that if there is no one else to look out after you, then you are forced to do it yourself. Otherwise I could just sit back, fake some emotionally traumatic condition, collect disability, join various programs to gain food and shelter, then sit back and do nothing because my food, shelter and clothes are all provided. Not to mention I can just do work off the books to afford my dsl, premium cable and Xbox. quote: Individual responsibility is just a rightwing propaganda catch phrase, with an aim to justify the rich contributing less than their fair share to the upkeep of society, the very society that allows them to accummulate wealth. Anyone who isn't rich that buys into such nonsense, has lost the cheese on their cracker. Actually individual responsibility is something that many people avoid and just look to a nanny state to take care of them. I refer to it as slave morality, following a marxist ideal.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 4:58:44 PM)
quote: meatcleaver Is it because there is more individual responsibilty in America? I suggest it has nothing to do with individual responsibility but the fact Americans have to look after themselves because no one else will. Little grey cell alert. Contradiction. Contradiction. Looking after yourself is individual responsibilty. End alert End alert.

batshalom -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/17/2008 6:48:50 PM)
I agree with pretty much all you said, NG, but I also add that people have become so jaded - lied to by their leaders and those who wish to become those leaders, and you really never know where a candidate (or leader) stands on any issue. Waffling is so prevalent that it could be sold as an entree at IHOP.

meatcleaver -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/18/2008 12:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I of course lean towards less socialistic means, and more towards individual responsibility. Individual responsibilty is just an empty catch-phrase. What you are suggesting, is that there is less individual responsibility in socialist leaning societies than in more capitalistic leaning societies, this is just a fallacy. In a socialistic society I have more safety nets if I cannot put food on the table. So it is not a fallacy, it is fact. Individual responsibility exists in every society and is towards the collective rather than the self in more socialistic nations, probably one of the reasons why there is less poverty and less crime than in the US. However, Americans seem to be willing to pay for military jollies halfway around the world so they aren't against paying tax to the collective, they just seem to prefer to spend money killing foreigners than feeding and giving healthcare to their own. quote: Let's ask a simple question. Why does America (the richest country in the world!)have more poverty and less social mobility than western European countries? (2006 OCED report). Is it because there is more individual responsibilty in America? I suggest it has nothing to do with individual responsibility but the fact Americans have to look after themselves because no one else will. Yeah it sure does have to do with individual responsibility. You are correct that if there is no one else to look out after you, then you are forced to do it yourself. Otherwise I could just sit back, fake some emotionally traumatic condition, collect disability, join various programs to gain food and shelter, then sit back and do nothing because my food, shelter and clothes are all provided. Not to mention I can just do work off the books to afford my dsl, premium cable and Xbox. Rightwing nonsense. America does have a larger % of poor than western Europe according to the OCED but the idea that higher social provision means people willing to be unemployed and playing their X-box is a nonsense. As I pointed out, the OCED report shows there is a higher mean educational standard, more social mobility and less poverty in western Europe than the US. Britain being the most capitalistic developed democratic nation behind the US, has a slightly better showing than the US and a much worse showing than other western European nations, despite Brits often using the same argument as you. quote: Individual responsibility is just a rightwing propaganda catch phrase, with an aim to justify the rich contributing less than their fair share to the upkeep of society, the very society that allows them to accummulate wealth. Anyone who isn't rich that buys into such nonsense, has lost the cheese on their cracker. Actually individual responsibility is something that many people avoid and just look to a nanny state to take care of them. I refer to it as slave morality, following a marxist ideal. Again, the statistics don't back you up. If people relied on the nanny state for their provision one would expect more poverty than the US and a lower educational and a lower standard of healthcare. In a society where individual responsibilty means no healthcare and poverty, the stress of being one or two pay packets from personal distaster, personal freedom is largely a meaningless idea. It is not freedom, it is slavery to capitalism, especially in a society that is rich enough for poverty to be unnecessary.

meatcleaver -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/18/2008 12:20:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: meatcleaver Is it because there is more individual responsibilty in America? I suggest it has nothing to do with individual responsibility but the fact Americans have to look after themselves because no one else will. Little grey cell alert. Contradiction. Contradiction. Looking after yourself is individual responsibilty. End alert End alert. You've been listening to too many Conservative party broadcasts seeks. Collective responsibilty requires individual responsibility or the collective wouldn't work. Take a short journey across the Channel or the North Sea, you will find countries with less poverty, more social mobility and a higher educational standard than Britain. Yet, it is Britain that follows America in social ideas and it is Brits that claim their inadequate social welfare is keeping the unemployed, unemployed, uneducated and largely in ill health. I would claim the US and Britain's social woes are nothing to do with too much provision of welfare but too much stress of a dog eats dog society, too much wasted energy, too much focus on getting through the week than on the future. I doubt it is a coincidence that both the US and British citizens have no savings (collective individual debt is more than collective individual savings) and many are within a pay packet or two of the street. Individual responsibilty to the self is not getting the collective citizenship of either country much benefit, while individual responsibility to the collective gets citizens more than they could get on their own. Yes, individual responsibilty is looking after oneself, one can do that in two ways, be paranoid of your neighbour and pull up the ladder if you have the chance or help your neighbour up and he will return the favour. If you can point out countries in western Europe that are in a worse social position than the UK, I will acknowledge that your rightwing ideas work.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Capitalism and Consumerism...... (2/18/2008 1:28:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: batshalom I agree with pretty much all you said, NG, but I also add that people have become so jaded - lied to by their leaders and those who wish to become those leaders, and you really never know where a candidate (or leader) stands on any issue. Waffling is so prevalent that it could be sold as an entree at IHOP. This is a commonly heard view. Do you think it is possible to tell the truth at all times, assuming even that on contentious issues one political truth actually exists ?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875