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.

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.

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. 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

I call this a "democratically elected dictatorship" because, in effect, the government has absolute power during its time in office.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I of course lean towards less socialistic means, and more towards individual responsibility.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.