thought for the day... again... capitalism? dying? dead?

[eFestivals]

You've changed consumption to consumerism, which is a different thing altogether.

ignoring your literal stupidity just for this post, AT FUCKING LAST!!!!!

Consumerism requires goods for people to consume just because they can, not because of necessity.

That requires goods of a particular type, and requires people to have the money for those goods.

Which was a state of play that wasn't realised in reality until the 2nd half of the 20th century, and which was recognised within society by the introduction of the phrase "the consumer society", from which the idea of "retail therapy" came.

Did Marx or Freud recognise "the consumer society" because they lived it? Nope. It wasn't there for them to recognise at all.

[worm]

Consumerism requires goods for people to consume just because they can, not because of necessity.

[worm]

surely, all Freud did was acknowledge, or recognise what was already there. People would have still 'enjoyed' retail therapy whatever name it had. It didn't require a name for people to do it

oh... hold on... I think we've been here before

Edited October 17, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Did Marx or Freud recognise "the consumer society" because they lived it? Nope. It wasn't there for them to recognise at all.

[eFestivals]

As I've said every single time, no, Freud fucking invented it!

Was there a model T car for Ford to recognise? No. He nevertheless invented the fucking thing. This is moronic behond belief.

PMSL. Firstly you said Freud recognised what was happening with a consumer society (despite there not being consumer goods to consume, or the money to acquire them for society as a whole), and now you say he invented it out of thin air. Why do you think you're taking the smart line here when you can't even stick to your own line? PMSL.

And if from what you've said its existence is not dependent on the exact wording or the exact scenario, then why won't you allow the same movement from a strict idea with capitalism?

It's double standards. It's making up the answer to suit yourself. It's peudo-academia, the version of academia you love so much.

[Purple Monkey]

Four minutes of your time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm7Z3sOqE84

[eFestivals]

The thing is, fiat money is ultimately no different to gold standard money. In both cases the money (or gold) is only meaningful in value if a person allocates it that value.

Fiat money is not responsible for speculative bubbles as that vid says. Speculative bubbles happened with the gold standard. What creates speculative bubbles is greed and nothing more; any time you have people saying "do this, you can't fail to make money" we're in a bubble and the shit will shortly hit the fan. It was exactly the same in 1929 as it was in 2007.

[worm]

correct me if I'm wrong.. but a car is a thing that didn't exist before

retail therapy isn't a thing

Edited October 19, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Firstly you said Freud recognised what was happening with a consumer society (despite there not being consumer goods to consume, or the money to acquire them for society as a whole), and now you say he invented it out of thin air. Why do you think you're taking the smart line here when you can't even stick to your own line?

Edited October 19, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

that whole notion of identity is superficial. And yet the idea is so prevalent it'sa resulted in a superficial society.

That sort of worthless bollocks has a lot to answer for.

[worm]

that whole notion of identity is superficial.

Edited October 19, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You can't do something without identifying with something.

utterly utterly wrong. With something, yes, with everything, no.

I don't have to identify with a pen to use it, I only have to identify a need for using it.

So if I use (say) a BIC pen or a Parker pen it says absolutely nothing about me, aside from that I have a need to write something, and that a suitable tool is available for me to use.

It does NOT mean that I care about my writing or how I might be perceived in regard to my writing. It might mean that, but only the arseholes of the world say it does mean that. There's far too many arseholes.

But this is another topic altogether.

Absolutely.

And now we've both had our say on it, we can both shut up about it.

You can't look at consumer behaviour without seeing Freud's principles at work.

you you really mean is that if there wasn't that principle within consumption then Freud would have had less to write about.

Advertising Marketing has entered our fantasy space.

corrected for you.

[abdoujaparov]

If it was as Marx prescribed, we'd be buying stuff on the basis of class, while competing with our neighbours.

[worm]

utterly utterly wrong. With something, yes, with everything, no.

I don't have to identify with a pen to use it, I only have to identify a need for using it.

[worm]

Marx didnt prescribe anything

Edited October 19, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I have read almost all of Capital (althoough I confess to not having managed all of volume 3) and most of his early work

[eFestivals]

Consumption existed before consumerism. Capital existed before capitalism.

of course, it's a pre-requisite.

But just as consumption was happening before there was the word consumption to apply to it, capitalism was also happening before the word was applied to it. Like in Roman times, as that letter proves.

Anyway, that's an old point.

For the zillionth time, Marx said something about the way we consume, which he believed determined how we consumed. Freud revised this. From Freud's revision, consumerism was born.

no, a label was put onto something they'd observed in a tiny proportion of the population.

[worm]

no, a label was put onto something they'd observed in a tiny proportion of the population.

[worm]

of course, it's a pre-requisite.

But just as consumption was happening before there was the word consumption to apply to it, capitalism was also happening before the word was applied to it. Like in Roman times, as that letter proves.

Anyway, that's an old point.

Edited October 19, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Indeed, but capitalism was marked by indelible shifts in culture and socio-economic organisation. This occured with the European social revolutions, in which the ideology of freedom was implemented. Without this, capitalism could not exist. Capital could, but it was subject to status. In a capitalist system, capital is not subject to status, it is subject only to ownership/ to itself.

And yet a capitalist method of exchange still happened in just the same way. The fact that some were locked out of profiting by it didn't alter that.

[worm]

And yet a capitalist method of exchange still happened in just the same way. The fact that some were locked out of profiting by it didn't alter that.

[eFestivals]

Then the exchange wasn't inherently capitalist. Not all things that pertain to a capitalist system are exclusive to capitalism, Neil. This, as I'm pretty damn sure you'll be aware, is the central premise of the right wing fallacy that capitalism is a natural state.

yawn

[MrZigster]

I know it's the Daily Heil but thought it was interesting:

http://www.dailymail...al-economy.html

Wasn't sure if it belonged here or in the conspiracy theory thread.

As usual with The Heil, the comments make interesting reading.

[worm]

shopaholic...

there's another word for it

listening to a guy on the radio yesterday, there was a prize for a competition of £1,000 to spend in New York... that's it just go on a spending spree for a load of shit you never needed..

and the presenter saying "soooo, if you're a shopaholic, like I am" with an unsurpressable enthusiasm for nothing more than shopping

[feral chile]

buying cool shit is good...?

the very words 'shopaholic' or 'retail therapy' imply nothing about any desire to improve anything