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

[abdoujaparov]

Really? I must have missed those two living till at least 1986.

http://en.wikipedia..../Retail_therapy

It must be great to live a life at such odds to the facts of anything and everything.

[eFestivals]

to be fair to worm, I dont think he was claiming that Freud invented the term, but that the idea of retail therapy has its roots in the notion that people consume for the sake of consuming. In that respect, he's right

I'd suggest that something nearly a hundred years old would have penetrated sooner if it was going to penetrate at all. And so I suspect that there's something far more contemporary that it can directly traced from rather than a tenuous link to ideas which are mostly debunked anyway.

[abdoujaparov]

I'd suggest that something nearly a hundred years old would have penetrated sooner if it was going to penetrate at all. And so I suspect that there's something far more contemporary that it can directly traced from rather than a tenuous link to ideas which are mostly debunked anyway.

[worm]

to be fair to worm, I dont think he was claiming that Freud invented the term, but that the idea of retail therapy has its roots in the notion that people consume for the sake of consuming. In that respect, he's right

Edited October 15, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I'd suggest that something nearly a hundred years old would have penetrated sooner if it was going to penetrate at all. And so I suspect that there's something far more contemporary that it can directly traced from rather than a tenuous link to ideas which are mostly debunked anyway.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

'retail therapy'...!?!?

we've coined a phrase that encourages people to buy things for no reason except to make you feel better

[worm]

so Freud was the first person to realise that some people got pleasure from the baisc gaining of wealth/possesions for no other reason than the actual gaining?

Edited October 15, 2011 by worm

[Purple Monkey]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TZMOfficialChannel#p/u/7/dkinHuvLEaU

This is superb.

[eFestivals]

No. Freud both realised and prescribed (in a very complex way) what it was that people gained from the purchase of goods.

while they might have done, I'd say it was the case that it would have been a phenomenon that very few people could have related to until the advent (whenever it was, tho defo 2nd half of 20th century) of "the consumer society".

And so I'd also say that the phrase "retail therapy" is far more directly related to an idea in fact that people were living than to some words by people who are mostly debunked that had passed the vast majority of people by.

At best you could claim it was their idea whose time had come thru the reality of circumstances - circumstances that had nothing at all to do with them.

[worm]

while they might have done, I'd say it was the case that it would have been a phenomenon that very few people could have related to until the advent (whenever it was, tho defo 2nd half of 20th century) of "the consumer society".

Edited October 17, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I'm saying that Freud's theory of object relations created the advent of the 'consumer society'.

No theory can create anything of real substance without there being a reality to fit the theory.

The reality certainly didn't exist until the 2nd half of the 20th century, and so until that existed there was nothing to give the idea of retail therapy.

That's what I've been saying. Marx's notion of consumption had us all buying things to support a competitive desire to modernise in relation to our class.

bullshit. There can be no notion of consumption in reality until a person is in a position to consume.

Necessity is not consumption.

And of course, it's utter bullshit.

you said it.

[worm]

No theory can create anything of real substance without there being a reality to fit the theory.

The reality certainly didn't exist until the 2nd half of the 20th century, and so until that existed there was nothing to give the idea of retail therapy.

Edited October 17, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

What on earth are you talking about? Consumption has been around as long as there has been production.

PMSL - you change your tune weekly. If consumption has been around for as long as there's been something to consume then it's also the case that capitalism has been around for as long as there's been capital (money).

And yet when I mentioned to you about a letter written by a Roman soldier in Britain which detailed how he intended to use capital for no-different a capitalist purpose as people do today, your response was that it couldn't be capitalism as the word hadn't yet been invented.

So: unless you can show me the use of the words "retail therapy" by Freud and/or Marx (which we both know you can't) then you are indisputably wrong by your own methods.

Or alternatively, if you still wish to claim yourself as right in this example, I'll accept it as an admission of you having talked endless worthless shit previously.

[worm]

If consumption has been around for as long as there's been something to consume then it's also the case that capitalism has been around for as long as there's been capital (money).

[worm]

And yet when I mentioned to you about a letter written by a Roman soldier in Britain which detailed how he intended to use capital for no-different a capitalist purpose as people do today, your response was that it couldn't be capitalism as the word hadn't yet been invented.

[eFestivals]

You really are hopelessly stupid.

Consumption is the consuming of something. It hasn't been around for as long as it, it fucking well is it. On the other hand, capitalism is not capital. Capitalism is a mode of thinking associated with a capital state.

PMSL.

Consumption is the consuming of something. It only requires consuming.

Capitalism is using capital to gain more capital. It only requires capital.

Capitalism has fuck all need for any state. It merely needs capital and capitalist method of operation, no different to how consumption requires something to be consumed and a method for consuming.

Do grow up, eh? The big boys are able to admit gross stupidity or double standards.

-------------------

And back to the original point: while Marx and Freud might have said that people get a buzz out of spending money over a hundred years ago, it still wasn't something that your average Joe could relate to until they were in the position to get a buzz out of spending money, long long long after those people had died and society had changed to be something entirely different.

Retail therapy is not consumption therapy. If it was it would be called consumption therapy.

Edited October 17, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

No, because there was no capitalist state in which capitalism could thrive.

and yet capitalism thrived anyway, as that letter from that solider got to prove of Roman Britain.

Or the Phoenicians. Or a thousand plus other different civilisations both ancient and almost-modern.

Capital was not the main principle of the social state.

that's got fuck all to do with anything - unless you wish to also admit that consumption was not the main principle of the social state in the times of Marx and Freud.

[worm]

and yet capitalism thrived anyway, as that letter from that solider got to prove of Roman Britain.

[worm]

PMSL.

Consumption is the consuming of something. It only requires consuming.

Capitalism is using capital to gain more capital. It only requires capital.

[eFestivals]

No it didn't. The exchane of capital through a different system of value thrived.

The "system of value" within capitalism is whatever value a person places on the goods.

So do please tell me how that soldier intended to profit as he stated he would if there wasn't the opportunity to profit thru people paying the value they put on the goods he would have for sale.

The capital was exchanged thru the value people placed on the goods, absolutely identical to every purchase you and everyone else alive today does.

So your claim of the need for a stated "capitalist state" was tosh, and now you've given even more tosh. Is there any more worthless tosh you'd like to share with us today?

The value you place on tosh is the only "different system of value" that's operated in the last 2,000 years.

Eh? What is so hard to understand? Do everyone a favour and watch the BBC documentary.

avoid the question I asked why don't you.

Was consumption the main principle of the social state in the times of Marx and Freud, or not? Unless you say it is (to huge laughter, cos it never was), you're calling yourself wrong.

So I'm glad we've cleared that up. You don't know what the fuck you're meaning with the words from your own mouth.

[worm]

The "system of value" within capitalism is whatever value a person places on the goods.

Edited October 17, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Was consumption the main principle of the social state in the times of Marx and Freud, or not?

Edited October 17, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

So as you can see, capital is not capitalism. As you say, capitalism is using capital to gain more capital, whereas consumption IS the consuming of something. Not synonymous at all.

Capitalism is about the use of capital for tyhe gain it gives. Consumerism is about the use of what can be consumed for the gain it gives.

Stop the difference?

The difference is only with what is being used and the return it gives the user. The scenario is 100% identical.

It needs a state in which capital and a capitalist method of operation can exist.

and consumerism needs a state where there's things to be consumed and where a method of consuming can exist.

It needs freedom of trade. It needs a social hierarchy. It needs everyone to value the same monetary value. It needs an economy etc.....

Bullshit does it - else capitalism does not exist and never has.

All people do not value money the same. And anyway, money is merely a token of exchange, and by itself is worthless.

Consumption is simply consumption.

and capitalism is simply capitalism.

Grow up? You mean you don't like being corrected when you say such mindless garbage?

PMSL. The mindless garbage is all yours, as constantly exposed by your trolling double standards. You disagree with yourself constantly whiled pretending you haven't, just to live our being the prick you are.

Here it is again for you:

Consumption means to consume something/ anything, OBVIOUSLY. Now what Marx noticed was that we consume an identity as we purchase goods for their functional/ material value. We not only purchase material goods, but consume their functional ideology in relation to a given capitalist value system, thereby reciprocating capitalist social ordering. What Freud went on to say was that we actually consume an identity when we purchase goods and that we value the goods subjectively in relation to their price rather than functional value.

none of which says where the phase "retail therapy comes from". But if it comes from Marx, it only does for the extremely slow and stupid people, who've needed over a 100 years for the idea to penetrate.

For everyone else it comes from the far more recent idea of a consumer society and the co-existing ability to actually live it out. Which is precisely why the phrase 'retail therapy' wasn't coined until 1986.

[worm]

Capitalism is about the use of capital for the gain it gives. Consumerism is about the use of what can be consumed for the gain it gives.

Stop the difference?

Edited October 17, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

'Main principle'? We consumed things. Marx thought for their ideological, functional value. Freud thought to develop a social identity from which we applied value subjectively. Freud's version is still true today and can be seen in the notion of 'retail therapy' and the 'consumer society'.

if it's just that then consumerism is not a social phenomenon, it's a human natural state. We were doing that before we came down from the trees.

What more do you want me to say like? It's not difficult.

that consumerism is a late 20th century phenomenon, cos that's the truth of the matter?

That you're operating double standards on your own ideas, cos that's the truth of the matter?

That in your world facts, and processes, and timelines only have relevance to ideas when you say so, cos that's the truth of the matter?

If you're unable to see the double standards you operate in what you laughingly believe to be an academic process then you prove yourself as stupid.